Your 2 hourly digest for Frontpage Mag

Oude Media Nieuwe Media
Frontpage Mag
A project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center 

Leftist Media Fawns Over North Korean Dictator’s Sister

Feb 13th 2018, 05:58, by Joseph Klein

Move over, Oprah Winfrey, the leftist media has found a new heroine to lionize. Her name is Kim Yo-jong, the sister of North Korean “Rocket Man” dictator Kim Jong-un. Kim Yo-jong is her brother’s close adviser and has a lofty title: Deputy Director of the Propaganda and Agitation Department of the Workers’ Party.

The establishment media has been fawning all over the dictator’s sister ever since she arrived at the Winter Olympics in South Korea. In doing so, they have shamelessly assisted the key purpose of her attendance at the Winter Olympics: to drive a wedge in the U.S.-South Korean alliance with her charm offensive. Kim Yo-jong’s soft smiles for the cameras were enough for the media to put on their rose-colored glasses when viewing a propagandist who has helped cover up or rationalize the starvation, executions, torture, militarization and reckless nuclear threats that are the trademarks of her brother’s vicious regime.

Vice President Mike Pence, meanwhile, was present at the opening of the Winter Olympics, making a statement that the United States would not allow North Korea to “hijack the Olympics . . . in terms of optics and messaging.” Though sitting close to Kim Yo-jong, Pence made sure to ignore her.

The Washington Post’s totalitarian romance was on full display, as it ran with the headline: “The ‘Ivanka Trump of North Korea’ captivates people in the South at the Olympics.”  The author referred to Kim Yo-jong as “a political princess” with “a sphinxlike smile who gave nothing away during her three-day Olympic-related visit to South Korea as brother Kim Jong Un’s special envoy.” 

As if it were commenting on a battle of celebrities, the New York Times declared the dictator’s sister the winner of a “game of diplomatic image-making.” The Times‘ article, entitled “Kim Jong-un’s Sister Turns On the Charm, Taking Pence’s Spotlight,” dismissed Vice President Pence’s “old message — that the United States would continue to ratchet up ‘maximum sanctions’ until the North dismantled its nuclear arsenal.” Kim Yo-jong, on the other hand, was reported to be carrying “messages of reconciliation.” No doubt, she crafted her beguiling messages back in her Deputy Director’s office at the Propaganda and Agitation Department of the Workers’ Party before arriving in South Korea.

The Times article quoted “analysts of Korean affairs” who criticized Vice President Pence for missing a valuable opportunity to engage with Kim Jong-un’s sister and her entourage. NPR similarly reported that “Vice President Mike Pence is facing backlash for his staunch efforts to ignore North Korean officials at the Winter Olympic Games, even as the two Koreas continued their temporary truce, marching and competing as one team.”

What do these progressive critics believe Vice President Pence should have said to Kim Yo-jong? Was he supposed to beg her to use her charm to persuade her brother to stop testing any more nukes and intercontinental missiles? If the leftist reporters truly cared about peace and social justice, they would, of course, be pushing for Kim Yo-jong to be asked if she has any message of condolence for Fred and Cindy Warmbier, the parents of the American student who died last year after being imprisoned and tortured by the North Korean regime. Kim Yo-jong could, after all, have easily delivered the message directly to Fred Warmbier herself if given the chance, since Vice President Pence brought Fred Warmbier as his guest to Pyeongchang. But perhaps the North Korean dictator’s sister would have to stop smiling if she found herself standing face-to-face with Mr. Warmbier.

But the leftist media has other priorities. That’s why CNN published a story claiming Kim Yo-jong was “stealing the show at the Winter Olympics.” Apparently, the athletes competing at the Winter Olympics are no longer the star attractions as far as CNN is concerned. Then again, how could figure skating or snowboarding possibly compete with the personage whom CNN, the Washington Post and other media have referred to as “North Korea’s Ivanka Trump”?

CNN’s gushing did not stop there. “If ‘diplomatic dance’ were an event at the Winter Olympics, Kim Jong Un’s younger sister would be favored to win gold,” the network continued. Kim Yo-jong did, after all, invite South Korean President Moon Jae-in to visit North Korea. And who could forget the sugar-coated message she penned in the guest book at the presidential Blue House after meeting South Korea’s president. “I hope Pyongyang and Seoul get closer in our people’s hearts and move forward the future of prosperous unification,” Kim Jong-un’s sister and key propagandist wrote. Not mentioned was that the Kim family’s idea of unification would mean unification on terms dictated by North Korea, backed up by its nuclear arsenal.    

The leftist media’s fawning over North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un’s sister is, of course, nothing new. The progressives’ fellow traveling continues. The Left is always engaged in its malicious and destructive Unholy Alliance with our totalitarian adversaries. And it is also no great departure when it comes to the Olympics. Even in writing about Nazi Germany’s hosting of the Olympic Games in 1936, for instance, the New York Times reported at that time that the Games put Germans “back in the fold of nations,” and even made them “more human again.” Foreign correspondent William Shirer was in a distinct minority of journalists when he lamented in his diary on August 16, 1936 that “I’m afraid the Nazis have succeeded with their propaganda.”

The North Korean regime has just pulled off the same propaganda victory at this year’s Winter Olympics, led by its Deputy Director of the Propaganda and Agitation Department of the Workers’ Party and enabled by the deranged and Trump-hating leftist media.

Vanessa Trump Taken to Hospital After Opening Envelope with Mystery Powder

Feb 13th 2018, 05:10, by Mark Tapson

Vanessa Trump, wife of Donald Trump, Jr. was taken to the hospital earlier today after opening an envelope filled with a suspicious powder, according to ABC News. She was examined at New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell Medical Center as a precaution, where she was tested and released. She and two others were also decontaminated at her apartment before being taken to the hospital.

The envelope was sent from Boston and addressed to Mrs. Trump’s husband, Donald Trump Jr. It included what sources describe as a threatening letter describing Trump Jr. as a terrible person and indicating that the sender was angry.

NYPD spokesman J. Peter Donald said:

“The substance was deemed to be nonhazardous and is being transported to a lab in New York City for further analysis.” 

More specifically, the substance was identified as cornstarch.

The Secret Service also weighed in:

“The Secret Service and our law enforcement partners in New York City are investigating a suspicious package addressed to one of our protectees received today in New York, New York. This is an active investigation and we cannot comment any further.”

The Left, of course, found the targeting of Donald Trump, Jr.’s wife to be nothing more than a setup for jokes or even a right-wing conspiracy. Witness a few of the reactions on Twitter, courtesy of Paul Joseph Watson at InfoWars:

Huffington Post contributor says white powder that hospitalized Donald Trump Jr.’s wife was a cover-up for a coke binge. Totally deranged. pic.twitter.com/E3vrpi6kNg

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) February 12, 2018

 

Resistance dude checking in pic.twitter.com/mxAPgh2QMh

— Scott Greer (@ScottMGreer) February 12, 2018

 

What is wrong with these people? pic.twitter.com/RKTCsuqqFO

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) February 12, 2018

 

Don Jr’s wife sent to the hospital after opening letter w white substance. Here are some leftist hot-takes. pic.twitter.com/6ubCZqhTTH

— Amanda Prestigiacomo (@AmandaPresto) February 12, 2018

 

Lefties already claiming the white powder sent to Trump was a conspiracy. pic.twitter.com/2Jf3mD0SyA

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) February 12, 2018

President Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, said: “How disturbed must a person be to do what they did to a mother of five young children? This dangerous and reckless act goes beyond political differences.”

Indeed it does. Regardless of the harmlessness of the substance, the intent was to terrorize, so the target was Donald Trump Jr.’s home and family. It reveals a murderous hatred at the heart of the sender, consistent with the Left’s violent animus toward Republicans. We have seen it time and again, particularly since the rise of Donald Trump, who triggers all the left’s worst instincts: the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise at a congressional baseball practice, where the shooter specifically targeted Republicans (New York Rep. Claudia Tenney received an email shortly afterward that read, “One down, 216 to go”); violence directed against conservative campus speakers such as Milo Yiannopoulos, whose scheduled appearance at UC Berkeley sparked leftist rioting, and Charles Murray at Middlebury College, where he and a professor there were assaulted after leftist protesters shut down his speech; violence at town halls around the country featuring conservative politicians; and innumerable instances in which Trump supporters have been assaulted on campus and elsewhere, not to mention terroristic death threats against conservative politicians and their families. (Check out this Daily Caller article from last summer for more details and examples.)

The radical left, which controls the Democrat Party, is violent and hateful at its core. That is why it’s possible for a terrifying incident like the Trump, Jr. family experienced today to elicit laughs and further ill will from so-called Progressives on social media. And the violence and hate are deemed to be justifiable #Resistance to the “fascist” Trump regime.

Expect to see many more acts of domestic terrorism from the left as the Trump presidency continues to make America great again.

Originally posted at TruthRevolt

TruthRevolt writer Amelia Hamilton contributed to the writing of this article.

Washington Post Publishes Muslim who Served Time for Terror-Related Charges

Feb 13th 2018, 05:08, by Robert Spencer

At least they admit it. The bio tag for this Washington Post article reads: “Ismail Royer is an American convert to Islam and a research and program associate at the Religious Freedom Institute, a D.C. nonprofit organization. He served 13 years in federal prison for terrorism-related charges. Since his release, he has worked in the nonprofit sector developing strategies to promote religious liberty and undermine extremist ideology.”

Which “extremist ideology”? Why not “…to promote religious liberty and undermine the jihad ideology”? Probably because what is meant by “extremist ideology” is “right-wing extremism,” a label often attached to resistance to jihad terror.

Interestingly, the Washington Post bio for Royer doesn’t note that before his incarceration, he worked for Hamas-linked CAIR.

Meanwhile, the title of the piece is “Muslims like me don’t have theological beef with evangelicals. It’s the prejudice against us that’s the problem.” Note that Royer is taking that ever-familiar stance we see again and again, on a drearily regular basis, from Muslim spokesmen: victimhood. Poor, poor Muslims are victimized by everyone else in 1000 ways — as the jihad body count rises ever higher. One would think that any man would be embarrassed to make his living as a professional whiner, but Islamic spokesmen seem to have a never-ending supply of chutzpah and no capacity for embarrassment at all.

And “Muslims like me”? What kind of Muslim is like Ismail Royer? Let’s review what the Post blandly reports as “13 years in federal prison for terrorism-related charges.” From the Investigative Project on Terrorism:

According to a biography posted on IslamOnline.net, Royer began working as a CAIR communication specialist in 1997. According to media reports, he continued to work for CAIR at least through the beginning of October 2001.

When police stopped Royer for a traffic violation in September 2001, they found in his automobile an AK-47-style rifle and 219 rounds of ammunition. He was indicted in June 2003, with 10 others, on a variety of charges stemming from participation in the ongoing jihad in Kashmir. Specifically, the indictment charged that Royer engaged in propaganda work for Lashkar-e-Taiba and “fired at Indian positions in Kashmir.”

Lashkar-e-Taiba was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization on December 26, 2001. Thus, while news reports indicated he still worked for CAIR, according to a federal indictment, Royer purchased an AK-47 assault rifle and 219 rounds of ammunition, distributed newsletters for a group later designated as a foreign terrorist organization, and fired at Indian targets in Kashmir.

Again, Awad has minimized CAIR’s ties to Royer, noting Royer was also “a former employee of Starbucks Coffee.”

In January 2007, in response to Senator Boxer’s withdrawal of the award to Elkarra, Awad claimed that “CAIR had no knowledge of Royer’s travels and activities before he joined CAIR.”

Additional charges listed in a superseding indictment against Royer and his 10 co-conspirators included conspiracy to levy war against the United States and conspiracy to provide material support to Al Qaeda.

On January 16, 2004, Royer pleaded guilty to weapons and explosives charges and agreed to cooperate fully with the government.

He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Royer got out early, of course, and now proclaims that he has rejected his previous “extremism.” And so the Washington Post publishes him as if he were a legitimate spokesmen for Muslims in the United States. This is all part of the normalization of Islamic supremacism, of a piece with politicians appearing at Hamas-linked CAIR events (as we have seen recently in Ohio and Illinois).

The Washington Post is trying to condition the public into thinking that someone who used to work for Hamas-linked CAIR and served time in prison for jihad plotting is a perfectly reasonable fellow, while the real “extremists” are the foes of jihad terror.

Can you imagine the Washington Post publishing an article by me or anyone else who is defamed by the hard-Left smear machine the Southern Poverty Law Center as an “anti-Muslim extremist”? They wouldn’t be caught dead. But a Muslim who worked for Hamas-linked CAIR and did propaganda work for a jihad terror work? Now, that’s someone who is perfectly within the bounds of reasonable discourse.

Fact Checking the New Islamophobia Inflation Hoax Report

Feb 13th 2018, 05:07, by Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

Yasmin Seweid, a Muslim college student, claimed that Trump supporters had tried to tear off her hijab on the New York City subway and shouted, “Look it’s a f______ terrorist” and “Go back to your country”.

“The president-elect just promotes this stuff and is very anti-Muslim, very Islamophobic, and he’s just condoning it,” she complained.

