There's a major asterisk next to this one because William Arkin had <a href="https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1557464955602890753">formerly claimed</a> at Newsweek that his sources told him AG Garland hadn't approved the Mar-a-Lago raid.


	And plenty of people got burned by that.


	This story claims that the FBI raid <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-sought-documents-trump-hoarded-years-including-about-russiagate-1734280">targeted </a>specific documents.

<blockquote>
	
		"The&nbsp;FBI&nbsp;raid on Mar-a-Lago last Monday was specifically intended to recover&nbsp;Donald Trump's personal "stash" of hidden documents, two high-level U.S. intelligence officials tell&nbsp;Newsweek.

	
		To justify the unprecedented raid on a former president's residence and protect the source who revealed the existence of Trump's private hoard, agents went into Trump's residence on the pretext that they were seeking&nbsp;all&nbsp;government documents, says one official who has been involved in the investigation. But the true target was this private stash, which Justice Department officials feared Donald Trump might weaponize."
</blockquote>


	According to Arkin, these documents involved Russiagate.

<blockquote>
	
		"The sought-after documents deal with a variety of intelligence matters of interest to the former president, the officials suggest—including material that Trump apparently thought would exonerate him of any claims of Russian collusion in 2016 or any other election-related charges."

	
		"Trump was particularly interested in matters related to the Russia hoax and the wrong-doings of the deep state," one former Trump official tells&nbsp;Newsweek. "I think he felt, and I agree, that these are facts that the American people need to know." The official says Trump may have been planning to use them as part of a 2024 run for the presidency.
</blockquote>


	Is it true? Who knows. Arkin's sources were wrong about Garland. And that's a very basic thing. But it would provide a certain motive power for the controversy. It would explain why Trump wanted certain documents and why the Biden administration might want to seize them.


	Of course just because something sounds plausible, doesn't mean that it's actually true.

Did FBI Raid Seek "Exonerating" Russiagate Materials?

There's a major asterisk next to this one because William Arkin had formerly claimed at Newsweek that his sources told him AG Garland hadn't approved the Mar-a

Did FBI Raid Seek "Exonerating" Russiagate Materials?

The engine of Holocaust denial is a desire to kill Jews. Otherwise why bother?


	There's a fringe of conspirazoids, the sorts of people who believe that the moon landing was faked,&nbsp;that UFOs can be found in your backyard, and that 9/11 was carried out by the NYPD, and that Bigfoot killed JFK who are attracted to Holocaust denial among the many other conspiracy theory options.&nbsp;But the big leagues of Holocaust denials are associated with Nazism and Communism because they both specialized in the extermination of Jews.


	The "Palestinian" cause is a toxic inbreeding of Nazis and Communists.


	The Muslim Brotherhood, key players in the Arab Revolt, got a lot of their techniques from the Nazis. And the Nazi influence was felt most strongly in Egypt. But the "Palestinian" cause was manufactured by the Soviet Union.


	Mahmoud Abbas, the current dictator-for-life of the PLO, got his <a href="https://www.jpost.com/opinion/abbass-untranslated-book-480751">Holocaust denial training</a> from the USSR. Abbas wrote it as a "student" in the Soviet Union as part of the&nbsp;Palestinian-Soviet Friendship Foundation which was itself <a href="http://www.thetower.org/article/how-holocaust-denial-shaped-mahmoud-abbas-worldview/">crossbred with Nazi propagand</a>a.

<blockquote>
	
		&nbsp;PA President Mahmoud Abbas is profoundly fascinated by Nazi propaganda and has employed it in his own writings, particularly in his doctoral dissertation on the subject of the Holocaust, “The Other Face: The Secret Connections Between Nazism and the Leadership of the Zionist Movement,” which he wrote in Moscow in 1982. Two years later, Abbas published a book based on his dissertation. It is written in Arabic and, tellingly, has never been translated into any other language.

	
		There is a reason for this: The book is inspired by and based on the work of Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Holocaust. While he was a fugitive in Argentina, Eichmann formulated and disseminated Nazi propaganda according to which the Holocaust was a Jewish-Nazi conspiracy that sacrificed Jewish lives in order to create a Jewish state in Palestine.&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	So what did the Germans really expect when they invited the head of a terror group responsible for the <a href="https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-714943">Munich Massacr</a>e?

