Hamas Loyalist Professor: Noura Erakat at Rutgers University Celebrating suicide bombers and demonizing Jews.

by

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/hamas-loyalist-professor-noura-erakat-at-rutgers-university; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]

Editor’s note: American campuses are awash in a crisis of Jew hatred. Ineffectual college administrators have taken tentative steps to try and rein in the proponents of terror on their campuses, but they have yet to confront the most obvious source of this poisonous Jew hatred—their own radical faculty who have not only called for an end to Israel but have outright celebrated the barbaric bloodshed of the terror group Hamas.

The Freedom Center is exposing these radical, pro-terror faculty as the Top Ten Hamas Loyalist Professors. We will be publishing one school per day as a series on Frontpage. Noura Erakat, an associate professor of Africana Studies at Rutgers University, is #8 on our list.

#8: Noura Erakat, Rutgers University

As an associate professor of Africana Studies at Rutgers University in New Jersey, Dr. Noura Erakat has repeatedly used her academic position and influence to promote the terrorist organization Hamas and to justify their barbaric massacre, mutilation, and rape of innocent Israeli Jews.

In a series of tweets issued on October 7th, a day of infamy in which Hamas terrorists slaughtered over 1200 Israeli men, women and children, and brutalized and raped many others, taking hundreds of hostages, Dr. Erakat raised her voice to defend Hamas’s horrors.

“#Gaza has been under a naval blockade & land siege for 17 years & its 2 mil Palestinians have been subject to 4 large scale offensives,” Erakat tweeted. “Any shock in response to this multi-scalar attack [by Hamas] reflects an expectation that those Palestinians die quietly and a complicity in their strangulation.”

On the same day of horrors, Erakat also tweeted: “Any condemnation of [Hamas] violence is vapid if it does not begin & end with a condemnation of Israeli apartheid, settler colonialism, and occupation." #Palestine #Gaza #Decolonize.”

In another tweet, she claimed: “Israel does not have a Hamas problem or a Gaza problem, it has a Palestine problem. Even if Hamas were to disappear, Israel would continue its removal and dispossession of Palestinians…”

In yet another post on October 7th, Erakat attempted to justify Hamas’s bloodletting as a “military tactic,” tweeting, “Civilians r taken hostage, soldiers r captured. This is a military tactic. ““Hamas has demanded the release of all Palestinian political prisoners…”

As horrifying as Erakat’s October 7th tweets on behalf of Hamas are, they are hardly without precedent. The professor has a long record of condoning and even celebrating terrorism against the world’s only Jewish state.

In an article written in May 2023, Erakat honored Khader Adnan, a deceased senior member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, another anti-Israel terror organization.

In May 15, 2023, Erakat wrote an article honoring the deceased Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist, Khader Adnan, who was on record encouraging suicide bombings, stating  “Who among you will carry the next explosive belt? Who among you will fire the next bullets? Who among you will have his body parts blown all over?”

This is the man whom Erakat lauded in her article and in a tweet, writing, “#MustRead thread on #KhaderAdnan. A life of compassion and resistance. A reminder that the best of Palestinian leaders have been killed, imprisoned, exiled.”

Erakat has also gone to bat for another senior member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Khaleda Jarrar, who has been repeatedly arrested and jailed by Israel for such crimes as calling for the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and involvement in a fatal 2018 bombing attack. Of the woman, Erakat tweeted: “Khaleda Jarrar is a long time #Palestinian leader & an elected member of the Palestinian Legislative Council. #Apartheid Israel keeps imprisoning her w/o charge or trial & recently *convicted* her of membership in a political party [PFLP]…”

When Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad launched yet another major round of attacks against Israel in May 2021, firing over 4,300 rockets at major population centers, Erakat was quick to defend those actions and take the side of the terrorists. “When folks tell you the problem is Hamas rockets, remind them Zionist settler colonial expansionism is the cause, not the effect…” she tweeted.

Erakat has repeatedly demonized Israel and propagated anti-Semitic blood libel tropes about the Jewish people. Writing just two weeks after the slaughter of over 1200 Israelis on October 7, 2023, Erakat tweeted, “Israel has dropped the equivalent of a nuclear bomb on 2.2 besieged Palestinians & achieved ZERO of its military objectives. / This is not a war on Hamas but a war on Palestinians & particularly children…#Gaza_Genicide.”

In a separate tweet from July 4, 2023, Erakat wrote, “Israel promises the very fascist future that threatens the whole world…no one is safe." #ApartheidIsrael #Fascism #SettlerColonial #DoNotNormalizeApartheid.”

And on May 13, 2022, the professor tweeted, “Our bodies are testimony to the reality of this racist, supremacist Zionist ideology. Its drive for a satellite state for settlement necessitates segregation, removal, dispossession, elimination through & by grotesque violence. Palestinians are among its most brutalized victims.”

