The Biden Family Scandal!
The Hunter Biden scandal does not speak to the heart of who pitiful, drug-addled Hunter Biden is, but, rather to who his father Joe Biden is: the man who may very well become our president. It also speaks to the character of the legions of media and social media partisans who prefer the American people to make one of the most important decisions in this country’s history while lacking crucial information.
The saga of Hunter Biden’s laptop hard drive is not worth repeating, beyond the basic facts that Hunter voluntarily left it at a computer repair shop, he never returned to claim it, and the water-damaged drive happened to contain extraordinarily compromising documents, emails, images, and videos. Beyond some of the visual material, allegedly, including child pornography, the true significance of the laptop is what it reveals about how the second-most powerful member of the Obama administration conducted “business.”
According to the emails discovered on the laptop, while Hunter was not only making large amounts of money for himself (without any qualifications, in the case of the Burisma energy company), but making deals in which, it appears, his father was actively involved from afar. The “big guy” mentioned in a 2017 discussion of a deal with a Chinese energy company can really only refer to one of two people: a third-party agent whose identity remains unknown and Hunter’s father, Joe Biden. Hunter’s former business partner, Tony Bobulinski, insists that that email is genuine, and the “big guy” is a reference to none other than Joe Biden himself. “Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing. I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business,” Bobulinski said.
If Joe Biden was the “big guy” and the “Chairman,” how could he have known nothing about is son’s overseas business dealings if he was directly benefiting from them? If all of this is true, that is a lie. It means that Joe Biden was not only obtaining money from extremely dark corners of the unfree world but also using his dangerously troubled, easily blackmailed younger son to do his shady deals for him — with every intention of letting him, in some fashion or another, take the fall. Many politicians exploit their own people, even the people of other countries, but not very often do they exploit their own children in doing so, allowing them to suffer the consequences of their parents’ crimes on top of theirs.
Nevertheless, a much more indirect, yet more far-reaching, insight into Joe Biden’s character concerns mainstream media outlets’ and, most prominently, social media’s reaction to the laptop story. As soon as The New York Post broke the news, not only did the media and “fact-checkers” label it “unverified” at the very best — and attributable to Russia at worst — but Twitter actually blocked every user on earth from sharing it in the first place. Why infamously biased Twitter would do so is clear, but why, if he had nothing to hide, would Joe Biden have not come out and damned Twitter for such a terrible violation of its users’ liberty? If the Post’s article was a lie — let alone Russian “disinfo” — and the laptop fake, then (1) why wouldn’t its blatant untruth be obvious to all and thus be harmless, and (2) why didn’t Biden appeal to the value of fairness he says he represents and utterly reject such “help” from Twitter? If he wishes to preserve Americans’ freedom of speech, then remaining silent in the face of such an astonishing attack upon it should speak to how seriously Biden takes the First Amendment.
Finally, going into the election, let us remember that Biden has never directly denied any of these allegations. Prior to the discovery of the laptop, when the most flagrant Hunter scandal was that he had received millions of dollars from the former mayor of Moscow, Biden labelled that story “totally discredited.” Today, he just calls the newest and most serious revelations a “smear campaign.” That is not a true denial, and he has never claimed that the laptop in question did not, in fact, belong to Hunter. That means it very likely is Hunter’s and the material on it is genuine after all. The computer shop owner in fact has stated numerous times that he personally received the laptop from Hunter’s hands.
The heart of the matter is that Joe Biden appears to be happy benefitting at others’ expense. He used his son to milk money from China, Russia, and Ukraine, and stood by as big tech shamefully silenced the courageous journalists who were trying to make the American people deservedly aware of that corruption. This is an example, past and present, of who Joe Biden is and how he would govern if elected — exploiting those ultimately dependent upon him, and then pulling back to shirk responsible when he is caught red-handed.
Evidently, as vice president he did behave like this and so far has gotten away with it, but if president must not be allowed to. And, given that Biden’s VP candidate Kamala Harris’s name appears — along with many others — in an email from Joe’s brother James concerning a Chinese business venture Hunter had conceived, it is unlikely that Joe Biden will conduct himself as president very differently than he did as vice president (let alone that a possible Harris administration would differ much either). Perhaps the American people could somehow corner him into changing his ways if damaging information were allowed to flow freely, as it should in a free society, but at 77 and ailing Biden is unlikely to change at anybody’s behest.
And if Joe Biden is willing to sacrifice his own broken son in the pursuit of power, then the fact that he is not disturbed by Twitter’s blatant election interference on his behalf is a character exposé far more salacious and disturbing for the country than any of Hunter Biden’s most jaw-dropping emails or photos.
Have We Forgotten What Happened On 9/11?
Sharia in the U.S. Judicial System?
The U.S. Senate’s recent confirmation of Zahid Quraishi as America’s first Muslim federal judge to a lifetime position on the District Court of New Jersey raises some concerning questions.
