Ric Grenell Discusses Obama Team Motivation to Disrupt Incoming Trump Administration…


Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard “Ric” Grenell appears on Newsmax TV to discuss his perspectives on the concerted effort of former Obama officials to disrupt the incoming administration of President Donald Trump.

As noted by Grenell the Obama team intentionally coordinated a resistance operation against the incoming administration, while their allies in remaining institutions workd furiously on a false Trump-Russia narrative to undercut President Trump.

Never Relent – Why Did The DOJ Release SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner’s Text Messages on February 9, 2018?…


Everything is disconnected until somebody connects it.

On February 9, 2018, the DOJ released a batch of captured text messages between Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and the lawyer for Christopher Steele, Adam Waldman.

At the time the texts were released the media narrative surrounded the top-line story that Senator Warner was having back channel discussions to communicate with the author of the now famous Trump dossier, Chris Steele. However, no-one seemed to wonder why these messages were captured, and even more curiously why they were released.

Immediately following the release, SSCI member Marco Rubio, the current acting chairman of the same committee, rushed to defend the covert communication of Vice-Chair Warner.  According to Rubio the vice-chair did previously inform the committee of his intent to contact Steele.  The media quickly used Rubio’s defense to dismiss the controversy.  Nothing to see here… nothing to see here… and that was that.

Except it wasn’t.

Not even close.

While the issue may have quickly been downplayed by a water-carrying media, the looming question sat in the corner of the room like an unattended 800lb gorilla.

Why were Senator Warner’s text messages even captured in the first place?

Who captured them?

… and then, lastly, if there really was no ‘there‘ there, and everything was appropriate; and given the nature of this being sold as merely private nothing-burger communication valid for the purposes of SSCI investigative inquiry; well, then why were they released?

The answers to those questions took a long time to solve, but they are solved; and while it is prudent to withhold some of the granular aspects behind the puzzle solving, you deserve to know the answers.

The FBI captured the text messages when Senator Mark Warner was under investigation.

[The content of the Mark Warner text messages is a whole ‘nuther kettle-o-fish, which is not pertinent to our understanding of this specific aspect: what was going on at the time.]

To begin lets just focus on a sequence of events and then fill in the back-story.

First, the mysterious Mark Warner texts were released on February 9, 2018.

Exactly, four days later there was something else released from the DOJ that directly ties to the Warner capture.

On February 13, 2018, the DOJ sent a letter to journalist Ms. Ali Watkins, now working at the New York Times, providing a statutory notification that the content of her electronic communication, emails and cell phone records -including text messages and images- were captured as part of an ongoing FBI investigation. [Source Link]

That FBI investigation surrounded leaks from within the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).  Notice the date for the search warrant February 1, 2017, to July 31, 2017. Notice also this is the same time-frame of Senator Warner’s text message capture.

The SSCI leaks were eventually tracked to Security Director James Wolfe who was leaking classified intelligence to journalist Ali Watkins and others.  Wolfe leaked the FISA application to Ali Watkins on March 17, 2017.

What we discover from the DOJ indictment of Security Director Wolfe, which was unsealed on June 8, 2018, is that the grand jury was seated on May 3rd.

This timeline means prior to May, 2018,  the FBI investigators transferred their investigative files over to Main Justice.

From there DOJ lawyers would initiate grand jury proceedings based on that evidence.

The transfer of the investigative file included the intercepted Wolfe text messages, the intercepted incoming messages from Ms. Watkins phones; and the investigative file also included the Mark Warner text messages.

That’s the how and why the Warner texts were captured.

But why were the Senator Warner messages released?

The answer to that question goes back to the same reason the DOJ released the Carter Page FISA application in July 21, 2018.  The special counsel crew initiated the Warner release through Rod Rosenstein (same as the FISA application, different auspices).  Rosenstein then transferred the Warner texts to the House intel committee; and they were made public.

There was not classification issue.  Any release was going to be a public release. The resistance priority was diluting any damage from the discovery of their capture; and it worked, no-one stopped to question the foundational issue: why were they captured?

The text messages were released and Ms. Ali Watkins was simultaneously notified because the special counsel resistance unit inside Main Justice became aware of the evidence.  It was not until the FBI evidence was transferred from FBI to DOJ when the resistance unit could do anything about it.

Remember, the special counsel was protecting and defending the FISA application.  The FISA was released under the guise of FOIA fulfillment (NYT and Judicial Watch); the Warner texts were released under the guise of fulfillment to congress; both releases purposeful and strategic.