Despite this laser-like focus on the alleged “grotesque violence” of Israeli Jews, Erakat has celebrated Palestinian and Hamas violence against Jewish citizens of Israel, repeatedly praising known terrorists and lauding Hamas for its October 7th attack. She deserves to be known as one of the leading Hamas-loyalist faculty members in the nation.

New Immigrant Caravan Races to US-Mexico Border Ahead of Election Day | 10/16/2024

Todd Bensman, senior national security fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies, joins to discuss a potential immigrant surge before a possible Trump administration, a 2023 Biden-Harris bill that asks Mexico to “internally deport” aspiring border crossers, and whether border patrol officers would resign should Kamala Harris win the presidency. Blaze News senior politics editor Christopher Bedford joins to break down Kamala Harris’ recent media blitz, an upcoming appearance on Fox News, a potential hit on "The Joe Rogan Experience," and how this might impact the 2024 election. Hal Lambert, founder of Point Bridge Capital and creator of the MAGA stock index and the “Politically Responsible Investing” strategy, joins to discuss the fundraising lead Senate Democrats have over Republicans and Elon Musk’s decision to pour $75M for Donald Trump into his super PAC. Finally, with Halloween quickly approaching, fashion writer O.W. Root joins us to discuss why kids can’t draw scary faces.

Digital Gulag: The United Nations Blueprint to Control the Internet and Silence Dissent

Amy Mek
October 8, 2024
8 min read
SEE: https://rairfoundation.com/digital-gulag-united-nations-blueprint-control-internet-silence/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

The UN’s Global Digital Compact, disguised as a plan for internet safety, is a blueprint for global surveillance, designed to control free speech and silence dissent under the guise of combating misinformation.

Two weeks ago, 193 countries at the United Nations quietly adopted The Pact for the Future, a document that is raising alarm bells among critics. Of particular concern is the Global Digital Compact (GDC), an appendix within the pact that introduces sweeping regulations for what many are calling “Internet 2.0.” Tech expert Tim Hinchcliffe warns that this is nothing short of “a path to a digital gulag.”

NEWS: The Pact for the Future has been adopted by member countries by consensus at UN Headquarters in New York.

The adoption will help pave the way for greater international cooperation for #OurCommonFuture. pic.twitter.com/JnennVi2Jb

— United Nations (@UN) September 22, 2024Hinchcliffe, writing for The Sociable—a site focused on the intersection of technology and society—expresses outrage at how little attention the mainstream media has given to the UN’s Summit of the Future, held just weeks ago. This lack of scrutiny reflects a larger trend of global elites pushing sweeping changes under the radar, knowing full well that public awareness would invite resistance. According to him, the world’s nations quietly agreed to bizarre measures that will severely restrict individual freedoms, all under the guise of The Pact for the Future.

The most chilling aspect of this pact, according to Hinchcliffe, is the Global Digital Compact. While Achim Steiner of the UN Development Programme (UNDP) describes it as a framework for “inclusive, open, sustainable, fair, and secure digital futures for all,” Hinchcliffe sees it as something far more sinister: “a roadmap to a digital gulag.” The concept of an all-encompassing digital infrastructure is eerily reminiscent of authoritarian regimes where surveillance and censorship become tools of absolute control. In this new system, every individual would be connected to the internet through a digital identity, and those who question the UN’s vision would be crushed for spreading so-called “hate speech” and “disinformation.” In Hinchcliffe’s view, free speech will no longer exist on UN-regulated Internet 2.0.

Anyone who carefully reads the document and listens to its architects will find that Hinchcliffe’s interpretation aligns more closely with the 16-page document than Steiner’s optimistic rhetoric. Section 34 of the pact states: “We will collaborate internationally to address the challenges of misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech by mitigating the risks of information manipulation in ways that are consistent with international law.” But this vague language leaves open the critical question: who defines what constitutes “hate speech” and “disinformation”? And, most importantly, who gets to decide?

As history has shown, the answer became clear during the summit: the UN will decide. At a panel discussion in New York, titled The Future of Information Integrity and the SDGs, UN Under-Secretary for Global Communications Melissa Fleming—who in 2022 famously declared, “We own the science” in reference to climate change—indicated that the UN would crack down on anything counter to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Fleming’s declaration is a chilling reminder of the dangers of centralized control over information. Fleming explained that the UN shifted course after realizing its messaging was being questioned on major platforms. “We were attacked online. Every SDG has been tainted by disinformation or hate speech,” she said, justifying the need for the UN Global Principles for Information Integrity. She claims these principles are the blueprint for a “healthy information ecosystem.”

Fleming stressed that the UN “had no choice but to act.” She argued that today’s internet has become “so toxic” that it’s nearly impossible to communicate in an environment filled with people who oppose “the forces of good,” a group she places the UN within. This framing of dissent as “toxicity” is a dangerous precedent, one that echoes the tactics of authoritarian regimes throughout history, where any criticism of the ruling powers is dismissed as harmful or even treasonous. “We must find new ways to cut through the disinformation and hate.”