It was all a lie.

Yasmin was charged with filing a false police report on December 2016. On September 2017, she pleaded guilty to falsely reporting an incident and disorderly conduct. 

An Islamophobia hoax doesn’t get any more discredited than the Seweid case. But Islamophobia hoaxes never die. They’re rolled into hate crime statistics and reports even when they are completely false.

“Reported anti-Muslim hate incidents, rhetoric rose in year after election, report finds,” NBC News claims. Like The Nation, Think Progress and a variety of other sites, it’s touting a report by South Asian Americans Leading Together or SAALT.

The SAALT report, “Communities on Fire,” fits into an annual media tradition. Every year, fake statistics are used to inflate the Islamophobia threat. And the media reports every year that Islamophobia is getting worse. The statistical gimmicks of Islamophobia inflation vary from the clever to the terrible.

The Southern Poverty Law Center hit a new low when it claimed that the “number of anti-Muslim hate groups increased almost three-fold in 2016” by counting 45 chapters of Act for America as separate organizations after counting them as one in 2015. Another report documented a 66% increase when 6 cases increased to 10. But the SAALT report’s listing of discredited hoaxes is even more outrageous.

Even though the report was issued now, its list of incidents includes the Seweid case. “Three drunk white men repeatedly screamed ‘Donald Trump!’ and hurled anti-Islam slurs at a Muslim Baruch College student, Yasmin Seweid, before trying to rip her hijab off on an East Side subway.”

And that’s far from the only hoax on the SAALT list.

In Lafayette, LA, its report claims, “Two men knocked a young Muslim student wearing hijab to the ground with something metal and verbally assaulted her with obscenities before making off with her wallet and hijab.”

The Muslim student claimed that she had been attacked by Trump supporters. She was charged with filing a false police report. “She made up the entire story about being attacked, about her hijab being taken. There was no truth to any of it,” the Lafayette Police Department spokesman said.

In Ann Arbor, MI, the SAALT report claims, “A man approached a Muslim student and threatened to set her on fire with a lighter unless she removed her hijab.”

That story was also a hoax

“Following a thorough investigation, detectives have determined the incident in question did not occur,” the Ann Arbor Police Department stated.

These weren’t just hoaxes. They were hoaxes from over a year ago. And SAALT still included them.

“An anti-Muslim message was spray painted on a residence hall on the Beloit College campus,” the report claims.

The student confessed to having vandalized his own door with anti-Muslim graffiti.  He was arrested and charged with criminal damage.

“Two men confronted a San Diego State University student wearing hijab in a parking structure, made comments about President-elect Donald Trump and the Muslim community, and then took her purse and backpack. The men also took the student’s car keys and ran off,” the SAALT report claims.

The car turned out not to be stolen. No evidence of the attack was found and the student refused to cooperate with police.

Incidents like these, which were reported after Trump’s victory, play a crucial role in SAALT’s efforts to connect the supposed rise in Islamophobic attacks to him. The SAALT report mentions Trump nearly 200 times. It claims that, “One in five perpetrators of hate violence incidents referenced President Trump, a Trump policy, or a Trump campaign slogan.” But quite a few of those Trump “incidents” were hoaxes.

The SAALT report lists violence that happened to Muslims without any evidence that it was motivated by their religion. It lists the drive by shooting of Mohamed Abdulkadir in Ohio, and the robbery and fatal beating of Ali Khan even though they appear to be ordinary crimes.

In Milwaukee, “A perpetrator beat a woman leaving morning prayers and pulled off her hijab,” the SAALT report claims. “She then pushed her to the ground, repeatedly stomped on her head, and took out a knife and slashed her clothing.”

The police report however quoted the victim as saying that she didn’t think it was a hate crime, that the man had not tried to take her hijab, but that the assault had to do with her lesbian daughter.

The SAALT report lists arson at the Islamic Center of Ypsilanti. But the police ruled that out as a hate crime. A Detroit mosque whose vandalism was also listed by SAALT was trashed by an African-American thief when he couldn’t find anything to steal. 

The SAALT report lists the shooting of a 16-year-old Muslim in Ohio. The Muslim teenager claimed that his attacker had shouted racial slurs at him, but the attacker, Denzal Johnson, is African-American and his girlfriend appeared to be Muslim. Denzal’s religion is unknown.

The SAALT report claims that “Black Muslim girl, Nabra Hassanen” was killed after she and her group had “been at a late-night event at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society and were headed back to the mosque after a trip to a fast-food restaurant.” Nabra Hassanen wasn’t black and she was killed by an illegal alien gang member from El Salvador who got into a fight with her friends. There’s never been any evidence that her killer was motivated by her religion. And he was not charged with a hate crime.

Sometimes SAALT’s spin is deliberately dishonest. For example, it claims that, “a Somali Muslim woman, Rahma Warsame, who intervened to protect another Muslim woman from harassment by a white male perpetrator was beaten unconscious, resulting in facial fractures and the loss of several teeth. The attacker screamed, ‘You all will be shipped back to Africa’ prior to beating her.”

Rahma Warsame had actually gotten into a fight with Samantha Morales, a Latino woman. Morales claimed that a Somali woman had hit a little boy with a shoe. According to the police, another member of the Warsame family, had tased Morales. The only white male in the story is Morales’ boyfriend. The police couldn’t decide what really happened.

The SAALT report tries to attribute violent attacks on Muslims to “white supremacists”, but many of its more violent incidents are actually the work of African-American and Latino attackers. The Victoria mosque fire was set by a mentally unstable Latino man. The Islamic Center of Eastside fire was set by a schizophrenic African-American homeless man who may have previously tried to pray in the mosque and had smashed a window at NikeTown. Not exactly your typical Trump supporter.

A number of the acts in the SAALT report were actually committed by mentally unstable homeless people with a violent history. But SAALT has its own curious definition of white supremacist. 

According to the report, Act for America 9/11 commemoration illustrated a growth in white supremacist Islamophobia. But Act for America was founded by Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Arab immigrant.

The SAALT report not only includes hoaxes, but it attacks civil rights groups and defends hate groups.

The SAALT report lists the Freedom Center’s campaign against hate groups. “Palestinian rights activists at California universities were targeted with posters calling them terrorists.” The posters called out SJP and other hate groups that have expressed support for terrorists. 

Many of the activists who were called out in these Freedom Center campaigns weren’t even Muslims.

The first name on the poster that SAALT is complaining about is that of Daniel Alvarez. The second name is Mohammed Hammad who was investigated by terrorism officials and the FBI for posting violent threats. These included, “I think about killing a lot/and some of you are usually the targets of my daydreams.” Instead of condemning Hammad’s threats, SAALT instead attacks the Freedom Center.

The SAALT report leaves out key pieces of information that might provide alternative explanations.

It mentions that Vibert White, was “forced to resign” from the University of Central Florida and sued the college. It neglects to mention that he had been arrested three times on domestic violence charges involving two ex-wives. It mentions the vandalism at the Ahram Halal Market in Maine, but not that a few weeks earlier its owners had been charged with fraud.

The multiple hoaxes that never happened and other incidents that were not hate crimes ought to be enough to raise serious questions about the credibility of the SAALT report. Unfortunately the media unthinkingly passes along Islamophobia inflation reports without ever fact checking them.

The SAALT report and the media stories about it exist to push the narrative is that President Trump is causing anti-Muslim violence. And the narrative is too good to bother checking the facts.

And that not only destroys the media’s own credibility, but hurts the people it claims to be trying to protect. When hoaxes, ordinary crimes and attacks by mentally ill homeless people are all treated the same way, then even real attacks will be drowned out by the torrent of fake incidents.

Hillarysplaining “The Matter”

Feb 13th 2018, 05:06, by Lloyd Billingsley

​Fox News has been running a series of one-hour documentaries on Bill and Hillary Clinton titled “Scandalous,” but not limited to Bill Clinton’s sexual romps with Monica Lewinsky or his abuse of Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and other women. That ties in with the “Me Too” movement, but the documentaries also prove informative about Hillary Clinton, still making excuses for her 2016 loss to Donald Trump. 

As the series shows, Bill Clinton touted his candidacy as a two-for-one deal and gave Hillary a policy portfolio in health care. And like her husband, Hillary Clinton carried considerable baggage. 

In Arkansas she had been a partner in the Rose Law firm, which represented Madison Guaranty, a corruption-riddled savings and loan whose failure cost taxpayers more than $60 million. Hillary claimed her role with Madison in 1985 and 1986 had been minimal but could not locate her billing records. They surfaced in early 1996, days after the statute of limitations expired for civil lawsuits against those fraudulently advising corrupt savings associations. Clinton aide Carolyn Huber, a former office manager for the Rose Law Firm, found the records in the White House. As the 115 pages confirmed, Hillary Clinton’s role had been anything but minimal. 

Hillary Clinton became the first First Lady to testify before a grand jury, and “Scandalous” shows her all decked out in pink for the performance. “I, like everyone else, would like to know the answers about how those documents showed up after all these years,” Hillary told reporters. If they had been found years earlier, the First Lady said, it would have brought “this matter” to a conclusion, but it was hardly her only case of missing materials

According to the Clintons, deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster left no indication why he committed suicide on July 20, 1993. Some three years later, Foster’s note of despair about life in Washington miraculously turned up. In similar style, two years after the firing of White House travel office staffers, a memo confirmed that First Lady had played a major role in the dismissals.

Hillary Clinton became the first First Lady to gain election to the U.S. Senate and the first to become Secretary of State. After the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, investigators sought documents from the State Department, which failed to deliver. Hillary had stashed the records on her private, home-brew server, doubtless the repository for material about the Clinton Foundation, correspondence with factotum Sidney Blumenthal, and a lot more.  

Hillary Clinton believed it was her turn to be President of the United States and she geared up for 2016 by rigging the Democratic primaries, taking over the DNC, and destroying more than 30,000 emails investigators wanted to see. Some of those contained classified material, which raised issues of criminal conduct but before the FBI even interviewed Clinton, Peter Strzok transformed “gross negligence” into “extremely careless.” 

In July 2016, FBI boss James Comey, a longtime ally of the Clintons, proclaimed that no reasonable prosecutor would recommend charges. Former Attorney Loretta Lynch, who met with Bill Clinton in the famous tarmac hookup, told Comey not to call the probe an investigation and instead “just call it a matter.” When asked why he didn’t push back, Comey said, “This isn’t a hill worth dying on, and so I just said, ‘Okay.’ The press is going to completely ignore it – and that’s what happened.”

The Whitewater investigation likewise involved criminal issues but in her 1996 “Pretty in Pink” show, Hillary downgraded them to a “matter.” Her many performances as a skilled prevaricator led William Safire to call her a “congenital liar,” but the practice doubtless stems from her affection for leftist guru Saul Alinksy, who also taught progressives to demonize their political opponents. The “Scandalous” series shows how Hillary the alleged feminist attacked those women who accused her husband of sexual abuse and even rape. 

Hillary Clinton, darling of the Deep State, shows great skill at hiding or destroying documents and evading any legal responsibility. As with the “matter” of the private server and destroyed emails, the press goes along and does not push back. From the outset, establishment media coverage of Hillary Clinton has been a form of analingus. 

On the other hand, in the digital age the truth has a way of emerging, like the Strzok-Page texts that reference the secret society, the insurance policy, and POTUS 44’s need “to know everything” the FBI was doing.  Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails surely don’t have an existential problem. After all, the NSA strip-mines data and the FBI and DOJ spy on political candidates.  

The President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, could order the intelligence community to retrieve those emails, by any means necessary, and let the public read them. That would explain “what happened” better than Hillary’s book and settle “the matter” once and for all. 

In Defense of Evangelicals Who Support Trump

Feb 13th 2018, 05:01, by Dennis Prager

It is usually easier for an outsider to defend a person or a group that is attacked than for the person or group.

In that vein, this Jew would like to defend evangelicals and other Christians who support President Donald Trump. They are regularly attacked as religious hypocrites who give Christianity in general, and evangelical Christianity in particular, a bad name.

The people writing such things are often Christians, including evangelicals.

Ross Douthat, New York Times columnist, wrote: “Whether the subject is the debauched pagan in the White House, the mall-haunted candidacy of Roy Moore or the larger question of how to engage with secular culture, there is talk of an intergenerational crisis within evangelical churches, a widening disillusionment with a Trump-endorsing old guard, a feeling that a crackup must loom ahead.”

Jared Wilson wrote on The Gospel Coalition website: “From the same believers who raised us to believe that standing for the truth was more important than anything, that being persecuted for your integrity was better than compromise, that morality was not relative, that ethics are not situational. And now these same teachers are wanting us to believe that a little “R” by a man’s name covers a multitude of sins.”

Robert P. Jones wrote in USA Today: “White evangelicals . . . are, in many ways, a community grieving its losses. … Thinking about the white evangelical/Trump alliance as an end-of-life bargain is illuminating. It helps explain, for example, how white evangelical leaders could ignore so many problematic aspects of Trump’s character.”

Shortly before the election, Marvin Olasky and the editors wrote in World magazine: “Glorifying God by honoring His standards is worth more than political gain.”