The FBI finalized most of their investigation of the Wolfe leak, which included information related to Mark Warner’s involvement, and sent the evidence to main justice in/around February. 

February of 2018 is when the Mueller special counsel resistance unit started informing their outside allies how to prepare.  The Warner text release was preemptive, and it was done before the grand jury was seated in May 2018 to hear and see that evidence.

The resistance unit within Mueller’s special counsel was essentially notifying their allies what to prepare for; how to prepare for it; and simultaneously dilute the severely damaging information that was discovered and prop up the narrative behind the FISA.

Ultimately they succeeded.  The resistance unit was able to block the biggest story of political corruption in recent history.

The vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, an intelligence community gang of eight oversight member, instructed the SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to leak the Top Secret Carter Page FISA application on March 17, 2017.  {Go Deep}

When Ali Watkins was notified of the search warrant in February 2018, she was then working for the New York Times.

Ms. Watkins gained the job at the New York Times by possessing the top secret FISA application.  Text messages between Watkins and Wolfe contain Wolfe noting his important role in advancing Ms. Watkin’s career.

The New York Times received and began exploiting the FISA application in March 2017 while simultaneously writing articles that President Trump, nor any member of his campaign, was never under surveillance.  They lied.

After receiving the leak the Times then sent a FOIA request for a legal copy of the FISA application which they already possessed unlawfully.  This was an attempt to diffuse their illegal possession of the same, albeit unredacted, document.

Everything is disconnected, until someone connects it.

Adam Waldman (left), Oleg Deripaska (right)

 

“Walk Toward The Fire”…


Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about what they call you. All those things are said against you because they want to stop you in your tracks. But if you keep going, you’re sending a message to people who are rooting for you, who are agreeing with you. The message is that they can do it, too.”

Andrew Breitbart

Supreme Court Blocks and Punts on Trump Financial Records Cases…


Apparently stall tactics are all the rage amid a political judiciary that is collapsing from a quickly metastasizing cancer inside the third branch of government.

Today the Supreme court blocked in part, and punted in part, on three cases related to the resistance effort to gain the private financial records of President Trump.  The bottom line is that none of the decisions today will likely be resolved before the November election.

♦ In the Trump -v- Vance case, a subpoena by a Manhattan district attorney, the justices (by a vote of 7-2) rejected the president’s claim that he is immune from state grand jury proceedings while he is in office. However, the decision in that case does not mean  financial records the grand jury seeks will be turned over.  As Amy Howe notes: “the court sent the case back to the trial court and agreed that the president could still argue that complying with this subpoena would interfere with his ability to do his job.”

This was the case outcome that likely frustrated President Trump the most because it forces him to continue fighting, and spending, against Lawfare resistance activists in state courts as accusations are brought by politically motivated state prosecutors.

♦ In the Trump -v- Mazars case, which is a combination of two rolled-up cases combining different legislative efforts (congressional subpoenas) to gain Trump’s financial records, the justices (again 7-2) sent the combined cases back to lower courts after highlighting that legislative subpoenas must be made for a “valid legislative purpose” not for law enforcement.  This aspect is based on the clear separation of powers in the constitution.

We anticipated this ruling in the Trump -v- Mazars case because it was clear the efforts of the House were fishing expeditions.  Despite initiating an impeachment effort in order to bolster their attempt; and then attempting to backdoor the congressional subpoenas under the guise of the impeachment effort; the Supreme Court rejected that approach.

SCOTUS BLOG – […] Having found both sides’ proposed tests wanting, Roberts outlined a middle ground for the lower courts in these cases, as well as other courts going forward, to follow. Courts, Roberts instructed, should “perform a careful analysis that takes adequate account of the separation of powers principles at stake, including both the significant legislative interests of Congress and the ‘unique position’ of the President.”

Among other things, courts should consider whether the president’s papers are really necessary (because the information cannot be obtained elsewhere); whether the subpoena is as limited in scope as it can be while still serving Congress’ purpose; what evidence Congress has offered to “establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative purpose”; and what burdens a subpoena imposes on the president. Because the lower courts did not adequately consider these “special concerns,” Roberts explained, the cases will now return to those courts for additional proceedings. (more)

Trump -v- Vance (Manhattan case) decision:

.

Trump -v- Mazars (legislative case) decision:

.