Fleming’s stance is clear: if you don’t agree with the UN, you are participating in disinformation and hate speech — a common theme throughout the session. This narrative was reinforced by New America think tank CEO Ann-Marie Slaughter, who voiced her own concerns about the dangers of unregulated speech online. “

Anybody can say anything,” she said. “This kind of extreme speech, violent speech, outrageous speech […] When people say these things and they are not stopped […] There’s a sense of anything goes […] Anybody can say anything.” Slaughter’s remarks highlighted the broader fear that uncontrolled digital spaces could lead to widespread harm, further justifying the need for stringent controls on online discourse.

One of these methods is the deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) to “cleanse” online information. In fact, AI has already been used by authoritarian regimes like China’s, where it helps to monitor and suppress dissenting voices. According to the GDC, information aligned with the SDGs will be classified as truth, while anything undermining the SDGs will be labeled disinformation.

History offers numerous cautionary tales of how centralized information control has been used to suppress dissent and reinforce authoritarian rule. In the Soviet Union, the state strictly controlled the press, ensuring that only pro-government propaganda was disseminated, while those who spoke out against the regime were censored, imprisoned, or executed. Similarly, North Korea’s government continues to enforce total control over all media, indoctrinating its citizens with state-approved narratives and severely punishing any attempt to access foreign information. Even in modern-day Russia, online dissent and independent media are routinely suppressed under the guise of protecting the nation from “misinformation.” These regimes show us that when governments control information, dissent is silenced, and individual freedoms are eroded.

The UN anticipates that AI will play a crucial role in achieving the SDGs. Section 53 of the pact reads: “We recognize the immense potential of artificial intelligence systems to accelerate progress across all SDGs.”

The compact also mandates that every individual on Earth—approximately 2.6 billion people currently without reliable internet access—be connected to the web as soon as possible. The so-called “digital divide” in developing nations must be closed rapidly. What this truly represents is a forced integration into a global digital system where no one can escape surveillance. Steiner envisions a world by 2030 where “every person on the planet has a secure digital identity,” including a young mother in a developing country. He claims that this will grant her access to banking, education, healthcare, and, for the first time, a sense of being “seen.”

Justin Haskins, co-author of Dark Future: Uncovering the Great Reset’s Terrifying Next Phase with popular podcaster Glenn Beck, asserts that the global elite are already on board. “Globalists are pushing for greater collaboration between big tech, media, corporations, governments, and even human rights organizations,” he says. “They justify all these restrictions on freedom in the name of a safer internet. But in reality, they are manipulating every aspect of society to control the web. This is not just regulation; this is the construction of a digital iron curtain.”

Hinchcliffe outlines the steps of the plan:

  • Step 1: Close the digital divide by getting everyone online, including the 2.6 billion currently offline.
  • Step 2: Build the digital infrastructure, complete with digital IDs, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and large-scale data sharing. Make people dependent on this system.
  • Step 3: Censor any narrative that challenges the Agenda 2030 goals. Involve governments, authorities, and the private sector to destroy any dissenting stories. This isn’t just censorship, it’s the creation of a system where disagreement with the state narrative will make it impossible to function in society.

In essence, the Global Digital Compact claims to make the internet safer, but its true aim appears to be constructing a global surveillance system that suppresses dissent and controls the narrative. History teaches us that such centralized control—whether through Stalin’s purges or China’s social credit system—inevitably leads to the erosion of freedoms. Today, with more sophisticated tools of surveillance, the outcome remains the same: disagreement is crushed, and free thought is suffocated under the guise of protecting society.

Whenever power is centralized, especially in the hands of a few unelected officials, individual freedoms are the first casualty. The Pact for the Future represents not just a digital shift but a global power grab that seeks to control how people think, speak, and interact with the world. While the UN may frame this as progress, the reality looks far more like a digital gulag than a utopia.

Harris Endorsed by Muslim Leaders: The Best Candidate to Further Islamize America

Amy Mek
October 10, 2024
7 min read
SEE: https://rairfoundation.com/harris-endorsed-muslim-leaders-best-candidate-islamize-america/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

This past week, a group of U.S. imams publicly endorsed Kamala Harris, but beneath the surface, this move reveals a strategic effort to use her policies to advance Islamic influence in American politics, challenge U.S. security, and erode foundational American values.

On Monday, a group of imams from across the U.S. published an open letter endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris. But this endorsement isn’t simply about political preference—it’s a calculated move within a broader strategy to further an Islamic expansionist agenda in American politics. These imams recognize that Harris’s policies, particularly her alignment with the radical left, offer the best opportunity to advance their long-standing goals: increasing Islamic influence, undermining Western values, and gradually gaining control over governmental power.

