RSS Feed
November 10th, 2023 
Awake Goy House Judiciary Committee Priorities
Renee Parsons
During a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing entitled Free Speech on College Campuses, ” the inescapable question arose about why the Committee was neglecting far more essential national predicaments than the whimpering of three college students kvetching about hurt feelings that may impact 2% of the US population.
Committee Chair Jim Jordan showed a brief video that outlined on-campus censorship, the heckling of conservatives that coincidentally included anti-semitism on campus. Turns out that the true topic of the hearing was more directly focused on the “rise in antisemitism, anti-Israel sentiment, and violence towards students supporting Israel.”
This is not to suggest that harassment or threats or violations of the First Amendment are ever acceptable except that sometimes we all just have to live with disagreement, accept differences of opinion and get on with life.
Jordan spoke from notes since there was no prepared testimony and introduced the topic citing ‘hostility to conservative points of view has only grown worse’ until it became clear he was really referring to:
“with safe spaces and free speech zones aimed to protect students from violence, one would think Jewish students would have somewhere to turn as violent pro Hamas students take to their demonstrations and have harmed students on college campuses. Nearly a 400% increase in anti semitic incidents including harassment, vandalism and assault in attacks in the two weeks after the Hamas attack against Israel.”
In addition, Jordan cited a recently released Committee report regarding “Big Government, Big Academia, Big Tech all colluding to limit American’s First Amendment free speech rights” as if there was some tacit inference connecting anti-semitic rhetoric with American universities and the Federal government attempts at censorship.
As testimony continued, there were no specific examples of ‘violent’ pro Hamas students harming other students. Throughout the hearing, supporters of the Palestinian people momentarily disrupted testimony with “Free Palestine” and “Ceasefire in Gaza” with no reference to anything remotely anti-semitic.
There was a curious, palpable mix of ‘conservative’ ideology with ‘anti semitic’ as if the Republican party is now enthrall with Zionism and college students as AIPAC or ADL fingerprints are all over why this hearing was given such premiere treatment when Judiciary had more pressing topics to address.
Finally, the ‘inherent tension’ found in the majority of testimony as constitutionally-protected speech should satisfy most objections, however, anti-semitism is frequently weaponized as a special caveat for discrimination or as a tool to condone Zionism for unacceptable behavior contrary to how God’s Chosen People would behave.
***
While the Judiciary Committee was tinkering with anti-semitism as a national tribulation, there remains an exceptional Russiagate leftover involving fifty one intel/national security officials who were intent on destroying Trump’s 2020 re-election and is yet awaiting issuance of subpoenas to be resolved by the Judiciary Committee.
One indication of the Democrats unique ability to create shrewd unexpected ploys in their attempt to destroy Trump’s credibility began after the NY Post published a story on October 14 , 2020 revealing the now infamous Hunter Biden’s laptop to an unsuspecting world. The Post reported that Hunter had introduced then vice President Joe Biden to officials at Burisma Energy in Ukraine which led to a series of unsavory revelations about a politically corrupt family which continues to unfold.
Not known at the time was how urgently the Post story elicited an immediate response from the Biden campaign to offset the laptop with creation of an October Surprise. On October 19th an ever-acquiescent Politico released a “Public Statement on Hunter Biden Emails’ signed by fifty one national security-intel officials identifying their impressive background as professional, seasoned veterans of the US national security state swearing their oath that Russia was attempting to influence the 2020 election.
What is especially noteworthy besides the controversial detailed content of the Public Statement is the process and speed by which the Biden response generated a lengthy authoritative composition, circulated and signed by fifty one officials and published a mere five days after the Post story. Republicans could never move like that. Three days later on October 22nd, Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden referred to the Public Statement in a debate with President Donald Trump; thereby sowing the seeds of a compromised Trump in cahoots with Russian President Valdimir Putin and Russian intrusion into the 2020 campaign.
It was not until the Republicans won narrow control of the House in 2022 that the Judiciary Committee was able to proceed posthaste to investigate the origins and identify participants of the Public Statement.
On April 20th, Judiciary Chair Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Mike Turner, Chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken who had been identified, as a Biden campaign official, as instigator of the Public Statement strategy. Jordan/Turner were soliciting documents and naively expecting Blinken’s cooperation in determining his role in the Public Statement which was not forthcoming. Requesting a response to the Committees by May 4th citing that Public Statement events occurred prior to Blinken’s appointment as Secretary of State, there was no response from Blinken.
On May 10, 2023, the Judiciary Committee’s Weaponization of the Federal Government subcommittee and Select Committee on Intelligence published an “interim’ Joint Staff Report update which indicates no final resolution or threat to the intel officials who abused and politicized their positions. The report confirmed that the CIA was also uncooperative and failed to produce requested information.
On May 16, 2023, Jordan/Turner wrote a second letter to CIA Director William Burns regarding documents confirming CIA staff participation in creation and publication of the Public Statement. The letter gave Burns until May 30, 2023 to produce the documents or the Committee may resort to ‘compulsory process.’
On June 12, 2023, Jordan/Turner followed up on the Blinken role with attorney Jonathon Su as Jordan reiterated Blinken’s leadership in creation of the Public Statement and his continued unresponsiveness and refusal to cooperate. In conclusion, the best Jordan/Turner could muster was “We respectfully request that you produce this material as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 26, 2023. The Committees may consider the use of compulsory process if these requests remain outstanding beyond that date.”
On June 26, Jonathon Su responded to Jordan/Turner firmly asserting that as a private citizen at the time, Blinken denied any role in creation of the Public Statement.
As of June 27, Chair Jordan had a bit of a temper tantrum since Blinken continued to ‘deflect’ and warned that “Congress should be ready to use all available options to get to the truth;” presumably referring to issuance of subpoenas or threatening contempt of Congress. That was then and this is now.
***
In what was clearly a domestic disinformation campaign of subversion including official government participation on the politicization of a partisan Presidential campaign, there is a direct bearing, cause and effect, on today’s disastrous disintegration of the country with a lack of administrative leadership, as if a foreign entity unrepresentative of American values and principles had usurped the White House and entire Federal government structure.
It would appear that no ‘compulsory process’ has occurred as all participants in the Public Statement carry no stigma of having crossed a professional, a legal, a Constitutional or an ethical line, adding their names in an obvious partisan effort to influence the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election – but especially, all signatories were aware that they had signed onto a Statement that everyone knew was a lie, a blatant piece of invented propaganda and yet there are no consequences.
With no ‘compulsory process’ ever in the works, clearly a Congressional Committee follow up of a subpoena or Contempt of Congress threat are nothing to be feared as satisfying ‘anti-semitic’ tropes are more essential to a Zionist Congress.
Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, staff in the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC.
Posted in 
Tags: 