<blockquote>
	
		At a news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin, Abbas was asked by a reporter whether he plans to apologize to Israel and Germany for the 1972 Munich massacre, ahead of its 50th anniversary. Eleven members of the Israeli delegation and a German police officer were murdered after members of the Palestinian terrorist group Black September, which was linked to&nbsp;Abbas’s Fatah party, took hostages at the Olympic Village on September 5, 1972.&nbsp;

	
		“If we want to go over the past, go ahead,” Abbas responded in Arabic. “I have 50 slaughters that Israel committed... 50 massacres, 50 slaughters, 50 holocausts,” saying the last word in English.

	
		While Scholz could be seen wincing at Abbas’s Holocaust reference, he did not immediately rebuke the Palestinian president, although he had earlier rejected his use of the word “apartheid” to describe Israeli policies.
</blockquote>


	Scholtz has since tepidly condemned Abbas' Holocaust denial.


	The debate about Holocaust denial is less important than the motive for it. Abbas responded to his role in the massacre of Jews with Holocaust denial. That's typical. It's the essence of the purpose that Holocaust denial is meant to serve.


	The "Palestinian" cause is about finishing the work that the Nazis began. It's why Hitler is so widely admired in the Palestinian Authority. "Palestinian" Holocaust denial, like most kinds, is about paving the way for justifying the future murder of Jews.

Abbas' Holocaust Denial Tour Hits Germany

The engine of Holocaust denial is a desire to kill Jews. Otherwise why bother?


	There's a fringe of conspirazoids, the sorts of people who believe that

Abbas' Holocaust Denial Tour Hits Germany

Here's the JTA&nbsp;very <a href="https://www.jta.org/2022/08/16/united-states/texas-school-district-orders-librarians-to-remove-a-version-of-anne-franks-diary-from-shelves">deliberately</a> pushing its political agenda of getting sexualized books to kids.

<blockquote>
	
		A school district in suburban Fort Worth, Texas, has ordered its librarians to remove an illustrated adaptation of “The Diary of Anne Frank” from their shelves and digital libraries, along with the Bible and dozens of other books that were challenged by parents last year...

	
		“Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation,”&nbsp;by Israeli filmmaker Ari Folman and illustrator David Polonsky, is a 2019 illustrated adaptation of the bestselling diary by the teenage Holocaust victim.&nbsp;The New York Times called the book&nbsp;“so engaging and effective that it’s easy to imagine it replacing the [original] ‘Diary’ in classrooms and among younger readers.”&nbsp;

	
		The parental challenge against the book came in February, and the district initially dismissed it, Hawes said. Hawes, who is not Jewish, is on a list of parents who can be called in to serve on a committee to review book challenges.

	
		“When we got ‘The Diary of Anne Frank,’ we thought, ‘This is a joke.’ But it wasn’t,” Hawes said, adding that the complaint was that “the book shouldn’t be read without parent supervision.” She suspected that the parent may have objected to the unabridged diary’s references to female genitalia,&nbsp;same-sex attraction&nbsp;and&nbsp;other sexual matters, which&nbsp;have been deemed “pornographic” by parental challenges in the past. But she couldn’t be sure because the parent who challenged the book didn’t show up to the meeting.
</blockquote>


	This is not Anne Frank's diary.


	This is a comic book based on a version of the diary that neither Anne nor her father wanted published.


	I've written about the abuse of Anne Frank's legacy multiple times. There's the famous play that eliminated her Jewishness. There's also the 'unabridged' diary. This is material that Frank wrote when she was younger that she then got rid of. Her father respectfully edited the diary when he fulfilled her wish to have it published. After his death, the "unabridged" diary containing sexual materials that neither the dead girl nor her father wanted to publish was gleefully put out there.


	The material that parents objected to in&nbsp;“Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation”, even assuming it's true to the unabridged version (I have no idea if it is) was also the material that Anne's older self censored and that her father got rid of. It doesn't belong in schools and shouldn't be in public view. It's an insult to her memory.


	Not everything people write as 13-year-olds should be out there. Nor should they be forced to live with it after death.&nbsp;


	The publishing interests pushing this claim that they have some moral right to dig up and publish material that Anne did not want out there for the "greater good".