Islamic Expansionism: A Strategic Play

The imams’ support for Kamala Harris reflects their understanding that this is a critical moment for Islam’s strategic incursion into the American political system. The letter paints Trump as a divisive figure who would reintroduce oppressive policies. In reality, this letter is a call to Muslim communities to seize the moment and consolidate power. By warning against Trump, they seek to shift Muslim voters toward Harris, who they believe will open doors to policies that advance Islamic law and migration, further embedding Sharia into the cultural and political fabric of the U.S.

Islam’s history is one of manifest destiny through conquest, where every opportunity is used to gain control over societies, either through voluntary conversion or by force. From the early Islamic conquests in the 7th century, which spread across the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe, to modern-day political strategies, the goal remains the same: submission. The very word “Islam” itself means submission, and historically, Islamic leaders have sought to subdue non-Islamic regions by imposing Islamic law and governance. This strategy has not changed; it has simply adapted to modern democratic processes.

The imams who signed this letter are fully aware of this history and are using Harris’s platform to advance the next phase of Islam’s agenda. By securing positions of influence, Islamic leaders aim to gradually undermine American institutions from within, focusing on key areas such as immigration, judicial appointments, and education, all while maintaining a veneer of concern for human rights and anti-discrimination. In reality, their goal is to establish a system where Islamic law and values hold sway over American policies.

The Weaponization of Victimhood

In their letter, the imams frame their opposition to Trump as a moral stance, invoking the language of human rights and likening his policies to a revival of Jim Crow laws. They claim that Trump’s return to office would inflict great harm on Muslim communities, drawing exaggerated parallels to racial segregation to stoke fear. For example, the letter states, “Trump is funded by pro-settlement donors who support Israeli annexation of the West Bank” and warns that he has “promised to deport pro-Palestinian students and activists he refers to as ‘jihadists.’” Isn’t this subtly admitting a pro-Hamas stance by defending activists who support Hamas? These incendiary claims are designed to galvanize Muslim voters and cast Trump as an existential threat.

This manipulation of victimhood is a calculated tactic to galvanize Muslim voters by stoking fear and positioning imams as defenders of the oppressed. Their goal is not just to protect their communities, but to position Harris as a key to advancing Islamic law under the guise of social justice. In reality, they are exploiting the left’s narrative to further their own agenda, positioning Harris as a pivotal ally in this strategy.

This is a clear manifestation of the Red-Green alliance, where the radical left and Islamic supremacists find common cause. By weaponizing shared grievances, this alliance seeks to weaken America’s borders, reduce national security protocols, and push policies that align with globalist and Islamic objectives. Politicians like Harris are instrumental in dismantling traditional governance structures, not through mutual respect, but a temporary partnership aimed at eroding the foundations of American sovereignty and replacing them with policies favorable to Islamic expansionism.

Securing Power Through Key Government Appointments

A central piece of this strategy is the imams’ desire to position Muslims in key government roles. By rallying support for Harris, they aim to ensure that more individuals aligned with their vision of Islamic governance are appointed to influential positions in law enforcement, education, and the judiciary. This isn’t about fair representation—it’s about strategically placing people who will champion policies that prioritize Islamic law and interests.

This is not a new strategy. Imams and Muslim organizations have previously endorsed candidates like Joe Biden and Barack Obama, recognizing their favorable stance toward Islamic immigration and foreign policy. Biden’s administration, in particular, was seen as backing policies beneficial to Muslim-majority countries, including his approach to Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, his special immigration allowances for Muslims, and his downplaying of Islamic terror threats. Similarly, imams supported Obama for resettling large numbers of refugees, advancing Iran’s nuclear program, his support for foreign Islamic governments—often hostile to America—funding mosques within the U.S. These are just some examples of how imams use political endorsements to further their broader agenda of embedding Islamic governance into the fabric of the United States.

Islamic groups like the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have long pushed this agenda, openly stating their goal of installing Muslims in political offices to influence domestic and foreign “policy.” The imams’ endorsement of Harris is just the latest move in a larger game of political chess aimed at embedding Islamic governance into the fabric of the United States.

Muslim Migration as a National Security Threat

At the core of this political push is the issue of immigration. The imams’ call for open borders not only signals their desire for Islamic migration into the U.S., but it also aligns with Hijrah, the Islamic command to emigrate for the cause of Allah. This concept, rooted in Muhammad’s own migration from Mecca to Medina, has historically been used as a strategic tool to expand Islamic influence. Today, migration remains a key method for spreading Islam, particularly in non-Islamic lands, where the goal is not to assimilate but to transform societies from within.