 

Judge Sullivan Digs In – Asks DC Circuit for a Full Panel Rehearing (en banc) on Dismissal of Flynn Case…


Judge Emmet Sullivan is refusing to accept the three-judge appeals court ruling – which granted a writ of mandamus and instructed Sullivan to dismiss the Flynn case per the DOJ and Flynn defense unopposed motion. Today Judge Sullivan is asking the Full DC Circuit Court panel to conduct an en banc rehearing of the issues. [pdf here]

There is no guarantee the full DC Circuit will agree to the en banc request. However, given the nature of the court, it should be anticipated. What really appears to be the undiscussed background is an effort to keep dragging this issue out as long as possible. This is beyond judicial activism running amok, we have now entered the realm of judicial weaponization.

The Lawfare resistance was strongly advocating for this judicial approach. However, what we can infer from the need for Sullivan to trigger the en banc request is that no individual circuit court judge was going to do it independently (sua sponte) which was an option.

It appears Sullivan waited to see if one of them would; then, after a period of time where he identified no circuit judge would independently put himself/herself into the spotlight, Sullivan makes the en banc request himself.  The panel will likely accept the request.

Sullivan’s en banc petition essentially says his requests to have an outside amicus brief the court -on all the reasons not to accept the unopposed motion to dismiss- as commonplace; and he decries the DC appeals court mandamus decision as “a dramatic break from precedent that threatens the orderly administration of justice.”  [I think he’s stalling.]

Here’s the full filing outlining the position of Judge Sullivan:

.

President Trump Remarks Introducing Hispanic Prosperity Initiative – Executive Order – 3:30pm ET Livestream…


Following his roundtable discussion with Hispanic American business and government leaders, President Trump will issue an Executive Order on the Hispanic Prosperity Initiative during a rose garden briefing. Anticipated start time 3:30pm.

WH Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream – Fox Business Livestream

.

.

Kayleigh McEnany White House Briefing – 1:30pm Livestream


White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany holds a press briefing with the WH pool from the Brady room. Anticipated start time 1:30pm ET

White House Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream – Fox Business Livestream

.

.

Mexican President Lopez-Obrador Strongly Supports President Trump’s Economic Nationalism…


When the broad outlines of the U.S-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement first appeared, we said it seemed clear presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez-Obrador (AMLO) was aligned with the economic nationalism preferred by U.S. President Trump.

Yesterday that alignment was on full display as AMLO delivered a very strong endorsement for the respectful agreement between the two nations.  Unfortunately, the U.S. media will never report on these words of praise by President Lopez Obrador.

Transcript […] I also wanted to be here to thank people of the United States, its government, and thank you, President Trump for being increasingly respectful with our Mexican fellow men.

And to you, President Trump, I want to thank you for your understanding and the help you’ve given us in issues related to trade, commerce, oil, as well as your personal support for the acquisition of medical equipment that we needed urgently to treat our patients of COVID-19.

But what I mainly appreciate is that you have never sought to impose anything on us violating our sovereignty. Instead of the Monroe Doctrine, you have followed, in our case, the wise advice of the lustrous and prudent President George Washington who said, quote, “Nations should not take advantage of the unfortunate condition of other peoples.” End of quote.

You have not tried to treat us as a colony; on the contrary, you have honored our condition as an independent nation. That’s why I’m here to express to the people of the United States that their President has behaved with us with kindness and respect. You have treated us just as what we are: a country and a dignified people; a free, democratic, and sovereign people.

Long live the friendship of our two nations. Long live the United States of America. Long live Canada. Long live our America. Long live Mexico. Long live Mexico. Viva México.

[Transcript]

The USMCA rules-of-origin, in combination with mandated minimum wage rates attached to the manufacturing sector; and the fact that Mexico has the lowest current wage rates in North American; specifically means that Mexican workers stand to get the biggest financial benefits… and that’s ok. Trump, Lighthizer and Ross designed it that way.

The U.S. benefits when the Mexican wage rates are raised. Heck, there was a time in the early negotiations, after Canada was kicked out of the room, when Secretary Wilbur Ross was advocating for an $11/hr minimum wage in Mexico, and the Mexicans were like ‘whoa, wait a minute, too high, too high’… [It was quite funny, because Trump was being called racist simultaneous to him trying to give a $85/day pay raise to Mexicans (from $3/day)].

The USMCA deal positions Mexico to retain their current multinational investments; and through a series of sector-by-sector standards on origination the deal simultaneously closes the fatal NAFTA loophole.