Jay Caruso, a Dallas Morning News editorial board member, wrote a column titled “Evangelical Leaders Expose Their Hypocrisy By Playing Palace Guard to Trump.”

In The Arizona Republic, Jon Gabriel, an evangelical, wrote a column titled “Evangelicals Are Hypocrites to Support Donald Trump.” In it he wrote, “As an evangelical myself, one of the strangest developments of the Trump era has been the abandonment of moral character as a political essential.”

I could give dozens more examples of attacks on evangelical Christians who support President Trump.

I believe these attacks are not biblical, moral or wise. Religious Christians and Jews who support Trump understand that the character of a public leader is quite often less important than his policies. This is so obvious that only the naive think otherwise. Character is no predictor of political leadership on behalf of moral causes. I wish it were. Then, in any political contest, we would simply have to determine who the better person is and vote accordingly.

Therefore, I would like to pose some questions to critics of evangelicals who support Trump:

1. Former President Jimmy Carter has been married once (virtually all critics of Trump note that he is thrice married, as if that were ipso facto a character defect), and to the best of anyone’s knowledge, he has been faithful to his wife all those years. If you are conservative, religious or secular, would you vote for Jimmy Carter over Donald Trump?

2. Do you believe that Hillary Clinton has a finer character than Donald Trump? For the record, I believe his character is superior to hers. And the choice in the 2016 was between Trump and Clinton. A Republican who voted for anyone else or didn’t vote voted for Clinton.

3. Who should pro-choice voters support: a pro-life activist of fine character or a pro-choice activist of dubious character?

4. Who should pro-Israel voters support: an anti-Israel activist of fine character or a pro-Israel activist of dubious character?

5. If they were to have cancer, would any of the evangelicals’ critics choose an oncologist based on character? If not, why not?

One of the few moral heroes of the Holocaust was the German industrialist and member of the Nazi Party Oskar Schindler. He personally saved more than a thousand Jews’ lives. He was also a serial philanderer. I suspect many leading Nazis never cheated on their wives. Character is a complex issue.

I have spent my life making the case for good character: that God wants us to be good more than anything else; that our children’s character is way more important than their grades; and that the most important question a society can ask is how to make good people (since we are not born good).

Evangelicals realize that the moral good of defeating the left is of surpassing importance. It can feel good to oppose the president, but religious supporters of the president are more interested in doing good than feeling good. On issue after issue — religious liberty, the unborn, Israel, the American flag and free speech, to cite just a few — the president and religious Americans have made common cause.

Like evangelicals, I look to the Bible for moral instruction. I also look for wisdom. And in that book, God chooses, of all people, a prostitute (Rahab) to enable the Israelites to enter the Promised Land.

There’s a lesson there.

The Fake National Security Behind Obama’s Watergate

Feb 12th 2018, 05:58, by Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

Before the Nunes memo was released, Democrats, the media and its intelligence sources insisted that it would undermine national security, reveal tradecraft secrets and even get agents killed.

Senator Cory Booker warned that it might be treasonously “endangering fellow Americans in the intelligence community.” It was, but not in the way that he meant. The memo didn’t have anything resembling classified information it. Neither did the Grassley-Graham criminal referral which was heavily redacted to screen out all the “classified information.” What did the classified information consist of?

The Grassley-Graham criminal referral went through two FBI redactions. Julie Kelly at American Greatness compared the two versions to see what was hidden.

Most of the redactions in the first version, that were exposed in the second version, involved the problems with the FISA warrant application’s reliance on Christopher Steele. The references to the FISA warrant, which is classified, allowed figures in the FBI to redact it. But none of the references reveal anything damaging to our national security. They do raise serious questions about the FBI’s actions.

The FBI redacted the fact that the FISA warrant was thoroughly based on the Clinton-Steele dossier. Even if the FISA application is classified, Clinton opposition research isn’t.  The FBI redacted the accusation that the FISA warrant had failed to state that Steele had been working for the Clinton campaign. That certainly isn’t classified information though it took a lot of work to expose.

The redaction even cut the FBI’s own revelation that Steele went rogue because he was upset at the reopening of the Clinton email investigation. The original documents that mention this may have been classified, but there is no legitimate national security reason for hiding this information from the public.

Revealing it exposes no “tradecraft” secrets that our enemies might exploit. It certainly won’t get anyone killed. Though it could and should get some of those responsible fired.

And that’s just for starters.

Hiding the weakness of the FISA warrant doesn’t reveal classified information. It conceals malfeasance. 

National security is not intended to conceal abuse and fraud by government agencies from Americans. Instead it’s meant to allow those agencies to act in secret in order to better defend them from enemies.

There is such a thing as actual classified information that can get people killed. Among the classified information leaked by Bradley Manning were the names of 900 Afghans that had helped our forces. He also exposed code words, techniques for dealing with IEDs and other exploitable information.

A Taliban spokesman announced that the Islamic guerilla group was looking into the Manning files. “If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them.”

Obama pardoned Manning. He appeared posing in a red dress on the cover of Vogue. Now he’s running in the Democrat primary in Maryland and raising money through ActBlue, the left’s fundraising platform.

There’s a world of difference between the FISA warrant abuses documented in the memo and referral, and the leaks of massive amounts of classified information that reveal techniques and targets.

But the Obama approach, from Day 1, was to declassify operationally damaging information and classify politically damaging information. That’s why he released the CIA interrogation memos that told Al Qaeda terrorists how to prepare themselves in case of capture, despite the opposition of five CIA heads, including the man working for him, but refused to declassify memos showing how well they worked.

After they lost the Senate, Senate Democrats on the Intelligence Committee under Sen. Dianne Feinstein released a biased and dishonest report about our interrogations of Islamic terrorists that caused American embassies around the world to go on alert in expectation of terrorist attacks.

That same Dianne Feinstein met the Nunes memo with a statement declaring, “Today’s announcement that the FBI has ‘grave concerns’ about the Nunes memo is the latest reason not to release it.”

Then the politician whose purely partisan report put American lives at risk, added, “There’s no excuse for playing politics with highly classified information. The president shouldn’t place personal or partisan interests above our national security.”  After its release, she complained that, “The Nunes memo is clearly intended to impugn the Steele dossier – of which no significant fact has been disproved.”

“No significant fact has been disproved” is quite a defense of a dossier claiming to indict the President of the United States. The burden of proof is on the accuser to prove an accusation. The Steele dossier remains unverified opposition research as documented in the memo that Feinstein wanted suppressed.

And what does Senator Feinstein consider to be the ‘insignificant facts’ that were disproven?

The dossier is full of basic errors and misspellings. These are mistakes that make the dossier look like it more likely originated from the Shearer-Blumenthal amateur intelligence operation than from pros either in Russia or the UK. But let’s ignore the fact that the author of the dossier has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to Russia as an ‘insignificant fact’ that shouldn’t impact its credibility.

Those are the evidentiary rules that Senate Dems would like us to play by when it comes to Trump.

The dossier claimed that Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer, had met with Russian operatives in Prague in August. Instead Cohen went to Italy in July and was at the University of Southern California in August.

According to Senator Feinstein, that’s not a significant fact.

Cohen has denied meeting with the Russians. But how do you conclusively prove that he never met any Russians at the University of Southern California? And so that “significant fact” can’t be disproven.

(Even though it’s not a fact. The Clinton-Steele dossier is remarkably short of those.)

But the dossier became easier to disprove when BuzzFeed made it public in an act of shortsighted greed by the struggling millennial listicle website. It was impossible to disprove when it was secretly used as the basis for a classified eavesdropping warrant. And the legitimacy of the warrant was impossible to disprove until the Nunes and Grassley-Graham memos showed us how much it relied on the dossier.

There’s a pattern of Deep State sources smearing political opponents by leaking allegations to the media without ever actually declassifying and releasing the content that they are based on. Take the case of Rep. Harman, a Democrat, who was targeted in the New York Times with claims that her conversations with an Israeli figure had been intercepted leading to a possible investigation. Harman’s positions on terrorism were inconvenient to Obama. When Harman asked Attorney General Holder to release the transcripts of the alleged conversation, the investigation was instead dropped. But the scandal blocked Rep. Harman from chairing the House Intelligence Committee. That’s where Rep. Nunes sits now.

Obama Inc. targeted its political opponents under the guise of national security. His acolytes are still using national security to block any examination of the sources of the allegations and the oversight of the agencies that his operatives have politicized. But it’s not the nation’s security they’re protecting.

They lied about there being classified information in the Nunes memo. They tried to hide the expose of their own abuses documented in the Grassley-Graham letter under the guise of national security. And then they filled the Schiff-Nadler memo with classified information so that it couldn’t be released.

The Democrats have no problem releasing classified information that endangers lives for partisan reasons. Obama pardoned Bradley Manning and former Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that Edward Snowden had performed a “public service” by compromising the NSA. That’s the same operative whom a House Intel report found was in contact with Russian intelligence agencies.

That’s how concerned Obama Inc. was about Russian spying and national security.

Instead of protecting this country from national security threats, Obama Inc. abused national security to suppress political opponents, rig a presidential election and then undermine his successor. And Obama holdovers are still abusing national security to cover up their abuses and protect their coup attempt.

The only way to end the abuse is to stop letting the abusers hide them behind fake national security.

 

Horowitz on InfoWars: Democrat Party Racism

Feb 12th 2018, 05:55, by Frontpagemag.com

Filmmaker Joel Gilbert (Trump: The Art of the Insult, Dreams From My Real Father) guest-hosted on InfoWars last Friday and spent the last half hour of the program in conversation with Freedom Center founder David Horowitz.

The discussion centered on the racism of the Democrat Party. Don’t miss the conversation. (And don’t miss David Horowitz’s new Freedom Center pamphlet, How Progressives Use Race as a Weapon Against Our Country.)

 

 

Shadow War Between Iran And Israel Erupts Into Open Warfare

Feb 12th 2018, 05:50, by Ari Lieberman

The shadow war between Israel and Iran burst into open warfare over the weekend with a brazen and reckless Iranian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) intrusion into Israeli airspace. The drama unfolded on Saturday at 4:25 a.m. when an Iranian reconnaissance drone, believed to be a knockoff of the American RQ-170 Sentinel UAV, penetrated into Israeli airspace for approximately 90 seconds before being shot down by an Israeli Apache attack helicopter of the 113th Squadron near the Israeli town of Bet Shean in the Jordan Valley.

Israeli intelligence had been monitoring the aircraft and its flight path soon after it took off from an Iranian controlled airbase called T4 located near the Syrian city of Palmyra. Immediately after intercepting the drone, the Israeli Air Force attacked the command and control vehicle responsible for controlling and monitoring the UAV, and obliterated it.

Returning IAF aircraft were met with a hail of anti-aircraft fire. According to Israeli sources, the Syrians fired between 15 and 20 antiaircraft missiles. One of them, believed to be either a long-range SA-5 or medium-range SA-17, locked on to an F-16 Sufa fighter bomber and exploded near the aircraft, peppering the jet with shrapnel. 

Both pilot and navigator safely ejected and the plane crashed in a field in Israel’s Jezreel Valley. Fortunately, no civilians were hurt. The navigator will likely be released from the hospital today or tomorrow, while the pilot is still recovering from abdominal injuries but is said to be fully conscious and breathing on his own. His condition continues to improve and doctors are optimistic.

It was the first time that an Israel jet fighter had been shot down since June 1982 when an A-4 Sky Hawk was shot down over Beirut during the initial phases of Operation Peace for Galilee. In 1983, an F-4 Phantom crashed in Lebanon but that was due to a technical malfunction rather than hostile fire. In 2006, an Israeli Yassur heavy-lift transport helicopter was shot down by a MANPADS fired by Hezbollah terrorists.

Immediately following the crash, Israel launched a furious and devastating bombardment against Syrian and Iranian military positions, attacking twelve military sites throughout the country. Four of those sites were Iranian bases and encampments while the remaining sites were Syrian anti-aircraft missile batteries and military bases including a base belonging to the Syrian army’s 104th airborne division.

Brig. Gen. Tomer Bar, the deputy head of the IAF termed the attack as, “the biggest and most significant attack the air force has conducted against Syrian air defenses since Operation Peace for the Galilee.” During that conflict, the IAF destroyed 19 Syrian surface-to-air missile batteries while swatting 80 Syrian MiG-21 and MiG-23 fighters from the skies, for no losses.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that at least six Assad regime fighters and their allies were killed in the wave of attacks but the death toll is expected to climb. As is their wont, neither the Syrian government nor the Iranians provided casualty figures.

Delirious Shia and supporters of the Assad regime cheered in the capitals of Tehran, Damascus and Beirut upon hearing news of the F-16’s demise. Such celebrations are beyond absurd. The fact that after thousands of sorties over hostile territory, a single jet was downed does not mean that Israel has lost air supremacy. To claim otherwise is utter nonsense. Moreover, the myopic celebrants, drunk on phantom victories glaringly ignored other notable aspects of the military encounter; chiefly, the rapid interception of the UAV, the destruction of its command and control vehicle, and the destruction and devastation wrought upon multiple Iranian and Syrian bases hit in the wave of Israeli retaliatory strikes.