Muslim migration into Western countries is not about blending into host nations but about altering the cultural and political landscape to bring them closer to an Islamic state. Europe has already borne the brunt of this reality. Countries like France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have experienced rising demands for Sharia, the establishment of Islamic banking systems, and the erosion of traditional Western customs. Islamic elements in these migrant communities often refuse to adopt local laws, instead advocating for the implementation of Sharia, slowly transforming the fabric of their host countries.

From demands for Halal food systems to enforcing niqab-wearing in public and rejecting Western holidays, these incremental shifts work to gradually Islamize societies. High birth rates and continued migration further accelerate this process. Muammar Qaddafi’s prophetic remark, “We Muslims don’t need to use force… our emigration and high birth rates will accomplish our objectives,” underscores the patient but deliberate strategy at play.

The imams’ endorsement of Harris fits perfectly into this broader agenda. They view her open-border policies as a way to destabilize American society, erode national security, and ultimately transform the nation into a more Islamic-friendly entity—much like what is already happening in parts of Europe.

The Threat to American Values

The imams’ letter is not simply an endorsement of a candidate—it’s a declaration of their intent to erode the values that make America strong. By aligning with the radical left, Islamic leaders hope to weaken the core principles of individual freedom, equality, and constitutional law, replacing them with policies that favor Islamic governance. The open borders policies they advocate would bring in populations that do not share America’s values and would push for laws incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.

If left unchecked, this growing alliance between Islamic leaders and the far left will threaten both U.S. security and the freedoms Americans hold dear. Their ultimate goal isn’t just political influence—it’s a transformation of the United States into a society where Islamic law dominates, and the very fabric of American life is fundamentally altered.

Fight for America’s Survival: Trump Targets Migrant Gangs and Harris’s Border Betrayal with Aggressive Mass Deportation Plan

Amy Mek
October 16, 2024
5 min read
SEE: https://rairfoundation.com/fight-americas-survival-trump-targets-migrant-gangs-harriss/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

During a campaign event in Colorado, US presidential candidate Donald Trump unveiled bold plans to expel illegal immigrants involved in criminal gangs, with a specific focus on the Venezuelan gang “Tren de Aragua,” which he claims is terrorizing multiple US cities. Normally, Aurora, a suburb of Denver, is quiet, but recent months have seen the city, like many others throughout America, plagued by intense gang violence linked to “Tren de Aragua.” This once peaceful town of 390,000 residents now faces a violent crime wave as the transnational criminal organization from Venezuela has infiltrated and seized control of several apartment complexes, overwhelming the community.

Below it is “members of the Tren de Aragua gang have overtaken an apartment building in Aurora, Colorado, charging rent in exchange for protection.” 

BREAKING: Armed gangs of illegals have taken over buildings in Aurora, Colorado. This is the border czar’s fault, when will she take responsibility?
pic.twitter.com/5naPkMaEog

— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) August 29, 2024The following picture is from New York City. Tren de Aragua members, some as young as 11, have been terrorizing Times Square.

 

 

 

Trump, during his visit to Aurora this weekend, promised decisive action to address the situation, starting with a tough stance on asylum seekers. If re-elected, Trump vows to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which grants the president power to arrest or deport citizens from hostile countries in times of war. According to Trump, this rarely used law will be key to dismantling the criminal networks created by illegal immigrants, particularly those responsible for gang violence.

The former president emphasized that restoring safety in places like Colorado is paramount. “Colorado will be safe again, and we will do it quickly,” Trump stated. He slammed the Biden administration, particularly Vice President Kamala Harris, accusing her of failing miserably as the so-called “border czar.” Trump charged Harris with opening the floodgates to criminal elements from across the globe. “Kamala has brought an army of foreign criminals into this country and placed them in your communities, where they harm innocent Americans,” Trump declared. The former president’s remarks hit on a key theme for his campaign: the existential threat illegal immigration poses to American sovereignty and safety.

Video of the entire event:

 

A Deliberate Strategy to Destabilize

Trump’s comments go beyond just pointing fingers at the current administration’s failures; they highlight what many conservatives see as a deliberate effort to destabilize America. Much like how Russia and Islamic regimes are using mass migration to destabilize Europe, Trump warned that the same playbook is being used against the U.S. “The open borders are not an accident. They’re part of a plan to weaken this country,” Trump said, likening the Biden administration’s policies to those of authoritarian regimes that exploit migration for political gain.

Kamala Harris, in her role as border czar, has not only failed to address the crisis but, as Trump argues, is complicit in its escalation. Her policies have allowed dangerous gangs like Tren de Aragua to establish themselves in U.S. cities, threatening the lives of Americans. Trump’s criticism of Harris is in line with his broader indictment of left-wing leaders who he believes are complicit in the deterioration of national security by supporting open-border policies.

Tough Measures and Deportations

To combat the rising violence and the illegal immigrant criminal networks, Trump proposed concrete measures if he is re-elected. He announced the formation of elite federal units comprising agents from ICE, Border Patrol, and other federal agencies tasked exclusively with identifying and deporting criminal gang members among illegal immigrants. “We’re going to go after them until there’s not one left in this country,” Trump assured his supporters.