The agreement makes an economic manufacturing partnership between the U.S. and Mexico; and for assembly products third parties will have to produce parts and origination material within the U.S. and Mexico.

Here’s a good example in the auto-sector.  The new USMCA agreement requires 75% of automobile parts made in North America; and 45% must come from plants with minimum labor costs ($16/hr), or face tariffs upon export to the U.S.  Additionally, the total source-origination rate of 75% USMCA product is higher than everyone thought possible.

This 75% country-of-origin level was possible because President Trump cut out the corporations (ie. U.S. Chamber of Commerce) from having any influence over the agreement.  Most people probably don’t know, but the USMCA was the first trade deal negotiated without multinational corporations in the room.

Example of downstream consequences/benefits: German auto-maker BMW recently built a $2 billion assembly plant in Mexico (just came on-line).  Most of their core parts were coming from the EU (steel/aluminum casting components) and/or Asia (electronics). Now the assembly plant will have to source 75% of the auto-parts from the U.S. and Mexico, with 45% of those parts from facilities paying $16/hr.  The Result: BMW will need to modify their supply chain and build auto parts in the U.S. and Mexico. [That’s Exactly What Happened]

One of the reasons President Trump is able to take this approach is specifically because he is beholden to no outside influence himself. It is only from the position of complete independence that accurate assignments based on the underlying truth can be made; and that takes us to the ultimate confrontations – the trillion dollar confrontations.

A U.S. foreign policy that provides the opportunity for fully-realized national authenticity is a paradigm shift amid a world that has grown accustomed to corrupt globalists, bankers and financial elites who have established a business model by dictating terms to national leaders they control and influence. We have our own frame of reference with K-Street lobbyists in Washington DC. Much of President Trump’s global trade reset is based on confronting these multinational influence agents.

When you take the influence of corporate/financial brokers out of foreign policy, all of a sudden those global influence peddlers are worthless. Absent of their ability to provide any benefit, nations no longer purchase these brokered services.

As soon as influence brokers are dispatched, national politicians become accountable to the voices of their citizens. When representing the voices of citizens becomes the primary political driver of national policy, the authentic image of the nation is allowed to surface.

The restructuring of NAFTA into the USMCA disfavors multinational corporations and financial holdings who have exploited structural loopholes that were designed into the original agreement.

With President Trump confronting the NAFTA fatal flaw, and absent of the ability of corporations to influence the direction of the administration, the trade deal ultimately presents the same outcome for Mexico as it does the EU – LESS DOLLARS.

However, in Mexico, the larger systems of government are not as strongly structured to withstand the withdrawal of billions of U.S. dollars. The government of Mexico is not in the same position as the EU and cannot double-down on more oppressive controls. Therefore the authentic voice of the Mexican people is rising.

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO), is a nationalist but he is not a free-market capitalist. AMLO is more akin to soft-socialist approach with a view that when the central governing authority is constrained, and operates in the best interests of its citizens, equity can be achieved.

The fabric of socialism runs naturally through the DNA strain of Mexico, and indeed much of South America. This is one of the reasons why previous Mexican governments were so corrupt. Multinational corporations always find it easier to exploit socialist minded government officials.

When bribery and graft are the natural way of business engagement, the multinationals will exploit every opportunity to maximize profit. Withdraw the benefit (loophole exploitation) to the financial systems, and the bribery and graft dries up quickly. A bottom-up nationalist like AMLO, is the ultimate beneficiary.

The authentic-sense of the Mexican people, rises in the persona of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador – who actually does personify the underlying nature of the classic Mexican class-struggle.

Ghislaine Spins The Wheel of Death


Ghislaine will “never” be allowed to “Tell” us who she and Epstein had as Customers in their pedophile club.

Joe Biden has a problem and it’s not just his dementia. Ghislaine Maxwell could spill the beans on a great many Democrats as well as on a legion of left-leaning celebrities who support Joe. More scuffing added to Joe’s already tarnished image won’t help his presidential chances. Joe has long been seen as a pedophile that likes to grope children in public. One would think Joe would be aware of this negative public perception and refrain from such pawing, but he just can’t help himself and that’s a very bad sign.