There are a number of takeaways from this engagement. 

  • The Islamic Republic had tried to dictate the rules of the game by launching a UAV into Israel. They failed in this regard. The IDF’s quick and devastating response put to rest any foolhardy Iranian notions that Israel will ignore future border transgressions and further Iranian entrenchment in Syria. If anything, it was Israel, by its swift and overwhelming reaction to Iranian aggression that changed the rules of the game. Iranian outposts throughout Syria and beyond will no longer be immune to attack.
  • The Syrian Army does not exactly have a stellar record in shooting down Israeli aircraft. Were Russian advisers present and advising their Syrian underlings when the missiles were launched? Even worse, were the Russians actually manning the batteries? The answers to these questions may never be known but an Israeli-Iranian clash and heightened regional tensions run counter to Russian interests. Israel and Russia have maintained continuous dialogue through diplomatic and military channels in an effort to avoid military confrontations and lower tensions. Indeed, just ten days prior to the incident, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Moscow for talks with his counterpart Vladimir Putin. The two leaders enjoy a good business-like relationship.
  • Obama’s foreign policies continue to have a lingering, deleterious effect. The Iran deal provided the Iranians with a badly needed cash infusion. The $1.7 billion in cash that Obama transferred to the Iranians on wooden pallets and the billions of dollars Iran received from sanctions relief have been channeled to fuel their overseas wars. Iran’s entrenchment in Syria and its use of UAVs to violate Israeli airspace is a direct consequence of the Iran deal.
  • The Iranian UAV was a knockoff of the American RQ-170 Sentinel spy drone. Iran captured a Sentinel in 2011 when one crashed in Iran under mysterious circumstances. There has been speculation that Iranian cyber hackers intercepted the Sentinel’s data link or otherwise misdirected it by hacking into its GPS. Whether it crashed by itself or was hacked, the Sentinel and all of its technology fell into Iranian hands relatively intact. Obama asked the Iranians to return the UAV and the Iranians naturally refused and likely reversed engineered the UAV with the help of the Russians and Chinese. But Obama had another option that involved bombing and destroying the Sentinel after its seizure by the Iranians. As former vice president Dick Cheney noted, “The right response to [Iran’s seizure] would have been to go in immediately after it had gone down and destroy it.” Cheney added that it could have been accomplished with an airstrike but instead, Obama, “asked nicely for them to return it, and they aren’t going to.”

The events of the weekend make clear that we are entering a dangerous new phase of Iranian malignancy. The reversals suffered by anti-Assad rebels have enabled Iran to concentrate its aggressive efforts beyond the Syrian battleground. It’s safe to say that the only regional power capable of blunting and even reversing Iran’s expansion is Israel.

 

The Hate Behind Muslim Tears and Outrage

Feb 12th 2018, 05:49, by Raymond Ibrahim

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

A sense of supremacism permeates everything in the Muslim supremacist’s life—even those things that Western media portray as humanitarian, understandable, or laudable.

Consider the rape and strangulation of Zainab Ansari, an eight-year-old Muslim girl whose mangled body was found in a dump last January in Pakistan.  The tragic incident sparked mass outrage in the Muslim nation.   Famous celebrities and tens of thousands of other Pakistanis “expressed their shock on social media using the hashtag ‘justiceforZainab’”; angry mobs attacked police and government buildings—leaving at least two dead and many wounded; Islamic clerics warned governmental officials either to produce the murderer instantly, step down—or else.  “Can we please catch this animal and punish him publicly?” is the question that “summed up many people’s exasperation at a lack of progress in finding the killer.”

Needless to say, the outrage sensed by Pakistanis concerning this hapless girl’s lot, and their desire to see justice meted out to her rapist-murderer, is appreciable.  The problem, however, is that this outrage is entirely predicated on the fact that she was Muslim.  Many young Christian girls have been and continue to be raped, mutilated, and murdered—only for Pakistanis to respond with deafening silence.

The following is a brief (and far from complete) list of these unlamented Christian girls:

  • Nisha, 9, was abducted by Muslims, gang-raped, murdered by repeated blows to her head, and then dumped in a canal.
  • Lubna, 12, was kidnapped, gang-raped, and murdered by a group of Muslims.
  • Muqadas, 12, was ambushed in a field near her home; the postmortem revealed that she had been “gang raped and then strangled to death by five men.” 
  • Shazia, 12, was enslaved, raped, and murdered by Chaudhry Naeem, a rich Muslim lawyer, who was acquitted in court. 

“It is shameful,” explained local Pakistani sources while discussing the brutal rape of a separate 9-year-old Christian girl. “Such incidents occur frequently. Christian girls are considered goods to be damaged at leisure.  Abusing them is a right. According to the [Muslim] community’s mentality it is not even a crime. Muslims regard them as spoils of war (emphasis added).”

Nor, it should be mentioned, are Christian boys spared.  While in a Christian district in Pakistan, a group of Muslim men abducted a 7-year-old boy, took turns gang raping him before strangling and dumping his body in a field—just like Zainab.  The body of another Christian boy, Samuel Yaqoob, aged 11, was also “found near a drain … bearing marks of horrific torture, with the murder weapon nearby. His nose, lips and belly had been sliced off, and his family could hardly recognize him because the body was so badly burnt.”  Autopsy found “23 wounds by a sharp weapon” and indications “of sodomy.”

Explaining such incidents, Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman of the British Pakistani Christian Association, said, “Parts of Pakistani culture have a strong homosexual pederast culture, and Christian and other minority boys are especially susceptible to rape and abuse because of the powerlessness of their community and their despised status (emphasis added).”

And that’s the point. As “infidels,” Christians in Pakistan are widely seen as “untouchables,” fit only for picking the “excrement of Muslims,” and are thus regularly “treated like animals.” Outside the victims’ family and surrounding Christian community, virtually no one else in the 99% Muslim-majority nation cares when Christians and their children are savaged and murdered, the way Muslim Zainab was.  None of the aforementioned rape-murders of Christian children led to a nationwide scandal; none were followed by mass tweets and hashtags, outraged celebrities, mass uprisings, fatal riots, or threats to officials and police.  Nor did they earn their own Wikipedia page the way Zainab did.

Unsurprisingly, whereas the murderer of Zainab was caught days after the incident, the murderers of the aforementioned Christian children were never “found.”

It is precisely due to this indifference that rapists and murderers tend to target Christian children: if society doesn’t care, police won’t bother, and they can get away with it—if not be heroized for doing a service to Islam.  After explaining that “the forced conversion to Islam of women from religious minority groups through rape and abduction has reached an alarming stage” in Pakistan, the Asian Human Rights Commission elaborated in a 2011 report:

The situation is worse with the police who always side with the Islamic groups and treat minority groups as lowly life forms. The dark side of the forced conversion to Islam … also involves the criminal elements who are engaged in rape and abduction and then justify their heinous crimes by forcing the victims to convert to Islam. The Muslim fundamentalists are happy to offer these criminals shelter and use the excuse that they are providing a great service to their sacred cause of increasing the population of Muslims.

Not only do police in Pakistan do virtually nothing to combat this “jihad”; sometimes they are themselves the culprits.  In yet another instance, a “Christian boy was kidnapped, raped, tortured and killed by a police officer, his body similarly being dumped in a drain.”

More often, however, police and other local officials and imams merely side with the perpetrators, whenever the Christian victims’ families make too much noise demanding “justice”—that is, when they get too uppity for “dhimmis,” who according to Islamic law are required to “know their place” and be thankful that, as undesirable and vulnerable infidels, they are allotted any measure of tolerance at all.  For example, another 12-year-old Christian girl known as “Anna” was gang raped for eight months, forcibly converted, “married” to her Muslim attacker, but then escaped.  Instead of seeing justice done, she and her Christian family were last reported as “in hiding from the rapists and the police.”

Muslim bias concerning who matters (fellow Muslims) and who doesn’t (everyone else) is regularly missed in the West.  For example, the Muslim obligation to pay zakat (often translated as “charity”) is always hailed in the West as a reflection of Islam’s “humanitarian” side—even though mainstream Islamic law insists that such “charity” go only to help Muslims, never the hated infidel.

Even when Muslims go on terrorist sprees in America—such as the NY subway bomber or the Ohio State stabber—media fall over themselves to suggest that it was outrage at the plight of suffering Muslims (always the Rohinyas in Myanmar) that prompted these men to go over the edge in their quest for “justice” (never mind that their American victims have nothing to do with Myanmar policy).

A more fitting explanation is that they merely hate infidels, as seen in the fact that Somalia, where Abdul Raza, the Ohio state stabber was born and raised, is considered the third worst Muslim nation in the world to be Christian (which is certainly saying something since some 40 of the absolute worst 50 nations are Muslim).  Although Christians can be essentially beheaded on sight in Somalia, such an “injustice” against his own fellow countrymen never seemed to bother the supposedly “humanitarian” Abdul.

Islam is responsible for this bias: the Koran calls on Muslims to be “forceful against the infidels, merciful among themselves [48:29]”; Islamic doctrine holds that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims — who are further likened to dogs and cattle.  Hence, if they care little when subhuman infidels are raped and murdered, they get angry seeing infidel minorities agitating for equality with Muslims—and they get downright murderous seeing infidels actually lording over Muslims.

From here, one begins to understand the ultimate Muslim grievance: Israel. If powerless and downtrodden Christian minorities in the Muslim world are still treated atrociously, how must Muslims feel about Jews—the descendants of pigs and apes, according to the Koran—exercising power and authority over fellow Muslims?  Unmitigated outrage.

Of course, if grievances against Israel were really about universal justice and displaced Palestinians, Muslims would be aggrieved at the fact that millions of Christians are currently being displaced in the name of jihad and generally treated in ways that make being Palestinian seem enviable.

But they are not aggrieved, and will not be anytime soon, for Muslim grievances are based on what hurts Muslims, never what hurts infidels—quite the opposite. 

 

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism

Feb 12th 2018, 05:47, by Mark Tapson

A 2015 Pew survey reported that the total number of Catholics in the United States dropped by 3 million since 2007, now comprising about 20 percent – or one-fifth – of the total population. Catholicism is losing more members than it gains at a higher rate than any other denomination – a recent development which the radical progressives at Salon celebrate. Why is this an issue that should worry Americans and the Western world at large?

One key reason is that the fastest-growing religion in the country and around the world is Islam – something Salon radicals also no doubt celebrate. The fundamentalist brand of Islam that is once again on the rise is antithetical, indeed openly hostile, to the values of Western civilization, and for many centuries Catholicism as a central component of European identity was a bulwark against its spread. But for various reasons the West has lost confidence in its cultural identity and moral authority in recent decades, and the result has been submission to decadence, to , and to Islam. If we are to reverse a civilization in rapid decline, we must undertake a resurgence of Western exceptionalism with a militant Christian ethos at its core.

For Catholics who have backslid or grown apathetic, that means waking up to what is at stake, and then making a renewed commitment to understanding and manifesting the tenets of their own religion, a religion that has been steered toward emasculation, socialism, and interfaith suicide by the radical left. For non-Catholics as well – even atheists – it means acknowledging how crucial a revivified Christianity is to a defense of Western civilization, and educating themselves about the myths and realities of Catholicism.

Enter John Zmirak’s timely book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism, published by Regnery. Zmirak is an editor, teacher, screenwriter, political columnist, and the author of the popular Bad Catholic’s Guides and The Race to Save Our Century: Five Core Principles to Promote Peace, Freedom, and a Culture of Life. His work has appeared in First Things, The Weekly Standard, USA Today, and FrontPage Magazine, among other venues.

The book’s cover declares Catholicism to be “the most politically incorrect institution in the world!” and features a trinity of grinning nuns with guns – itself politically incorrect enough to trigger leftists who prefer a less militant, more social justice-oriented, and submissive Christianity. The cover also features such triggering bullet points as:

  • Catholic teaching favors gun rights, capitalism, and a strong defense
  • Catholic “social teaching” isn’t liberal, it’s conservative
  • Catholic doctrine doesn’t require open borders

and perhaps most politically incorrect and offensive:

  • The Crusades are something to be proud of

Zmirak seeks to dispel misconceptions about the Catholic Church, including the notions that it is “the greatest mainstay of the patriarchy,” an institution designed to oppress the poor, an institution designed to liberate the poor, and even the “Whore of Babylon” mentioned in The Book of Revelation.

In fact, Zmirak notes, among the good things the Church has brought to the world are the university, the hospital, the world’s greatest art, modern science, the strongest check in history on the power of the state, and overall a new and improved Western civilization in the wake of the fall of the Roman Empire. In our culture’s rush to inflate Islam’s reputation by crediting Muslims with inventing everything from algebra to the astrolabe, Catholicism’s actual achievements by comparison are world-beating.

The Guide’s dozen chapters cover such topics as where the Church stands on birth control and abortion, the limits of papal authority, the free market, immigration, amnesty, socialism, progressivism, sex, science, self-defense and capital punishment, and yes, the scandal of “priestly pederasts,” which the author does not whitewash.