Trump has also floated the idea of imposing harsh penalties on deported immigrants who attempt to re-enter the United States. Specifically, he proposed a 10-year prison sentence without the possibility of parole for any individual who returns illegally after deportation. His tough stance seeks to instill fear in potential offenders and reaffirm his administration’s commitment to strict immigration enforcement.

Stronger Penalties for Violent Crimes

In his speech, Trump made it clear that his policies would be particularly severe for migrants who commit serious crimes in the United States. He called for the death penalty for any immigrant who kills an American citizen or law enforcement officer. This hardline stance on violent crimes committed by migrants was met with enthusiastic support from his audience. Trump’s unwavering focus on safety resonated deeply with those who fear the impact of criminal immigrants.

Trump’s vision for America’s future also aligns with the broader global movement of conservative leaders like Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the AfD party in Germany, and the Vox party in Spain—leaders who have committed to defending their borders and standing firm against illegal immigration. These leaders, like Trump, recognize that unchecked migration threatens national sovereignty, security, and stability. While the left, including communist figures like Kamala Harris, pushes for open borders, it is the pro-border conservative leaders who offer hope.

The Urgency of Strong Leadership

As Trump campaigns for the presidency once more, his message of law and order has never been more relevant. The situation in Aurora is a terrifying reminder of what’s at stake. Without decisive action, America risks falling victim to the same fate as Europe, where countries like Germany, Sweden, and France are struggling to cope with massive waves of illegal migrants destabilizing their societies.

Trump’s proposed policies are a direct answer to this global crisis. The measures he laid out—mass deportations, tougher penalties, and elite enforcement units—are all designed to prevent the U.S. from becoming yet another victim of failed left-wing immigration policies. For Trump, the stakes couldn’t be higher. “We either protect our borders, or we lose our country,” Trump concluded, stressing the upcoming election as a battle for the very soul of America.

Hillary Clinton’s Decades-Long Fight to Silence Americans Reaches a Disturbing New High

Amy Mek
October 8, 2024
7 min read
SEE: https://rairfoundation.com/hillary-clintons-decades-long-fight-silence-americans-reaches/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes

Hillary Clinton’s relentless, decades-long fight to silence Americans has reached a new peak with her latest push to repeal Section 230, aiming to empower the government to control online speech, stifle dissent, and cement her power, continuing her long history of suppressing free expression both at home and globally.

Hillary Clinton has spent decades working—both subtly and overtly—to crush free speech in America when it serves her political ambitions. Her most recent comments are a prime example of just how far she’s willing to go. In a recent interview with CNN’s Michael Smerconish, Clinton explicitly warned that if social media companies don’t moderate content more aggressively, “we lose total control.” This admission reveals not only her desire for increased control over information but also her broader agenda of suppressing opposing voices to consolidate her power.

Clinton’s demand for greater federal control over online platforms through the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Act is at the heart of her latest push. This crucial law protects internet platforms from being held liable for user-generated content. By dismantling these protections, Clinton seeks to grant the government sweeping authority to impose strict content moderation, effectively allowing her and her political allies to decide what can be seen or said online. Repealing Section 230 would mark the beginning of an era where the federal government can silence dissent and suppress free speech on one of the last platforms for open dialogue—the Internet.

In effect, it turns platforms like X or Facebook from functioning as neutral carriers—much like telephone companies or postal services—into publishers, making them responsible for every piece of content posted by users. The original intent of Section 230 was to provide platforms with the necessary freedom from liability, shielding them in a way that upheld the values of the First Amendment. But repealing it could be seen as part of a broader effort by the Democratic Party to erode constitutional limits on government and free speech protections, effectively ending the First Amendment’s ability to safeguard citizens from government overreach.

A History of Crushing Opposition

Clinton’s history of attempting to muzzle free speech dates back to her earliest days in politics. One notable example is her involvement in the Citizens United case, where she opposed the rights of private citizens and organizations to make independent political expenditures. Clinton’s drive to limit political donations was framed as campaign finance reform, but it was widely perceived as an effort to curb conservative voices that were critical of her policies. The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court allowed greater political freedom in spending, but Clinton’s opposition to it was a clear indication that she favored limiting speech when it threatened her political career.

Her most insidious efforts, however, have come under the banner of “hate speech” laws and initiatives designed to curtail criticism of Islam. One of the clearest examples of this was her support for UNHRC Resolution 16/18, which sought to criminalize speech that could be perceived as “incitement to violence.” Cloaked under the guise of combating religious intolerance, this resolution was a dangerous step toward establishing global blasphemy laws, which would have severely restricted free speech. Clinton was one of the architects behind this resolution, holding meetings in Washington to discuss its implementation and laying the groundwork for policies that would silence critics of Islam worldwide.