First and foremost, there is the question of his faith. Does it matter if Zahid Quraishi is a Muslim? The Left would, of course, maintain that raising the Muslim identity of Quraishi is racist, bigoted and “Islamophobic.” But those who understand the reality of Sharia – and the fact that Islam is not a race — understand that this matter is more complicated than what might first meet the eye.
It may very well matter if Quraishi is not just a Muslim “by name” – or just a “secular Muslim” by birth heritage. Indeed, if, as an adult adherent to Islam, he devoutly recites the Shahada — “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” – then Quraishi’s Muslimness could matter very much. That’s because it could indicate whether or not Quraishi would ever uphold aspects of Sharia – Islamic law – in his legal rulings.
As a survivor of Sharia law, I can tell you: Sharia matters — and in the most horrendous and painful of ways.
It is vital to understand that in Islam, Allah’s Law is supreme for Muslims, above all other laws and legal systems. And that poses a problem for America when Islam resides on its territory, because Sharia is completely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and the foundations of a free society.
Quraishi’s relationship to Islam, therefore, matters a great deal — seeing that his new position entails significant power and influence in America.
So let’s dig a little bit deeper on Quraishi.
The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) surprisingly did not come out and cheer Quraishi’s appointment — as one might have expected them to do. Instead, the Muslim “civil rights” organization appeared to be quite furious about him. Zahra Billoo, head of CAIR’s San Francisco branch, issued a statement affirming that she “would much rather have a white Christian judge with progressive values… It’s not enough that he is Muslim. In fact, it’s insulting.”
It appears that the problem for Billoo and CAIR is that Quraishi is not a Muslim from an apparent “list” of “20 to 50 Muslims who have been in the fight” for “social justice.” One unnamed Muslim politician who complained to Slate magazine about Quraishi’s appointment echoed the same theme: “We don’t know what his stances are on civil rights because you can’t find one article or anything that he’s written publicly about the Muslim struggle in the last 20 years post-9/11.”
For those concerned about Quraishi’s potential ties to Sharia, this negative disposition from the “Sharia camp” toward the Muslim judge might appear to be good news. But is it?
CAIR’s concern about Quraishi’s supposed lack of support for “progressive values” appears to be a good sign in light of CAIR’s own record of opposing counterterror measures and slandering opponents of jihad and Sharia tyranny. However, CAIR’s disposition toward Quraishi tells us little, if anything, about the key issue at stake: does the judge hold Islamic values or not?
The narrative takes another peculiar twist when we examine what transpired during Quraishi’s questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee: When asked by Committee Chair, Democrat Senator Dick Durbin: “What do you know about Sharia law?” Quraishi answered that he knew “nothing about Sharia.“
Quraishi knows “nothing” about Islam or Islamic Law?
Christine Douglass-Williams has commented on Quraishi’s dubious answer:
“Virtually everyone knows something about the Sharia. In his position, Quraishi is likely to know a lot, and was probably fibbing, and not in an intelligent way, either. It isn’t possible that a man of his standing, who ‘has served as a military prosecutor and Army captain in Iraq, as an assistant U.S. Attorney who has tried cases of public corruption, organized crime and financial fraud, and as a white-collar criminal defense lawyer’, would know ‘NOTHING’ about Sharia.”
What makes the matter even more peculiar is that when one pulls up Quraishi’s questionnaire answers for the Senate Judiciary Committee, one finds that he is mentioned as a “Muslim” many times in his “Honors and Awards” list. So Quraishi is praised, rewarded and held in acclaim by the Muslim community for his achievements in light of his Muslimness, but he personally doesn’t know anything about Islamic law at all?
Could it be that Quraishi might actually not be the incidental Muslim he postures as being? Could it be that he has been recognized and awarded by important prominent Muslim organizations because they gauged that, among other things, he actually is somewhat of an adherent Muslim after all?
Is it possible that CAIR might really not be as upset as it is claiming to be about Quraishi’s appointment? Or maybe it is upset, but not for the reasons it has given? Could it also be that certain players involved in this narrative are engaging in some form of taqiyya – the command in Islam for Muslims to deceive non-Muslims?
Would it also be out of bounds to ask: even if Quraishi is not an adherent Muslim, is it legitimate to be concerned that he one day could become one?
It is vital to stress at this point that Islam is not just a “religion” the way that Christianity and Judaism are religions. Islam is much more than a “faith.” For example, like Judaism, Islam has a legal system — but Islamic Law extends far beyond any Judaic (or even secular) legal system. Sharia embodies all the commands of Allah and all the examples of Muhammad-as divine law that must be implemented in all areas of life.
Qur’an 33:21 is just one verse of many that confirms that Muhammad is “an excellent pattern” for Muslims to follow. It would do well for people to keep in mind that the “excellent” examples that Mohammed set for his followers included the following: marrying a six-year-old girl, A’ishah, and having sex with her when she was nine (Sahih al-Bukhari 5134); encouraging rape of female captives (Qur’an 4:24); stating that women are stupid (Qur’an 2:282) and that hell is comprised of mostly women (Bukhari 29); commanding men to beat their wives (Qur’an 4:34); and being merciless to a woman who had been beaten so brutally that her bruise was green (Bukhari 5825).