Zmirak addresses the fragmentation of the Catholic Church which began with the Second Vatican Council in 1960 and remains to this day, exacerbated by the issue of birth control. He covers the impact of secular modernity on the Church, and the “explosion and radicalization of progressive dissent” which embraced a social justice agenda and which has resulted in many Catholics taking positions “on economics, welfare policy, and defense that [a]re a virtual mirror image of the Democratic Party platform.”

This explains, the author notes, how “politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Joseph Biden can support partial-birth abortion, same-sex marriage, and legal mandates that nuns such as the Little Sisters of the Poor distribute the ‘morning-after’ abortion pill – and still go to Holy Communion. They haven’t abandoned the Church. They are in fact its progressive vanguard…”

As for the Crusades and the Catholic “just war” doctrine, Zmirak points out that the Church “has never taught that pacifism is the appropriate response to conflict.” True, there are strict requirements for legitimate defense, but “Christian pacifism would leave Christian nations defenseless from conquest and persecution at the hands of aggressive non-Christians.” If non-resistance to violence were practiced consistently, he adds, “it would mean that we’d have no police either, and that parents should not defend their helpless children from murder or rape.” The Crusades, which today are condemned as evidence of “a hideous, anti-Christian endeavor for which the Church should never stop apologizing – and which Muslims are justified in resenting to this day,” were in fact, in large part, “a heroic if doomed attempt to liberate conquered nations from the yoke of intolerant Islam.”

Zmirak concludes the book with a call to arms: “There can be no truce, no respite, no surrender. As the price of calling ourselves Christians, we must make our case for natural law, religious and economic liberty, the sanctity of life, and the truth about sex year in and year out, regardless of the vagaries of particular candidates and party platforms.”

He notes that he collaborated with Whole Life program founder Jason Jones to identify the five “Ideologies of Evil” that made the twentieth century the bloodiest in human history:

  • Racism and nationalism
  • Total war against civilian populations
  • Utopian collectivism
  • Radical individualism
  • Utilitarian hedonism

In opposition to those evils, Zmirak and Jones list fundamental Catholic principles “that must animate any decent politics”:

  • The sanctity of each human being as an image of God
  • The reality of a transcendent moral order that is above all man-made laws
  • The need for a free society that protects fundamental rights
  • The virtues of a humane economy that allows humans to flourish
  • The duty of solidarity among every member of the human family

There is so much more to The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism than this brief review may suggest. The book is dense with information (including thirty pages of endnotes), but it is entertaining as well as enlightening for both believers and non-believers. It also provides a wealth of other sources for further investigation, in frequent sidebars called “Books You’re Not Supposed to Read.” In this time of rising Islamophilia and openly anti-Christian bias among our cultural elites, John Zmirak’s book itself is one you’re not supposed to read, but definitely should.

Pelosi’s Race Lessons

Feb 12th 2018, 05:45, by Bruce Bawer

Worse things have happened in the last week or two. Worse things have been said. Yet what sticks in my mind and won’t go away are a few sentences that came out of Nancy Pelosi’s mouth during her marathon speech to the House last Wednesday.

She was there, on the House floor, to speak up for the so-called “Dreamers” – people who were brought illegally to America by their parents when they were children and who now want to be accorded legal residency, if not citizenship.

As Pelosi and other advocates for “Dreamers” have tirelessly asserted, some of them have made exemplary contributions to the United States. Others, however, in the course of agitating for residency status, have engaged in activities that hardly serve their cause.

They’ve waved Mexican flags. They’ve posed for pictures giving the finger to Mount Rushmore. They’ve cursed America, they’ve sneered and snarled at it – exhibiting a hostility to the country so intense that it makes one wonder just why they’re so eager to be Americans.

And yet they’ve been taken up as heroes by the left – even as others who’ve gone through the laborious and expensive process of securing U.S. residency legally have been made to feel like fools for doing it the right way.

It was because of the “Dreamers” that the Democrats closed down the government for a couple of days, causing military families to worry that their paychecks might not show up in the mail. And it was because of the “Dreamers” that Pelosi, age 77, broke the record for the longest speech ever given on the House floor – eight hours and ten minutes.

I haven’t heard or read the whole speech, but I’ve listened to a great deal of it. There’s one part I’ve listened to several times. It’s the part about Pelosi’s grandson. “He is Irish, English, whatever, whatever, and Italian-American,” she said. “He is a mix.”

Before we proceed, let us note that, for Pelosi, her own grandson’s ancestry comes down to a couple of whatevers. It brings to mind the Seinfeld episode on which the principal characters discuss the proper use of the phrase “yada yada” to skip over inconsequential details.

Of course, Pelosi’s whatevers could be viewed in a positive light. We’re Americans. Who cares where your or my ancestors came from? Such things aren’t supposed to matter.

But Pelosi went on to make it clear that, for her, such things matter a lot.    

She recalled that her grandson, at the time of his sixth birthday, “had a very close friend whose name is Antonio. He’s from Guatemala. And he has beautiful tan skin, beautiful brown eyes. And this was a proud day for me, because when my grandson blew out the candles on his cake, they said: ‘Did you make a wish?’ He said yes, he made a wish. ‘What is your wish?’ ‘I wish I had brown skin and brown eyes like Antonio.’”

Before I move on to Pelosi’s response to this wish, let me say this. As a kid in the 1960s, spending summers in my mother’s hometown in South Carolina, I witnessed a society obsessed with race. I knew people who lived a block or two from each other but on opposite sides of a very broad racial divide.

Yes, some of them deeply loved and respected each other across that divide. Yet the divide was a daily reality for them, as palpable as the Berlin Wall.

I was lucky enough to grew up in an America that seemed increasingly to reject this divide – to move past a preoccupation with skin color. I thought I was experiencing progress.

Walls were coming down. We were growing up. American society wasn’t about superficial attributes. It was about the content of our character.

Certainly this was what liberals were supposed to be about. It was conservatives who obsessed over race, wasn’t it?

Well, so much for that. “I wish I had brown skin and brown eyes like Antonio,” says Pelosi’s six-year-old grandson. And her comment about this, to the House of Representatives and to the world, is as follows: “So beautiful. So beautiful. The beauty is in the mix.”

No. No. No. The beauty was supposed to be in not fixating on such cosmetic details.

Yes, when it comes to sexual attraction between adults, many of us have certain preferences: tall or short, slim or plus-sized, and – yes – dark-skinned or pale. Whatever. But such attributes have, or should have, nothing to with the way we value one another as human beings.

And surely skin color shouldn’t figure in the hopes and dreams of a six-year-old child blowing out the candles on his birthday cake.

Hearing Pelosi’s anecdote, one couldn’t help wondering: how on earth has this boy been brought up, that he should despise his own skin color and envy somebody else’s? How is it that such a thought could even occur to him?

Even when I was his age, playing in the summer heat in 1960s South Carolina with black kids, it didn’t cross my mind either to admire their skin color or to look down on it. Nobody had ever told me to do either.

There’s a song from the 1949 musical South Pacific – music by Richard Rodgers, lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II. “You’ve got to be taught to be afraid / Of people whose eyes are oddly made / And people whose skin is a diff’rent shade / You’ve got to be carefully taught.”

That song expressed a strong, simple message: you don’t become a bigot unless your parents or teachers or other adults turn you into one.

But it works the other way, too. If you’re six years old and you envy somebody else’s skin color, that, too, is the product of “teaching.” And that kind of teaching – the kind that makes you loathe your own skin color – is just as odious as the kind of teaching that makes you proud of it.

That Nancy Pelosi could take precisely the opposite view of her grandson’s remark shows just how far the left has wandered from classical liberalism. That her grandson could say such a thing in the first place shows just how easily the left’s poison can taint the mind of a child.

 

Muslim Crime Stopper Sofian Zakkout's New Crush: Anti-Semite Pastor Steve Anderson

Feb 12th 2018, 05:04, by Joe Kaufman

For nearly two millennia, Jews have suffered persecution after persecution at the hands of those who used religion as a vehicle for hate and even mass murder. Recently, a video clip of anti-Semitic pastor Steve Anderson – making the claim that Jews have experienced such abuse because they have somehow been cursed – wound up on the personal Facebook page of South Florida Muslim leader Sofian Zakkout. According to Zakkout, who sits on the boards of two anti-crime groups, Anderson’s declaration “makes a lot of sense.” With statements like this from Zakkout and worse, why would groups committed to fighting crime continue to compromise themselves and sabotage their mission by affiliating with him?

Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout is the President of the American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA), a prominent Islamic organization headquartered in North Miami Beach, Florida.

On January 25th, Zakkout posted onto his personal Facebook page a video clip of a speech made by Steve Anderson, the pastor of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. Anderson is notorious for calling for the killing of gays to end AIDS. In the clip, Anderson states the following: “And the Jews were scattered into all nations for literally 2000 years, right? For 1800 sum odd years. And by the way, everywhere they were scattered, they were persecuted, hated, treated badly. Why? ‘Cause God’s blessing them? No. ‘Cause they’re under the curse of God for having rejected the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Blaming Jews for the extreme torment they endured for so long, which includes a Nazi Holocaust that took the lives of six million innocent Jews and so many others, is incredibly offensive. Indeed, statements and beliefs such as Anderson’s have provoked hatred and persecution of Jews.

Towards the end of the clip, which is less than four minutes in length, Anderson throws the anti-Semitism in people’s faces. He zealously states, while drawing laughter from his small audience, “You say, ‘Why are you preaching against the Jews?’ Well, don’t come back next Wednesday night. Because, next Wednesday night, God’s wrath is on the Jews even more!”

About the clip, on Facebook, Zakkout wrote above it, “Makes a lot of sense!” Of course, this is coming from someone [Zakkout] who regularly refers to Jews as “monkeys and pigs,” and in February 2016, circulated on social media a report claiming that “the Holocaust was faked.” The report calls the Holocaust “the biggest lie ever foisted upon humanity” and was produced by a media outlet which describes Hitler as “the greatest leader in modern Western history.”

Both Anderson and Zakkout have been denounced by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for their propagation of anti-Semitism. In July 2010, the ADL condemned Zakkout and his group AMANA for featuring an anti-Jewish video produced by former KKK leader and white supremacist David Duke on the AMANA website. The ADL described the video as “venomous.” In October 2015, Zakkout praised Duke, as “David Duke, a man to believe in!”

Besides posting videos from Steve Anderson and David Duke on his Facebook page, Zakkout also, in July 2017, posted a four minute clip from a speech made by Nation of Islam (NOI) leader Louis Farrakhan. During the clip, Farrakhan repeatedly labels the Jewish people “Satan.” He states, “Really, they’re not Jews. No, that’s Satan. You should learn to call them by their real name, ‘Satan.’ You’re coming face to face with Satan, the Arch Deceiver, the enemy of God, and the enemy of the righteous.”

Zakkout is also an ardent supporter of the terrorist organization Hamas, if not a member himself. In July 2014, he organized a pro-Hamas rally held outside the Israeli Consulate in downtown Miami. Rally goers repeatedly shouted, “We are Hamas” and “Let’s go Hamas.” After the rally, Zakkout wrote the following in Arabic, above photos from the event: “Thank God, every day we conquer the American Jews like our conquests over the Jews of Israel!” He signed it “Br. Sofian Zakkout.” The next month, Zakkout declared in Arabic, “Hamas is in my heart and on my head.”

All of the above testifies to hatred and intolerance, but it is even more disturbing given the fact that Zakkout sits on the boards of two anti-crime organizations: Crime Stoppers of Miami-Dade County and Citizens’ Crime Watch of Miami-Dade County. Serving alongside Zakkout on these boards are local politicians and law enforcement officials. One would think that they would find Zakkout’s actions and bigotry unacceptable, as well, yet Zakkout continues to serve unchallenged.

If the board members of Crime Stoppers and Citizens’ Crime Watch do not wish to be associated with anti-Semitism or white supremacism or Hamas or Holocaust denial or Steve Anderson or David Duke or Louis Farrakhan, then they must cut ties with Sofian Zakkout.

The time is long overdue that these groups maintain their credibility and remain true to their stated missions of protecting and safeguarding the American public. Sofian Zakkout’s bigoted and radical agenda is antithetical to this and is a documented threat to national security. His presence on the boards of both organizations constitutes an obscene travesty. Once and for all, these groups need to divorce themselves from Zakkout and repudiate what he stands for.

Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

Immigration Anarchists' Lies Debunked

Feb 12th 2018, 05:02, by Michael Cutler
So much of what has come to pass for “common knowledge” is actually an example of how the principle of “The Big Lie” can alter the public’s understanding of critical issues. Immigration has proven to be particularly vulnerable to this tactic.
 
Under that principle, officials intentionally concoct falsehoods and repeat them at every possible opportunity to convince the masses that the lies are the truth.  This principle was adopted by Nazi Germany in order to con the German populace into accepting the unfathomable depravity of the Third Reich.
 
Because humans think with words, control of language ultimately results in control of thought.  This was the underlying principle of my recent article, Language Wars, The Road to Tyranny is Paved With Language Censorship.
 