This effort continued on the domestic front with her support for House Resolution 569 in 2015. Introduced just days after the ISIS-inspired terrorist attack in San Bernardino, the resolution condemned what it called “hateful rhetoric” against Muslims. The timing was telling: Clinton and her allies were quick to push legislation that made it appear as though Muslims were the victims, rather than addressing the very real threat of radical Islamic terrorism. The resolution conveniently ignored that the vast majority of religiously motivated hate crimes in the U.S. are committed against Jews, not Muslims. Instead, it sought to criminalize criticism of Islam under the pretense of combating hate speech, all while turning a blind eye to the far more widespread attacks on Jewish Americans.

Section 230 and the New Front in Clinton’s War on Free Speech

Clinton’s latest attack on free speech comes in the form of her desire to repeal Section 230, which protects online platforms from being held liable for third-party content. By stripping away this protection, Clinton seeks to empower the federal government to impose “guardrails” on what can be said online. Under her proposed framework, platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and others would be forced to moderate content far more aggressively, ultimately silencing voices that don’t align with the mainstream narrative. This move would disproportionately affect conservatives and dissenters who already face de-platforming and censorship for challenging leftist policies on issues such as immigration, gender ideology, and public health.

Clinton’s comments to Smerconish, where she lamented the lack of national action to regulate social media, are just the latest in a series of alarming statements. She previously suggested that Americans accused of spreading so-called “propaganda” in support of former President Trump should face civil or even criminal charges. This echoes the same tactics Clinton used after her 2016 election loss, where she pushed the narrative that “Russian interference” and misinformation were responsible for her defeat, rather than acknowledging the legitimate concerns many Americans had with her candidacy.

Criminalizing Criticism and the Orwellian Istanbul Process

The broader implications of Clinton’s war on free speech become even clearer when examining her international efforts. Her backing of UNHRC Resolution 16/18, known as the “Istanbul Process,” sought to limit speech globally that could be deemed “discriminatory” or inciting violence against religion. What began as an effort to shield Islam from criticism morphed into a global campaign to censor anything considered offensive to religious groups—particularly Muslims. The Istanbul Process was an attempt to undermine the First Amendment by creating international pressure to criminalize speech that offended Islamic sensibilities.

The resolution is eerily similar to efforts Clinton supported domestically, such as House Resolution 569, which attempted to redefine what constitutes a hate crime. Instead of protecting all religious groups, Clinton and her allies focused narrowly on Muslims, using this framework to create an environment where any criticism of Islam could be labeled as hate speech, effectively silencing legitimate debate about the religion and its role in global terrorism.

It’s important to note a critical distinction here: laws such as UN Resolution 16/18 protect the religion itself from criticism, whereas laws protecting Jewish people or other groups focus on protecting individuals from discrimination, not shielding the religion from scrutiny. This is a fundamental difference, as the First Amendment was designed to ensure the freedom to criticize religious and political authorities remains unassailable. Clinton’s support for these international measures threatens to dismantle this core principle, enabling the criminalization of speech that questions or critiques religious ideologies, particularly Islam.

The Real Danger: Hillary’s Long-Term Vision of Control

Hillary Clinton’s drive to crush free speech is not about protecting people from harm—it’s about consolidating control. Her decades-long history of advocating for policies that silence dissent, whether through campaign finance reform, international resolutions, or content moderation, reveals a disturbing pattern. Clinton’s fear is not that harmful speech will spread, but that she will lose control over the narrative. Her comments about losing “total control” of social media reflect a mindset that views open dialogue and dissent as threats to her political power.

If Clinton’s vision were realized, Americans would face a future where dissenting voices are criminalized and online platforms are forced to operate under the watchful eye of the federal government. Social media, one of the few remaining outlets for free speech, would be transformed into a tightly controlled space where only government-approved opinions are allowed.

Conclusion: A Call to Defend Free Speech

The American people must recognize the dangerous path Hillary Clinton and others like her are pushing us down. Free speech is not just a right to be cherished—it is a fundamental safeguard against tyranny. As Clinton continues her long-standing campaign to silence dissent, Americans must remain vigilant and fight to protect their First Amendment rights. If we allow her vision of government-controlled speech to become reality, we may soon find ourselves unable to speak out at all.

MARK DICE: Kamala’s Fox News Interview Trainwreck! Bret Baier Humiliates Her By Just Asking Relevant Questions

MARK LEVIN: Bret Baier Reacts to His Interview With Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris sat down with Fox News’s Bret Baier. She came into this interview with 2 games plans - filibuster and attack Trump.  She had an agenda and had no intention of answering questions. Baier called in to discuss the interview and to explain that she didn’t have any specifics to his questions. We didn’t learn a lot from this interview.