	Getting it out of libraries and out of publication is a very good thing because it's effectively stolen material that was never meant for publication. It's no different than publishing sexual materials or photos of any other deceased person&nbsp;that they would have not wanted in the public realm.&nbsp;


	Exploiting the Holocaust to push a sexual agenda in schools is despicable. And using stolen writings from a murdered Jewish girl to do so is equally so.


	Anne Frank deserves better. So do our children.

This Version of Anne Frank's Diary Should Be Removed From Libraries

Here's the JTA&nbsp;very deliberately pushing its political agenda of getting sexualized books to kids.


	
		A school district in suburban Fort Worth,

This Version of Anne Frank's Diary Should Be Removed From Libraries

NY Gov Hochul Won't Lock Up Criminals, Will Ban Toy Guns

Toy guns don't kill people, violent criminals who aren't locked up kill people.


	But New York's Governor Hochul has made it clear that, along with

NY Gov Hochul Won't Lock Up Criminals, Will Ban Toy Guns

I remember the controversy over dropping Truth, Justice and the American Way. But that was just the beginning.


	This story involves Spider Man: Remastered, a game for Sony video game consoles that recently came to the personal computer. PCs have a vibrant modding community, much of which is based around a site known as 'Nexus'. While the game's fictional depiction of New York City contained the inevitable 'Pride' flags, a&nbsp;'modder' on that site reportedly figured out how to trigger an alternate graphic used in Muslim countries that would get rid of the flag. And he replaced the Pride flags with American flags.


	Anyone downloading the 'mod' would be able to replace all the 'Pride' flags with the Stars and Stripes.&nbsp;


	Since Spider Man: Remastered is a single-player game, it's an individual choice and nothing they did would have any impact on anyone else playing the game.


	Despite hosting a variety of violent and sexual mods,&nbsp;Nexus, the modding site, responded by banning the 'modder' declaring that sort of thing isn't welcome here. The ban however has only made the mod <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/woup7g/nexus_mods_removes_spiderman_mod_that_replaces/">more popular </a>and it's being distributed across a variety of sites.


	While it's been a while since Gamergate hit the scene, the struggle between the social justice elites and gamers has never actually gone away. Gaming journalism has become much less relevant since, but at the same time corporate wokeness has become more rigidly policed.&nbsp;


	And the one thing you can't do in even the most violent games, as Rockstar's GTA 6 series and its studios are reportedly being remade to be sensitive and politically correct, is be proud of being an American.

Pride Flags, Yes, American Flags, No in Spiderman Game

I remember the controversy over dropping Truth, Justice and the American Way. But that was just the beginning.


	This story involves Spider Man: Remastered

Pride Flags, Yes, American Flags, No in Spiderman Game

In announcing California’s stay-at-home order on March 19th, Governor Gavin Newsom declared “there’s a social contract here.” At a Coronavirus press conference in March, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo stated, “I rely on you, you rely on me… [t]hat’s the social contract between us, I have a right to expect that from you, especially in dire circumstances.” An April 20 New York Times opinion article written by former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner David A. Kessler declared, “we need a new social contract for the Coronavirus.”


	Indeed, one of the more terrifying things to come out of the Coronavirus Pandemic of 2020 is not the virus itself, but the plethora of officials and ordinary citizens citing “Social Contract Theory” as a justification for the various so-called “stay-at-home orders” imposed in one form or another across our nation, many of which imposed draconian restrictions on our basic civil liberties. Don’t buy it. Unless someone is referring to the Constitution of the United States, or a state constitution, no such “social contract” exists. Nor should you want there to be one.


	Social Contract Theory is an antiquated philosophy popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries making the rounds again today, primarily among authoritarian Socialist Democrat types that also believe in a living, breathing Constitution, and for the same reason: both the “social contract” and the “living Constitution” mean nothing except what those people want them to mean at the moment they want them to mean something.


	Under Social Contract Theory, the “social contract” is essentially an implicit agreement among members of society to cooperate for social benefits; for example, sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. It’s an appealing venture: let’s work together as a society for the benefit of all. But as a licensed, practicing attorney well-versed in contract law, I’m here to tell you it’s only an illusory promise (which is lawyer-speak for an unenforceable agreement all but guaranteed to end in litigation). Why? Because, as with the “living Constitution,” the “social contract” is ambiguous and arbitrary. The “social contract” does not make clear what our rights are under it, nor does the “social contract” make clear what our obligations are under it.