Today the attention span of most Americans can be measured in minutes, if not seconds, further exacerbating the susceptibility of folks to fall victim to language manipulation tactics. The tactics employed by the open-borders/immigration anarchists to further their cause are so easy to disprove that even a child could see through their warped logic.
 
First off, consider the game of “Musical Chairs,” which most children are familiar with.  In this game, as music plays,’ kids circle a line of chairs that alternate in the way that the chairs are facing.  When the music stops each child scrambles to sit in one of the chairs.  What makes the game challenging is that there is one fewer chair than the number of kids playing.  Consequently, one child is unable to find a chair and is removed from the game along with one chair.  Once again there is one chair fewer than the number of participating children.  The music starts again and the kids circle the remaining chairs until the music stops.  Each time one chair and one child are removed until the contest comes down to two kids and one chair.  Whichever kid manages to sit is declared the winner of the game.
 
If you wonder what this has to do with immigration, imagine that during the game one of the adults supervising the game opens a door and allows many more children to flood into the room, however, the number of chairs is not increased.  This way the odds of the children already playing the game will succeed in grabbing a seat has just been decreased due to the number of new players introduced into the game.
 
It should be expected that the children will scream that what has just happened is unfair and of course they would be right.
 
Now let’s imagine that we are not talking about a childhood game and that the chairs are available jobs and the children are adult workers who are desperate to find a job.  The “doors” that have been flung open are America’s borders and those entering the room (labor pool) are many foreign workers, deleteriously impacting jobs and wages across a wide spectrum of industries and skill levels.
 
Incredibly, many Americans cannot figure out the parallel between these two situations.  The Democrats who refused to stand for the State of the Union Address when President Trump noted how unemployment levels for American blacks and Latinos were at the lowest point in years were clearly unhappy. Could it be that they have been depending on making Americans more dependent on the “crumbs” that they offer? I use the term “crumbs” because this was the very word used by Nancy Pelosi to describe the thousand-dollar bonuses a number of companies provided to their employees because of the Trump tax cuts.
 
Next let’s think back to the days of “Hide and Seek” where one child covers his/her eyes and counts to ten and then attempts to find another child who went hiding when the first child closed his eyes.
 
Today that game is being played by illegal aliens with great success because the number of ICE agents, and the number of INS agents that preceded the creation of ICE, has always been insignificant when compared with the huge number of illegal aliens who have entered the United States without inspection or violating the terms of their lawful admissions.
 
Sanctuary city policies make it ever more difficult for the overwhelmed ICE agents to track down and apprehend illegal aliens, even when those aliens are engaged in criminal or terror-related activities.
 
Of course, the mayors of sanctuary cities and governors of sanctuary states hypocritically draw parallels between their actions and the actions of leaders of the Civil Rights movement who put their lives on the line to right the wrongs of slavery, racism, segregation and discrimination.  
 
Although this parallel is an enormous falsehood, it has been repeated in the news media and by a long list of immigration anarchists and consequently many have fallen for this outrageous analogy. Illegal aliens are certainly protected by due process when they are charged with a crime.  But due process is not the same as Civil Rights. The entire point to Civil Rights laws is to guarantee all Americans, particularly American blacks, equal opportunities to be successful in America and be full participants in American society. Elements of this include access to quality in education, job opportunities and housing.
 
Illegal aliens are not supposed to work, and knowingly providing shelter for illegal aliens can be construed as harboring and shielding, elements of a felony under federal law, Title 8 U.S. Code § 1324.
 
Where aliens and jobs are concerned, even many categories of nonimmigrant aliens (temporary visitors) including aliens who lawfully enter under the Visa Waiver Program or with tourist visas may not work in the United States and immediately become subject to removal (deportation) if they seek gainful employment.  
 
Prior to WWII the Labor Department was in charge of immigration.  The greatest concern, back then, was to shield American workers from foreign competition.  This is how the middle class was nurtured and grew to become the envy of the world and came to be known as the “American Dream.”
 
Incredibly when President Trump, in his State of the Union Address proclaimed, “American are dreamers too” the members of the Democratic Party reacted with sheer hostility, not only towards the President, but hostility and contempt for Americans.
 
Awhile back I wrote an article about the veiled attack on the middle class.  In that article I reported on how on April 30, 2009, Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, testified at a hearing advocating the passage of Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation, conducted by Chuck Schumer, then Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee.
 
Greenspan was “all in” on legalizing illegal aliens, creating a guest worker program for aliens and for hugely increasing the number of H-1B visas as Bill Gates, whom he quoted, recommended.
 
As for the impact on American workers and American cities where illegal alien workers were concerned, Greenspan said:
 

Some evidence suggests that unskilled illegal immigrants (almost all from Latin America) marginally suppress wage levels of native-born Americans without a high school diploma, and impose significant costs on some state and local governments.
 
That “marginal suppression of wages” for America’s working poor is likely a significant cause of unemployment of Americans and a record levels of homelessness of Americans.
 
Greenspan’s advocacy for greatly increasing the number of H-1B foreign worker included this justification:
 

The second bonus would address the increasing concentration of income in this country. Greatly expanding our quotas for the highly skilled would lower wage premiums of skilled over lesser skilled. Skill shortages in America exist because we are shielding our skilled labor force from world competition. Quotas have been substituted for the wage pricing mechanism. In the process, we have created a privileged elite whose incomes are being supported at noncompetitively high levels by immigration quotas on skilled professionals. Eliminating such restrictions would reduce at least some of our income inequality.
 
Greenspan actually had the unmitigated chutzpah to refer to high-tech American workers as the “privileged elite” who are being shielded from foreign competition.  As an economist Greenspan understand “supply and demand” and seeks to greatly increase the supply of compliant and exploitable foreign workers in the labor pool to drive down everyone’s wages.
 
The Democrats frequently equate providing a minimum wage of $10.10 per hour or $15.00 per hour with “wage equality.”  This is clearly not about wage equality but about establishing a “standard wage” which would eradicate the middle class.  
 
The “reforming” of our immigration laws for Greenspan and his globalist cohorts is an effort to actually re-form our immigration system to speed the destruction of the middle class.
 
Since that hearing Greenspan has persisted in his calls for re-forming the immigration system.
 
Hypocrisy is usually a clear indicator of a con job.  Schumer has called for creating a federal law with a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison for those who trespass on critical infrastructure or national landmarks.  Yet Schumer demands that aliens who trespass on America be granted United States citizenship.
 
A child could see through their lies.

Horowitz: How Progressives Use Race as a Weapon Against Our Country

Feb 9th 2018, 05:58, by Frontpagemag.com

Editor’s note: The following is a brief synopsis by Mark Tapson of David Horowitz’s new Freedom Center pamphlet, “How Progressives Use Race as a Weapon Against Our Country.” Scroll down to read the full pamphlet. Copies can be ordered HERE.

For many Americans, the election of this nation’s first black President in 2008 signaled hope for a healing of the racial divide that has dogged the United States throughout its history. But instead of reconciliation, Barack Obama declared that racism is in America’s very DNA. He ushered in a new era of racial anger, distrust, and violence. Now America teeters on the precipice of a chasm between the races that is wider than any seen in the last half century.

In his new pamphlet How Progressives Use Race as a Weapon Against Our Country, Freedom Center founder David Horowitz addresses this explosive state of affairs and explains that the collectivist left is at war with America and its achievement of a successful multi-ethnic, multi-racial society. That society was unrivaled in its inclusiveness, tolerance, and freedom for all individuals, regardless of race.

Horowitz explains how the left is stoking racial animus and resentment in order to delegitimize American exceptionalism and to divide Americans through the ideological conviction that whites are oppressors and “people of color” are the oppressed. The left’s reprehensible claim that the United States is a white supremacist nation is setting the stage, he writes, for the nation’s suicide.

In the course of the pamphlet, Horowitz identifies and skewers such targets as Ta-Nehisi Coates, the left’s most celebrated and influential voice on race in America; the slavery reparations movement; the Black Lives Matter organization and its Marxist revolutionary aims; identity politics; the Google-funded Equal Justice Initiative, which promotes the inflammatory notion that “slavery did not end, it evolved”; the lie that America is “systemically” racist; the cultural Marxism that is at the heart of it all; and many more.

This courageous new pamphlet, How Progressives Use Race as a Weapon Against Our Country, is one of the many reasons the David Horowitz Freedom Center is on the cutting edge of the fight against America’s enemies both within and without.

READ THE FULL PAMPHLET BELOW:

Civilizations die when they cease to believe in themselves, when they lose the will to defend themselves, and thus the will to survive. The empowering inspiration that created American civilization is inscribed in the certificate of its birth. The Declaration of Independence is a proclamation of the equality of individuals, whatever their race, creed or origin, and it asserts their inalienable right to liberty. This statement of national principles is unprecedented in the five thousand years of previous human history.

Most important is the American Founding’s view of its citizens as individuals, rather than defined by memberships in racial, ethnic, and gender groups. For this reason, the words “white,” “black” “male” “female” “slave” do not appear in the Constitution. The guarantee of individual rights to equality and liberty is the inspiration that created the culture and country that led the world in abolishing slavery, made Americans the decisive force for freedom in three global wars, and established a society that today is rivalled by no other in its inclusiveness, tolerance and freedom. It is America’s founding principles and their practice that has caused this nation to be hailed as a “beacon of freedom” for the entire world, and that led its greatest president to call it, “the last best hope of mankind.”

One might expect the election of America’s first black president to mark a culminating point in this remarkable, unique legacy – particularly since white Americans made up 56% of his winning coalition.[1] In evaluating this statistic, bear in mind that there are no elected white presidents of majority black countries, or Asian countries. But the presidency of Barack Obama did not lead to a celebration of America’s achievement in creating a successful multi-ethnic and multi-racial society. It led to greater racial and ethnic tensions. That is because Obama was a lifelong political leftist who openly rejected this view of American exceptionalism, equating it with “British exceptionalism” and “Greek exceptionalism,” in other words not exceptional all.[2] Obama’s presidency did not lead to a celebration of America’s achievement in creating a successful multi-ethnic and multi-racial society because Obama is the leader of a political movement that is at war with America and its achievement.

On the eve of his election Obama predicted that, “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” as though America was so deeply flawed as to require a “fundamental” transformation. In a subsequent statement, near the end of his second term, Obama explained why. In his view not only was America not a beacon of equality and freedom, but was instead a racist society in practice and also by nature. “The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives … casts a long shadow, and that’s  still  part of  our DNA  that’s  passed on. We’re  not cured of it.”[3]

This is the ideological conviction of progressives and the political left. With the election of Donald Trump it has reached unprecedented levels of self-condemnation. America it is said, is a “white supremacist society” – a claim that would have been dismissed out of hand as an absurdity during the previous administration when the chief law enforcement officers of the land, the head of the president’s National Security Council and the president himself were black. Today, however, the Democratic Party is home to constituencies and organizations promoting this defamation, however ludicrous and disregardful of the reality. In their official party platform, Democrats speak of “systemic” and “institutional racism,” even though systemic and institutional racism were explicitly outlawed over half a century ago in the Civil Rights Acts.[4] In other words, to believe the Democratic Party platform one has to believe that the historic Civil Rights movement, which led to the Civil Rights Acts was an abject failure and achieved nothing.

Such extreme condemnations originate, and are intended, as attacks on America itself – on the American idea and its achievements. This is the meaning of the nationwide protests of the national anthem, and the attempt by the California NAACP to delegitimize and replace it as “racist,” and by the numerous attempts to destroy monuments to Thomas Jefferson and other American Founders, as though their legacy was not one of freedom but oppression.

The curricula of American schools originally designed to educate the citizens of a democracy are increasingly devoted to the doctrine that whites are racists, that America oppresses “people of color,” and that “whiteness” is a socio-political “construct” which must be abolished.[5] As one Texas State college student, echoing Obama, wrote in his school paper, “White DNA is an abomination.”[6] Nor is this a view confined to students and their teachers, but rather one with broad currency among the nation’s intellectual elites. According to the winner of the 2016 National Book Award, Ta-Nehisi Coates, “white America’s progress, or rather the progress of those Americans who believe they are white, was built on looting and violence.”[7] In a 2017 book on Obama’s presidency, Coates declared: “white supremacy [is] so foundational to this country that it [will] not be defeated in my lifetime, my child’s lifetime, or perhaps ever.”[8]

Ta-Nehisi Coates is the nation’s most celebrated and awarded black author. According to George Packer, another National Book Award winner, “Coates has become the most influential writer in America today; [his] latest Atlantic essay is already being taught in college courses.” When Coates was appointed an editor of the Atlantic Monthly one of America’s oldest liberal journals, he reacted this this way: “I knew by then that I was not writing and reporting from some corner of America society, but from the very heart of it, from the plunder that was essential to it, and the culture that animated it. [emphasis added]”[9] In other words, America is not only a racist enterprise; it is a criminal one.