Joe may look a little like the retired game show host Bob Barker, but he lacks Bob’s grace, character, and quick wit. Joe Biden is a disaster on wheels and Maxwell’s testimony will only make him look worse. Joe is the pick of the powerful elite, so Ghislaine (pronounced Gee-lane with a hard g) has to be worried. We all know what happened to her best friend Jeffrey Epstein. The elite running the world still don’t want to risk outright exposure. Even though many of us already know they are satanic fiends and pedophiles, they won’t hesitate to snuff people out to keep their kabuki theaters and Potemkin Villages moving along. Remember Epstein’s multi-millionaire pal Steve Bing? Some of Bing’s friends urged him to tell the world what he knew about Epstein and the pedophile ring. He ended up getting tossed from his high-rise luxury apartment. The elite-owned mass media dutifully called it a “suicide.” Yeah. Sure.

As I’ve mentioned before, sociopaths such as Epstein and Maxwell don’t kill themselves because they feel no guilt. In their minds they’ve done nothing wrong and they love themselves too much to commit suicide. However, their powerful overlords are even more sociopathic and won’t hesitate to pull the plug. Again.

Big wheels keep on turning.

—Ben Garrison

Latest Progressive Anti-Israel Campaign in Congress


The false “annexation” narrative is being weaponized by Israel’s enemies in the United States and abroad

Joseph A. Klein, CFP United Nations Columnist image

Re–posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesJuly 8, 2020

Latest Progressive Anti-Israel Campaign in Congress

With the wind at her back following her recent primary victory, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is taking the lead in challenging Israel’s possible extension of sovereignty over certain areas within the West Bank. She authored a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warning that any move by Israel to extend its sovereignty into such areas would jeopardize continued U.S. military aid to the Jewish state. Senator Bernie Sanders signed AOC’s letter along with 11 other Democrat House members, including AOC’s fellow “Squad” members Reps. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley. Anti-Semitic organizations that back the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) against Israel are also in AOC’s corner.

AOC’s reckless restrictions

“Should the Israeli government continue down this path,” AOC’s letter warns, “we will work to ensure non-recognition of annexed territories as well as pursue legislation that conditions the $3.8 billion in U.S. military funding to Israel to ensure that U.S. taxpayers are not supporting annexation in any way. We will include human rights conditions and the withholding of funds for the offshore procurement of Israeli weapons equal to or exceeding the amount the Israeli government spends annually to fund settlements, as well as the policies and practices that sustain and enable them.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not taken a public position one way or the other on whether she would back legislation advancing AOC’s threat to cut off U.S. military aid to Israel. In any case, if legislation containing AOC’s reckless restrictions were to somehow reach President Trump’s desk, he would surely veto it. However, if Joe Biden is elected this November to replace President Trump and the Democrats end up controlling both the House and Senate, the legislation may well gain momentum and have a much better chance of passage. Biden will then likely sign it.

AOC asserts in her letter that “Israeli annexation of the West Bank is a clear violation of international law.” She added, “Annexation is prohibited by and is a prohibited act of aggression under Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a party.”

The United Nations and most of its member states, including Western European countries, agree with AOC’s simplistic assertions. But just declaring that an action violates “international law” does not make it so, no matter how many times the assertion is repeated. Even the word “annexation,” when used to describe what Israel may decide to do after further internal discussions, is misplaced. The outgoing Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, has used the more accurate phrase “applying sovereignty” to territory where the Jewish people have historical legal claims of their own that are superior to the Palestinians. The West Bank (or Judea and Samaria as Israelis prefer to refer to this territory) does not belong legally to the Palestinians and never has.

PLO declared that the “avowed aim of the organization was to blot out the State of Israel”

International treaties preceding the formation of the UN are still recognized by the UN Charter. This included the 1920 San Remo Conference, which assigned the Mandate for Palestine to the British following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. This Mandate included what is now known as the West Bank within a future homeland envisioned for the Jewish people. This means, as the outgoing Israeli UN Ambassador Danon observed, “the cause for a Jewish state became part of international law,” which carried over to the United Nations. The Palestinian leadership and their enablers reject these historical underpinnings of Israel’s claims, not to mention the Jewish people’s ancient roots in the holy land of Israel.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to look past all this history, the so-called “Arab Higher Committee” forfeited, on the Palestinians’ behalf, the immediate legal recognition of a new independent Arab state for the Palestinians when the Committee rejected the allocation of partitioned land for such new state under the UN General Assembly’s November 1947 Resolution 181. The Palestinian leadership chose instead to join the armies of their neighboring Arab states in an aggressive war to destroy the newly independent Jewish State of Israel that had been established in compliance with Resolution 181. That war ended in an armistice, with Jordan illegally seizing the West Bank during the 1948-49 war, which it occupied illegally for 19 years.