	And who decides what social benefits are desired or what rights and protections must be sacrificed to achieve those social benefits? Not you nor I, not even society. The “social contract” means whatever the authorities with power citing the “social contract” want it to mean. That’s no contract; that’s a recipe for tyranny and abuse of power.


	That’s not hyperbole. Under the guise of the “social contract,” in the last two months of the stay-at-home orders, we’ve witnessed actual tyranny in the form of a beachgoer arrested for the crime of paddle-boarding, a mother slammed to the ground by police and handcuffed for the crime of walking her child while not wearing a mask in public, and a salon owner fined for the crime of cutting someone’s hair. That’s real tyranny, not imagined.


	Even worse, the people with power may not even be elected officials; they may be an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy, such as in the case of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, which unilaterally decided using taxpayer dollars to provide homeless people with hotels, alcohol, and drugs was somehow part of the “social contract” to deal with the Coronavirus. Or like the California Judicial Council that unilaterally ordered zero bail for misdemeanor and low-level felonies because apparently the “social contract” requires no bail for most crimes during virus pandemics. Or any number of state courts or judges that ordered the release of violent criminals and sexual predators because the “social contract” requires we do that, or something.&nbsp;


	If we allow our federal, state, or local governments to continue citing the “social contract” as justifications for their actions, it won’t end well. Ever notice how whenever politicians want to take action on an issue, they frame it as a crisis or an epidemic? The “climate change crisis,” the “gun violence epidemic,” the “opioid epidemic,” the “homeless crisis” are just a few that come to mind. Phrasing problems as crises or epidemics is no accident; that language is intended to scare you into thinking the problems described are dire and require immediate action which is justified under the “social contract” even if proposed solutions infringe on your rights. Sorry, no more fossil fuel-powered vehicles, but don’t worry, it’s part of the “social contract.” I know you want guns, but it doesn’t matter what the Second Amendment says, you have to sacrifice your individual liberties because it’s best for society (according to me) under the “social contract.” It doesn’t matter that the First Amendment protects free speech, if you call that man who thinks he’s a woman a man, you’ll be punished for hate speech because the “social contract” requires us not to offend each other. What's that? Hate speech laws are offensive to you? Sorry, but you don’t decide what the “social contract” is, we do.


	The Constitution doesn’t have those problems. The first ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, clearly articulate what our individual rights are. Articles 1-3 clearly state what powers are granted to the federal government. Every other power belongs to the state governments. It’s all right there, expressed for everyone to see. Sure, no one alive today signed the Constitution, but no one alive today signed the “social contract” either. And unlike the “social contract,” if someone wants to change the Constitution, there’s an amendment process for that which we participate in directly, or indirectly through our elected representatives. Not so much for the “social contract,” which can be changed on a whim by the authority citing the “social contract.”


	So the next time someone tells you we have to take action because it’s part of the “social contract,” tell them the only contracts you abide by, and that you expect them to abide by, are the U.S. and state constitutions.


	Darrell J. Greenwald, Esq. is a freelance writer focused on political, legal and current events. He has a Juris Doctor (J.D.) and Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Entertainment &amp; Media Law from the Fowler School of Law at Chapman University. Prior to attending law school, Darrell served as a forward observer and infantryman in the U.S. Marine Corps. You can reach Darrell on Twitter at @DGreenwaldEsq.


	* * *


	<a href="https://www.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000681952/">Photo credit: James Borland of U.S. Air Force</a>

The Only Social Contract is the Constitution

In announcing California’s stay-at-home order on March 19th, Governor Gavin Newsom declared “there’s a social contract here.” At a Coronavirus press conference

Frontpage Mag

darrell greenwald

The Only Social Contract is the Constitution

FPM Series

Disloyal Military

Progressive Fascists

Racist Mayors

The Point

Did FBI Raid Seek "Exonerating" Russiagate Materials?

Abbas' Holocaust Denial Tour Hits Germany

This Version of Anne Frank's Diary Should Be Removed From Libraries

NY Gov Hochul Won't Lock Up Criminals, Will Ban Toy Guns

Pride Flags, Yes, American Flags, No in Spiderman Game

Events