Coates’ centrality as a public intellectual, along with the universal respect he has garnered from the political left, are reasons why his anti-white racism and virulent hatred for America are noteworthy, or why anyone should pay any attention to him at all. The subject of the Coates essay Packer refers to as already a college assignment is Donald Trump – Obama’s successor – whom Coates employs as a foil to attack America and everything it stands for: “It is insufficient to state the obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it.”[10]

Coates’ repellent dismissal of a progress that includes what is arguably the greatest transformation of race relations ever, is also the theme of a contemporary campaign called the “Equal Justice Initiative.” This campaign intends to raise awareness of lynchings, a practice that was put an end to at least sixty years ago. It is more particularly a campaign to raise awareness of the lynchings of African Americans, and only African Americans, although about a third of lynching victims were white. The “Equal Justice Initiative” is funded and promoted by one of America’s – and indeed the world’s – largest corporations, Google. Its outrageous campaign theme is, “Slavery did not end; it evolved.”

America is under attack by forces both within and without, religious and secular, which seek to delegitimize and destroy it. A spear point of the attacks are these very claims – that America is racist, “white supremacist,” and, in some perverse sense, actually a slave society. MSNBC anchor and former Nation editor Chris Hayes has actually written a recent book,  A Colony in A Nation (the “colony” is black, the “nation” is white) advancing this preposterous thesis. By undermining America’s self-image and esteem, these enemies of America hope to sap its will to defend itself.

Just before the attacks of 9/11 the left launched a movement for reparations for slavery, even though the institution was abolished well over a century ago. “The Case for Reparations” is the title of a 2014 Atlantic article which brought Ta-Nehisi Coates into national prominence. In fact, reparations is an idea that was in the 1960s rejected by all three major civil rights organizations, who viewed it as divisive and misguided, since the slavery power had been defeated by the very government the activists were holding responsible.  The manifesto of the reparations movement was called The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks, and was written by Randall Robinson, who on completion of the book, repudiated his American citizenship and left the country for Jamaica.

The Debt begins with the following declaration: “This book is about the great still-unfolding massive crime of official and unofficial America against Africa, African slaves, and their descendants in America.”[11] It goes on to claim, “The enslavement of blacks in America lasted 246 years. It was followed by a century of legal racial segregation and discrimination. The two periods, taken together, constitute the longest running crime against humanity in the world over the last 500 years. . . .”19 No wonder, according to prominent professor, television personality and leftwing ideologue, Michael Eric Dyson, “[Americans] can’t talk about slavery because it indicts the American soul.”[12]

If true, Robinson’s statements would make American slavery a more heinous crime than the Nazi atrocities, the genocides of the Indians, or the thousand years of black slavery in Africa, which took place before a white man ever set foot on that continent. But they are false. Slavery existed in all societies for 3,000 years before anyone declared the institution immoral. That was a contribution of white Christian males in England led by Wilberforce, and even more importantly by Thomas Jefferson and the American founders. The actual enslavement of black Africans was carried out by black Africans, who sold them to Muslim Arabs, and only later to white Europeans in the Atlantic slave trade – a trade that began in 1526 and lasted for 300 years. In other words, Americans generally did not “enslave” black Africans but bought African slaves from their black African masters. They then transported them in the Middle Passage to the continental United States.

In a more honest time, an African American writer and American patriot, Zora Neale Hurston, saw the historical reality with great clarity: “The white people held my people in slavery here in America. They bought us, it is true, and exploited us. But the inescapable fact that stuck in my craw was [that] my people had sold me. . . . My own people had exterminated whole nations and torn families apart for profit before the strangers got their chance at a cut. It was a sobering thought. It impressed upon me the universal nature of greed and glory.”[13]

America – the United States of America – did not sustain 400 years of slavery as was long claimed by her attackers, or 246 years of slavery, as Robinson claimed. It was only 78 years from the founding of America in 1787 with the signing of the Constitution, to the Emancipation Proclamation and the Union victory abolished the hateful institution. Thus, historically speaking – accurately speaking – black Africa enslaved blacks, and majority white America liberated blacks.

Every African American alive today owes his or her freedom to Thomas Jefferson and the American founders and the 350,000 mainly white but also black Union soldiers who gave their lives to end this evil. That is a heritage that black Americans share with white Americans, along with the entire multi-racial mosaic that makes up America today. Professor Dyson’s malice towards white Americans notwithstanding, of course they can talk about slavery, and with pride in their role in ending it.

In their attack on America, leftists don’t rest with their misrepresentation of the history of slavery. They seek to indict the very Founding that liberated black slaves by denigrating it as a “white supremacist” collusion with slave owners through the so-called “three-fifths compromise.” According to the left, the Founders were racists who regarded a black person as only three-fifths of a human being. This is just a display of historical ignorance. The issue before the Constitutional Convention was whether to count slaves – not blacks – as equivalent to free individuals for the purpose of congressional representation, in other words political power. It was the anti-slavery forces at the insisted that since slaves were not free and could not vote, they should only be equivalent to three-fifths of a free person for this purpose.[14] They did so to diminish the power of the slave-holding south. The Constitution, as already noted, doesn’t use the words “black,” “white,” “slave,” “male” or “female” precisely because its creators were dedicated to creating a society – the society we enjoy today – where the law of the land holds that everyone regardless of race, gender or origin is to be treated equally.

Why three-fifths then? Why not zero? Why compromise with the slave south at all? The answer should be obvious. America’s enemy at the time was the greatest empire in the world at the time. In War of 1812, the British managed to burn the White House. If the anti-slavery northerners had declared war on the slaveholding south (which is what not compromising would have meant) the empire would have formed an alliance with the south and crushed them, preserving the slave system. Even decades later, when America was much stronger, the outcome of the war between the states was far from certain.

The anti-Americans project this destructive revision of the historical record into the present by distorting its reality through an ideological prism that is collectivist and racist – the very antithesis of this nation’s founding vision. Progressive ideology is generally referred to as “identity politics,” but is more accurately described as “cultural Marxism.” Cultural Marxists have taken the Marxist model of warring classes and transformed it into a model of oppression by race, gender, and sexual orientation. The reduction of individuals into group objects, creates a new indictment: “people of color,” women, and non-heterosexual groups are said to be “marginalized” and (therefore?) “oppressed” by white supremacist males –America’s ruling caste.

The facts offered by the left as evidence of “racism” and “oppression” are not actually evidences of racism and oppression. Instead they are statistical disparities between group categories, as the left defines them. Consider these statements in the 2016 Democratic Party Platform: “It is unacceptable that the median wealth for African Americans and Latino Americans is roughly one-tenth that of white Americans. These disparities are also stark for American Indians and certain Asian American subgroups, and may become even more significant when considering other characteristics such as age, disability status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

This is not just a regret that there are such disparities accompanied by a wish that something could be done about them. It is part of an indictment of America as a society characterized by “systemic racism” and “institutional racism” – and of course “sexism” and other isms that populate leftist indictments. The Democratic platform vows “a societal transformation” that will “end institutional and systemic racism in our society.” To establish some connection to the real world, the platform claims that, “The racial wealth and income gaps are the result of policies that discriminate against people of color and constrain their ability to earn income and build assets to the same extent as other Americans.”

But are they? If such policies existed they would be illegal under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, not to mention the 14th Amendment to the Bill of Rights. If they existed one can imagine the armada of suits that would fill the courts over which a goodly number of Obama appointees preside. But this is not happening and that is because the disparities are realistically explained by individual details, for example the presence (or lack) of two-parent families, the degree of education or lack of education, or whether (in the case of so-called Latino Americans), they are English speakers, and here legally, so able to get well-paying jobs. More generally, wealth and income are determined in large part by what cultural attitudes guide the choices that families and individuals make. Otherwise Japanese Americans, who are “people of color,” would not be among America’s richest economic groups.

The very categories are suspect – and racist. Is there a category, “Latino Americans” that is useful for these purposes? Cuban Americans are not really comparable to Puerto Rican Americans for example in education, economic status and cultural attitudes. There is a very large African American middle class in America – encompassing between 40% and 50% of the African American population. In 2014, 21% of African Americans earned more than $75,000 per year.[15] If American society could really be categorized as systemically racist, how did these African Americans succeed while others didn’t? It is only by factoring out the decisions that individuals make, since erasing individuals is the normal practice of collectivists, that leftists can make the ludicrous claims that make up their indictment of a society, which has done more than any other in the world with such large minority populations to provide them the opportunity to succeed.

The ideological category that underpins the message of the anti-American collectivists is “people of color,” a term they use to define the marginalized and oppressed, which is not even grammatical English. The whole world is people of color – the oppressed – except for white people, the designated oppressors. According to leftists, only white people can be racists, because only white people have power. This is an absurdity, but that doesn’t prevent it from being a staple of the anti-America/anti-white cause.

But does “people of color” even define a coherent group with a common social identity that can serve as a marker separating oppressor from oppressed? Tell that to the Rwandans, who are all people of color but are divided as Rwandan Hutus who carried out a genocide against the Rawandan Tutsis, or the Pakistanis and Indians who share a skin color but are at war against each other, or the ISIS slaughterers of Egyptian Coptics and Islamic Sufis, Arabs all. To the left these are all “people of color,” therefore oppressed. This bastardized term’s sole purpose is to divide the world into oppressors and oppressed: white people and non-whites, so that white people can be demeaned and attacked.

This racist view is behind every assault by the left against America today. Take the central claim of the most powerful racial movement on the left, Black Lives Matter. This organization was founded by three self-styled Maoists, and has adopted as its icon a Marxist revolutionary and convicted cop killer, Assata Shakur, who is a protected ward of the Communist dictatorship in Cuba.[16] Not surprisingly, Black Lives Matter condemns America as a “corrupt democracy” and “white supremacist system,… built on Indigenous genocide and chattel slavery,” and claims that it “continues to thrive on the brutal exploitation of people of color”; that blacks are routinely “dehumanized” and rendered “powerless at the hands of the state, … deprived of [their] basic human rights and dignity,” and targeted for “extrajudicial killings … by police and vigilantes.”[17]

Black Lives Matter has been the chief organizer of riots in Ferguson, Baltimore, Dallas and other cities, inciting violence against police with the claim that there is a “war on blacks” and that the law enforcement agencies – headed in each of the cities named by African American chiefs of police – murder unarmed blacks as a matter of course. This lie has led directly to dramatic increases in the number of homicides – mainly black on black homicides in 56 American cities, including Ferguson and Baltimore, where the murder rates increased by 47% and 60% respectively in the immediate wake of riots organized by Black Lives Matter.[18]

The actual facts about police and the black community are quite different. “According to the Centers for Disease Control,” writes black attorney and media commentator Larry Elder, “police shootings against blacks have declined almost 75 percent since 1968. Of the 963 people shot and killed by police in 2016, 233 were black, and 466 were white. Last year, a grand total of 17 unarmed blacks were killed by the police, according to The Washington Post. Contrast this with the approximately 6,000 to 7,000 blacks killed annually, almost all — as many as 90 percent — by other blacks.”[19]

Racist and violent, Black Lives Matter is an organization officially embraced by the Democratic Party, and bankrolled with tens of millions of dollars from Democratic Party donors like George Soros. In the direct wake of the killing of five police officers by a black racist in Dallas during a Black Lives Matter anti-police “protest,” President Obama invited its leaders to the White House, and endorsed its mission: “I think the reason that the organizers used the phrase ‘Black Lives Matter’ was not because they were suggesting nobody else’s lives matter. Rather, what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that’s happening in the African-American community that’s not happening in other communities. And that is a legitimate issue that we’ve got to address.”

A resolution endorsing Black Lives Matter, adopted by the Democratic National Committee, was more explicit citing the alleged existence of “many…lost in the unacceptable epidemic of extrajudicial killings of unarmed black men, women, and children at the hands of police” (a reference evidently to the 17 cases actually recorded), attributing this “nightmare” to “the vestiges of slavery, Jim Crow and White Supremacy.” 

Therefore be it resolved that the DNC joins with Americans across the country in affirming “Black lives matter … efforts to make visible the pain of our fellow … Americans as they condemn extrajudicial killings of unarmed African American men, women and children …

It is left to Ta-Nehisi Coates – also a guest of the White House – to reveal the racist mentality behind this adoption by the political left of a movement so hostile to the American idea. A pivotal event in Coates’ National Book Award winner, Between the World and Me, is the killing of his friend, Prince Jones, by a policeman. According to the officer, Jones tried to run him over with his car while the officer was arresting him for drugs. A classic case of what Black Lives Matter is concerned about? Not quite: “Here is what I knew at the outset,” writes Coates. “The officer who killed Prince Jones was black. The politicians who empowered this officer to kill were black. Many of the black politicians, many of them twice as good, seemed unconcerned. How could this be?”[20]

Coates answers his own question first by dismissing black crime all together and attributing it to the evil whites – to white supremacists who pull the strings behind the scenes and manipulate apparently passive blacks into committing criminal acts. According to Coates, “‘Black-on-black crime’ is jargon, violence to language, which vanishes the men who engineered the covenants, who fixed the loans, who planned the projects, who built the streets and sold red ink by the barrel. And this should not surprise us. The plunder of black life was drilled into this country in its infancy and reinforced across its history, so that plunder has become an heirloom, an intelligence, a sentience, a default setting to which, likely to the end of our days, we must invariably return…. The killing fields of Chicago, of Baltimore, of Detroit, were created by the policy of Dreamers [i.e., white believers in the American Dream], but their weight, their shame, rests solely upon those who are dying in them.”[21]

Having blamed whites for every suffering, every deficiency in the black community, and even criminal act by blacks, Coates is ready to answer the question of how it is possible that a black cop killed his criminal friend: “The Dream of acting white, of talking white, of being white, murdered Prince Jones as sure as it murders black people in Chicago with frightening regularity.”[22] Whites killed his friend. Whites are responsible for every black on black crime. d It would be hard to imagine a more racist view. It would be hard to imagine ravings by an actual white supremacist more demented than this. Yet, Coates is an intellectual icon of the progressive left, the toast of the President and the cultural elite.