Between 1948 and 1967, there was no attempt to establish an independent sovereign Palestinian state within the seized Jordanian-controlled territory. In fact, the 1964 National Covenant of the Palestine Liberation Organization stated the opposite: “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.” The PLO declared that the “avowed aim of the organization was to blot out the State of Israel.”

During the 1967 Six Day War, Jordan launched an aggressive attack on Israel. Israel defended itself, which it had the legal right to do under international law, including pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter. To help ensure its future defense against further acts of aggression, Israel took over control of Jordan’s illegally seized lands in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Palestinian terrorism against Israel existed prior to the beginning of Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza in 1967

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”  (emphasis added) Jordan violated Article 2(4) with its illegal seizure and occupation of the West Bank and its attack, 19 years later, upon pre-June 1967 Israel. The collection of Palestinian people living in the West Bank and Gaza did not constitute a legally recognizable “state” in 1967. Persons of Palestinian origin were granted Jordanian citizenship after 1948, which remained the case until at least 1988. When Israel became the only sovereign UN member state in control of any lands in the West Bank after its victory against Jordanian aggression in 1967, Israel had not taken one iota of land belonging legally to any other independent sovereign state.

UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was adopted on November 22, 1967, remains in effect today. Resolution 242 contemplated negotiations amongst the parties to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the assistance of a UN Special Representative, based on the principle of “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

While Resolution 242 called for the withdrawal of “Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” it pointedly did not demand complete withdrawal from all such territories. Israel has demonstrated on repeated occasions its willingness to negotiate a genuine “peace for land” exchange with the Palestinians. However, Palestinian leaders have rejected successive offers of land for peace, including one in 2008 under which Israel would have withdrawn from virtually all of the West Bank and partitioned Jerusalem on a demographic basis.

Palestinian terrorism against Israel existed prior to the beginning of Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. Since 1967, the Palestinians have continued their acts of terrorism against Israelis living within the lines of pre-June 1967 Israel, aided and abetted by the Iranian regime. The number of cross-border operations reached almost 1,500 in 1968, before there were any extensive Israeli settlements, barriers or checkpoints. After Israel unilaterally withdrew its military personnel and Jewish settlers from Gaza in 2005 and gave the Palestinians a chance to create a completely self-governing entity of their own, Hamas ended up taking control. The terrorists used Gaza as their launching pad for rocket attacks and other terrorist assaults against civilians living inside Israel. Palestinian terrorists also snuck into Israeli cities from the West Bank, conducting suicide bombings, vehicular attacks, shootings and knifings.

The false “annexation” narrative is being weaponized by Israel’s enemies in the United States and abroad

Thus, Israel is fully justified in believing that its “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force,” as promised by Resolution 242, would be impossible to realize if it were to revert to the pre-June 1967 lines. The Palestinians’ continued refusal to engage in direct negotiations over the final disposition of border issues leaves Israel no choice but to consider applying formal sovereignty over areas within the West Bank it considers necessary for its defense and to protect Jewish residents living in those areas.

Subsequent UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions purported to impose upon Israel a so-called internationally recognized “border” with an independent Palestinian state based on the pre-June 1967 lines (unless the Palestinians voluntarily agree to make any adjustments). The resolutions also purported to declare East Jerusalem (including Jewish holy sites in the Old City) as the capital of the Palestinian state. The West Bank is not one of the UN-administered trusteeship territories. Nothing in the UN Charter, established international law, or the foundational Security Council Resolution 242 provide any legal authority for such arbitrary drawing of borders by unaccountable UN bodies.

“With history and international law on its side, and given the Palestinians continued unwillingness to negotiate with and recognize Israel as a Jewish state,” outgoing Israeli UN Ambassador Danon declared, “Israel’s government will begin the internal discussion of how to apply sovereignty to our most ancient lands in Judea and Samaria. Those who decry it as ‘annexation’ are doing nothing more than appeasing the Palestinian narrative and making peace ever more elusive. This puts them, to use their words, on the wrong side of history.”

The false “annexation” narrative is being weaponized by Israel’s enemies in the United States and abroad. But Ambassador Danon has indicated that Israel will not yield to outside threats regarding its sovereignty decisions. We can only hope that the traditional bipartisan support for Israel in Congress will not significantly erode, even as friends of Israel such as long-time Congressman Eliot Engel lose to anti-Israel progressives and AOC exerts greater influence as a result.