Every Christian Must Watch This BEFORE the Election

As the upcoming U.S. election approaches, it's vital for every Christian to consider the critical issue of life in the womb when casting their vote. In this video, we explore why voting for a candidate who supports protecting the unborn is not just important—it's essential. You'll hear about the impact of leadership on life issues, including a startling example of Donald Trump's use of language at rallies and what it reveals about the cultural moment we're in. Stick around for a powerful discussion about judgment, morality, and where our values should align.

NYC Calls On Army… As Migrant Gang Invades Queens

Community leaders in a working class NYC neighborhood are demanding that army national guard troops be deployed to clean up their streets, which are overrun by what critics say is gang related criminal activity, which threatens the lives of locals and law abiding asylum seekers alike. Are troops an over reaction to a problem the city can solve on its own, or is an elevated response involving the army appropriate?

U.S. Elections: Evangelicals For Harris Director Explains Why He Is Voting For Kamala In November

Scott is a Presbyterian pastor and lifelong Republican, but in August he took a risk and publicly endorsed Kamala Harris for president. Unwilling to vote for former President Donald Trump due to what Scott feels are a lack of moral values, he's felt politically homeless for the past decade.

Is Kamala Harris a Christian? Evaluating "Evangelicals for Harris"

Blaze Media Exposes the Truth About FEMA in North Carolina | 10/15/2024

Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford discusses whether Donald Trump’s rhetoric will lose him the 2024 election and Trump’s claim about who is ACTUALLY running the country. Blaze News investigative journalist Steve Baker calls from North Carolina to break down the main issues he is seeing there, alleged threats made against FEMA, and whether Hurricane Helene victims are getting the relief they need from the Biden administration. BlazeTV host Aaron MacIntyre joins to discuss his personal experience with Hurricane Milton, why globalist elites hate the First Amendment, and why progressives are holding American citizens hostage. Finally, BlazeTV host James Poulos joins to discuss a bizarre recent video featuring Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and how it mocks the Eucharist.

If You Want to Have Better Discernment, Watch THIS | Justin Peters

If you want to have better discernment as a Christian, watch THIS… Join Todd Friel and Justin Peters as they discuss the role of discernment among believers, why it isn’t everything, and more. Wretched TV and Radio is hosted by Todd Friel. On the show, you will see and hear live witnessing encounters, discussions of tough theological issues, and Christian commentary on current events. We might even make you laugh.

Why the Charismatic Movement Is SO Problematic | Justin Peters

Why is the charismatic movement SO problematic? In this episode of the G3 podcast, Josh Buice and Justin Peters offer an in-depth answer to this controversial question, highlighting relevant Scripture.

Migrant Gangs Leave NYC… To Destroy New Jersey

Recent reports indicate that gang-related crime is up in 8 states, one of which is New Jersey, which just so happens to be next door to America's largest sanctuary city, New York. Over the last year, NYC has seen high numbers of asylum seekers arrive, however not all of those who claim to be seeking asylum are... instead a small number of people have come here looking for something else.

I Was a Super-Fit Mum-of-Two Who Ran Triathlons—Until I Got the Second COVID Vaccine

Initially, I didn’t hesitate to get the vaccine, and I thought I was doing the right thing to do so we could all move on. I’m not an anti-vaxxer, I’ve had vaccines before. It’s never been a problem… I thought it was the right thing to do. I had my first Pfizer vaccine in 2021. I had it in my left arm. Initially, I had a very sore arm, like a lot of people had. So I wasn’t too concerned. It went away after a few days and I kept doing what I was doing. Three weeks later, I had my second Pfizer vaccine. And, initially after that, I instantly got a massive swelling in my arm pit, so I did see the doctor the day after having it. The doctor said she’s never seen anything like it.

Urgent: Trump Adviser Makes Terrible Warning, Huge Secret Attack Against U.S.
to me

Urgent: Trump Adviser Makes Terrible Warning, Huge Secret Attack Against U.S.

Dear Concerned American Patriot,

Eighty years ago, delegates from 44 nations met to establish the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency.

Ever since, America has used this privilege to flex its power and might over the world stage.

But now, that power is coming to an end.

Over the last year, DOZENS of nations have conspired to abandon the dollar once and for all.

And recently, they finally sealed its fate.

Thanks to this move, John Browne — a former investment banker at Morgan Stanley — warns that millions of Americans could see their purchasing power collapse in the coming months if they don’t prepare now.

Browne has spent his career advising political heavyweights such as former President Donald Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

And the mainstream media is always quick to call him on air after disaster has struck.

Now, Browne is getting the word out to any American patriots who will listen.

In his latest warning, Browne reveals the EXACT steps you can take to prepare for the collapse of the U.S. dollar…

Why some Americans will see their wealth skyrocket as this shakeup unfolds…

And most importantly — how YOU can join them.

Get his full warning here.

Regards,

Newsmax Money
1 2 3 … 848