Muhammad also disparaged black people (Bukhari 7038). He murdered between 600 and 900 Jews in one battle, and then distributed the captive women as sex slaves (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 464, 511-512).
With some of these matters in mind, the question surfaces: would or could an American Muslim federal judge consider such material as a basis for his rulings? According to Islamic law, a Muslim judge must do so. Sharia mandates that no true Muslim is obligated to obey the laws of a non-Muslim country. Qur’an 33:1 commands to “not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites.” Qur’an 4:60 says that those who “refer legislation” to the non-Muslims are led “far astray.” And Qur’an 9:3 says that “Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger.” According to Islamic tradition, the revelation of that last verse allowed Muhammad to break the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyah.
Let us be clear: an American judge who follows Muhammad’s example can take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and not really mean it. In fact, Muhammad instructs such a judge exactly what to do in this situation: “if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.” (Bukhari 5518)
The supremacy of Islamic Law over all other laws still applies today. The Islamic website International Shariah Movement is run by certified Islamic scholars. Its post “Obey the Law of the Land?” cites Qur’an 33:1.
Under Sharia, if a woman is raped, a Muslim judge must disregard any forensic or non-witness evidence, because Qur’an 24:13 requires “four male witnesses” for a rape conviction.
A beaten woman may also easily be denied divorce, because Qur’an 4:34 commands that “Men are in charge of women,” and so may “strike them.”
That is exactly what a Muslim judge in an Iranian Islamic court told me personally when I was a 15-year-old child bride, desperate for a divorce to escape the beatings. In fact, a beaten woman who leaves Islam must be hunted down and murdered, according to Islamic law, because Muhammad said, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 6922)
With all these realities in mind, it is clear that if we cannot at least ask Judge Zahid Quraishi some questions regarding his adherence, or non-adherence, to Islamic law, or even understand that the issue of Quraishi’s Muslimness is an important one to address, then America is in deep trouble.
As an individual who suffered under Sharia, and was able to escape its monstrous clutches, I strongly encourage my fellow Americans to ask the right questions in this vital – and troubling – narrative about America’s new federal judge.
Iran Elects Mass Murderer as Next President
The ‘election’ for president is over in Iran. The grand ayatollah handpicked Ebrahim Raisi who was then ‘elected’. He’s not just a hardline jihadist, but he’s a mass murderer and a big-time one. And more importantly, he’s very proud of his background.
He’s accused by the world of having personally supervised the trials and executions of somewhere between 5,000 and 40,000 Iranians in the 1980s. He has personally been sanctioned by most of the world, including the United States, who cannot even legally talk to him.
Meanwhile, Raisi calls himself a defender of human rights when asked about the mass executions. The guy is a world-class war criminal. He ran the death panel that sentenced and executed tens of thousands of political prisoners at the end of the 1980s. He is now the leader of the world’s most notorious state sponsor of terrorism.
The first thing we have to know about Ebrahim Raisi is that these charges of mass murder as far as the Iranian mullahs are concerned, are not a problem but rather they are a bonus. It’s not that they picked him in spite of his terrible record. They picked him because of his terrible record.
Domestically, the ayatollah is sending a message to the Iranian people who remain discontented in large part with the Islamic regime. The message is simply put, “ you are not going to be able to dissent. There will be no ability to protest. Anybody who expresses any kind of public disagreement, it’s very clear what kind of treatment they’re going to get with Ebrahim Raisi as the President of Iran.”
Keep in mind, Raisi was not elected. He was selected. He was selected by the supreme leader of Iran, who is the real power in the country, and he is going to execute the policies of the supreme leader. The supreme leader’s disposition toward his own people and toward the world is revealed by the person he selects to be the President of Iran.
By picking Raisi, Ayatollah Khamenei is not only showing that he’s going to crack down harshly on dissent within Iran, but he’s showing that he understands that with Biden’s handlers running the United States, that the United States is weak, is not going to stand up to him and this is his time to step up Iran’s support for terrorism worldwide, supporting Hamas, supporting Hezbollah, supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
The Iranian regime has also in the past supported al-Qaida and the Taliban, and other jihadi groups as well as and this is much less known. It’s clear that Iran understands that leftism is corrosive to Western civilization, and they want to destroy Western civilization. Therefore Iran will support both the leftists and the Islamists around the world who are anti-America and anti-Israel.
From now on, we can expect to see increased belligerence on the part of Iran. And Raisi’s ascension to the presidency means that Iran is going to be strutting around and sponsoring terrorism around the world and cracking down on its own people within the country.
By Barry Nussbaum, Son of Auschwitz survivors, Founder American Truth Project, Foreign and Domestic Policy Commentator