This is the nature of the assault on America. It is racist and collectivist, eliminating individuals in favor of groups, laying guilt on some because of their membership in groups and removing guilt from others for the same reason. This is the totalitarian ideology savaged by George Orwell in 1984, which led to the murders of a hundred million souls in the last century.  Yet despite this historical catastrophe so close to hand, the same destructive ideas are already deeply embedded in the nation’s culture and politics. America does not deserve this. Over two centuries it has shaped itself into the most tolerant and inclusive society of its kind in the world. Orlando Patterson, a renowned African American liberal and Harvard sociologist whose award-winning works specialize in the study of slavery and race, has said of America, that “is the least racist white-majority society in the world; has a better record of legal protections of minorities than any other society, white or black; offers more opportunities to greater numbers of black persons than any other society, including those of Africa.”[23] To believe the opposite is not only to deny a reality. If enough Americans are seduced into believing these noxious ideas, it will set the stage for a nation’s suicide.

Notes:


[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_YW4Oaehg

[7]  Ta-Nehisi Coates, Between the World and Me, 2016 p.5

[8]  Ta-Nehisi Coates, We Were Eight Years In Power, p. 159 Kindle edition

[9]  We Were Eight Years In Power, p. 113

[10] Coates, We Were Eight Years in Power, p. 341 Kindle edition

[11] Robinson, The Debt, op. cit. p. 8. Emphasis added.

[12] Kevin Grant, “Socialist Professor Addresses Student Audience on Reparations and Race Relations,” Arizona State Press, April 24, 2001. Dyson, a leading African American intellectual, is a professor at DePaul University and was flown in at University expense to provide a rebuttal to a case against reparations I had been invited by students to present.

[13] Zora Neale Hurston, Dust Tracks On A Road, 1997

[18] Ibid.

[20]  Ta-Nehisi Coates, Between the World and Me, p. 83. Kindle Edition.

[21]  Coates, op. cit. pp. 110-111

[22]  Ibid.

 

The Fight of Our Lives

Feb 9th 2018, 05:54, by Mark Tapson

Editor’s note: The world premiere of The Fight of Our Lives will be held at the Broad Stage in Santa Monica, California on Monday evening, February 19, through the support of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. For details, click here.

“Civilizations, empires, great powers, can fall apart very fast. Collapse can come suddenly, like a thief in the night. And we should be very wary of assuming that our civilization, the civilization of the early 21st century West, will oblige us by declining gradually.”

That warning from noted historian Niall Ferguson is the opening and the theme of the vital new documentary The Fight of Our Lives: Defeating the Ideological War Against the West from filmmaker Gloria Z. Greenfield.

Greenfield’s previous work includes Body and Soul – The State of the Jewish Nation in 2014 (which I reviewed for FrontPage Mag here), Unmasked Judeophobia in 2011, and The Case for Israel – Democracy’s Outpost in 2009. She is the president of Doc Emet Productions, the simple and powerful motto of which is “Truth in film.” Unlike, say, propagandist Michael Moore’s front-and-center, demagogic presence in his films such as Fahrenheit 9/11, director Greenfield gets out of the way and crafts her narratives about anti-Semitism, history, Judeo-Christian values, freedom, and democracy from the authoritative, articulate arguments of the many intellectuals who lend their expertise to her projects.

Such is the case with her latest documentary, which features compelling observations and insights from well-known historians, journalists, and thinkers such as Niall Ferguson, Victor Davis Hanson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Alan Dershowitz, Melanie Phillips, Bruce Thornton, Raymond Ibrahim, Brooke Goldstein, Ibn Warraq, Alan West, and many more respected commentators from academia, human rights organizations, and think tanks. [Full disclosure: I am included among the featured speakers, as are David Horowitz Freedom Center Fellows Thornton and Ibrahim.]

The Fight of Our Lives addresses the various internal and external threats facing Western civilization today, and cautions that if we don’t recognize these grave dangers now and rouse ourselves to resist and overcome them, then it is no hyperbole to say that the West as we know it will come to – as Ferguson warned – a swift and inexorable end.

The film groups topics into seven “chapters”: “Utopian Masks” (about the subversive internal threats of cultural relativism and multiculturalism), “Crumbling Towers” (on the political radicalization of the university), “Weaponizing Identity” (on the gender and race conflicts that have sprung up with the rise of identity politics), “Breaching the Gates” (on the threat of global Islamic supremacism in the West, whether through terrorism or subversion), “People of the Book” (regarding the Islamic persecution and genocide of Christians and Jews), and “Durable Values” (on the assaults against the values that have made the West great, such as the freedom of speech). It concludes with a chapter on “Standing Up,” which exhorts us, the heirs of the Western tradition, to push back against our enemies and defend our heritage and our future.

Niall Ferguson speaks on the cultural consequences of the recent tsunami of migrants and purported refugees from Muslim countries into Europe, the heart of what used to be called Christendom. That civilization, he claims, may not be around by the end of the century – or it may have changed so much that it’s unrecognizable. The United States, with its rapidly growing Islamic population and influx of illegal aliens across our southern border, is facing a similar demographic transformation.

But we are facing a more significant threat by way of a subversive ideological assault. “The threat from within comes from the people who want to undermine the basis of Western civilization,” says journalist Melanie Phillips. She points out that the Baby Boomer generation was heavily influenced by the political philosopher Antonio Gramsci, who urged revolutionaries to infiltrate the organs of culture – the media, academia, entertainment – and “turn the mind of the West against itself.” That infiltration and indoctrination, as others in the documentary discuss, has been shockingly successful, particularly in our educational institutions.

Attorney Alan Dershowitz, for example, decries “the light fog of fascism which seems to be descending on the universities” and which poses a tremendous danger for the future of Western values. “In universities there is almost a kind of an intellectual masochism, the sense that we should not be proud of the values that we stand for, that we even need to engage in a kind of a ritual self-flagellation,” says Kenneth L. Marcus from the Louis D. Brandeis Center. “There is too little in our universities being taught about what the admirable aspects of the Western tradition are,” declares Jeffrey Herf of the University of Maryland.

The influence of multiculturalism, as historian Victor Davis Hanson and The Lawfare Project’s Brooke Goldstein point out, has resulted in a moral relativism and a chilling effect on free speech, as any criticism of non-Western cultures is now deemed to be hate speech. Raheel Raza of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow points out the inconvenient truth that not all cultures are created equal; a culture which subjects homosexuals to grisly executions and women to female genital mutilation and honor killings is not on the same moral plane as one which defends individual rights, freedom, and gender equality. But that’s an unacceptable judgment to make in our relativistic culture now.

Speakers such as the Tikvah Fund’s Ruth Wisse, McGill University’s Philip Carl Salzman, and myself address how identity politics has fragmented society into tribal conflicts among races and between the sexes.  Radical feminism, for example, is carrying out an assault on gender relations and masculinity that has contributed to the breakdown of the family unit, an alarming decline of the birth rate in the West, and an emasculated society that is too timid to defend itself from the threat of an aggressively male-dominated Islamic sub-culture within the West, a culture which is outbreeding us.

The Hoover Institution’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali and TBN host and terrorism expert Erick Stakelbeck, among others, discuss the danger of refusing to identify Islam as a supremacist ideology intent on destroying the West and establishing a worldwide caliphate in its place. Meanwhile, such authorities as the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Shimon Samuels and the Freedom Center’s Raymond Ibrahim state that a literal genocide is being waged in the Middle East against Christians and Jews, who are targeted even in Europe and the United States as well, while the West wrestles impotently with self-loathing and willful blindness.

There is much more to this documentary. With The Fight of Our Lives, Gloria Greenfield has created a riveting and disturbing, but ultimately enlightening and inspirational, clarion call for the Western world to wake up and reverse its decadent course before it’s too late. Its urgent message is one that deserves as wide an audience as possible.

In the film, Niall Ferguson recalls Edmund Burke’s observation that civilization is a pact between the dead, the living, and the yet unborn. I cannot stress enough how important it is to view The Fight of Our Lives, take its message to heart, and honor that pact by standing up when and where you can in defense of the West.   

For more information on the film, the filmmakers, and the featured commentators, click here.

The ‘Abnormalization’ of Trump

Feb 9th 2018, 05:30, by Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

President Trump’s proposal for a military parade was met with total and absolute hysteria. Just like any and every other proposal that he makes. Military parades are a “public demonstration of power is characteristic of authoritarian regimes like North Korea and China,” the media screeched.

That must be why we have them every year.

The National Memorial Day Parade in Washington D.C. has been an annual event since it was revived to honor World War II veterans. But it’s subdued compared to other parades across the country which still include tanks and other heavy military equipment. We’ve been having military parades since 1776.

Jefferson, Lincoln and countless other presidents reviewed them and took part in them. And they weren’t just limited to days set aside to honor veterans or for the occasional victory celebration.

The military reflects the character of a nation’s government. In authoritarian states, military parades represent the repressive power of the tyranny. In free nations, they show the power of the people. A tank, like a gun, is a tool that is not good or evil. It’s the use that men make of it, that makes it so.

We knew that during the Cold War.

President Kennedy’s inaugural parade included Pershing, Nike and Hercules nuclear missiles. But he was just topping President Eisenhower who had an M65 Atomic Cannon along with four companies of tanks and artillery. Truman’s inaugural parade had a squadron of B-52 bombers flying  overhead. 

If President Trump’s inauguration had shown off a weapon that could destroy an entire city, the media would have had a fit. But President Kennedy had watched a line of tanks pass in front of his reviewing stand in a public demonstration of power characteristic of authoritarian regimes like China and Camelot.

The hysteria over the military parade is typical of the ‘abnormalization’ of President Trump.

The #resistance has declared that its mission is refusing to ‘normalize’ Trump. That means it won’t accept that he won the election, that he has the right to issue orders or even exist. The violent protests, the marches, the judicial activism and the political sabotage all stem from that refusal to ‘normalize’.

Instead of ‘normalizing’ him, the left has ‘abnormalized’ him as aberrant in every possible way. And the media has built a profitable business model of catering to the radical left by pretending that normal behavior is a shocking outrage. That’s why CNN treated President Trump having 2 scoops of ice cream as a news story. Or why the media was certain that Trump had to be in poor health no matter what a doctor who had been vouched for by top Obama officials told them to their faces.

Abnormalization means that everything that Trump does is extraordinary and bad. Even down to eating ice cream or a cheeseburger. His health must be bad because he is a bad person. Nothing is too petty to be treated as an outrage. Including Melania’s shoes. And everything he does is bad because he did it.

When other presidents cut off travel from dangerous countries, deported illegal aliens or reviewed military parades, that was normal. But when Trump does it, he’s a tyrant, a dictator and a monster.

The psychology of abnormalization drives much of the news coverage of President Trump.

Everything about President Trump is extraordinary and therefore newsworthy. The news cycle is consumed with the pettiest possible coverage of him. Abnormalization leaves the media unable to distinguish between an important story and an unimportant one. Whether he has two scoops of ice cream or plans a military parade, it’s both a huge story and a huge outrage. The news is no longer a listing of events, but of outrages. The connective tissue between the incontinent stream of random Trump bashing on CNN is neither factual nor relevant to anything in our lives: it’s outrage.

Abnormalization depends on a very specific form of bias which assumes that since President Trump is abnormal, everything he does is also abnormal. It’s the social media disease of a progressive media echo chamber which is ignorant of history, but carefully cogent of ideology. Its members, drawn from the exotic diversity of a handful of Ivy League schools and suburban bedroom communities, are vague on any subjects outside their cultural purview. And they’ve been politically trained in those schools to reframe anything and everything as racist, sexist or homophobic at the crack of an ideological whip.

Reality is always being reinvented because how they are told to feel about it keeps changing.

These categorizations are often contextual and have nothing to do with the content. A book by William Faulkner is bad because he was a white man. And too many white men have written books. Trees are racist because black people were lynched on them. Being quiet is racist because it marginalizes students.

In this children’s game of nonsensical associations, emotional context matters, but content doesn’t.

A generation has been taught to toss out the reality of a thing for an emotional perspective of how some oppressed person might see it. Truth has been replaced by ‘my truth’. And that chain of emotional associations makes it fallaciously easy to normalize the abnormal and abnormalize the normal.

Context normalizes. The only way to abnormalize Trump is to reject any and all context.

Nothing existed before Trump. Nothing will exist after him. The left is caught in an endless moment of perpetual struggle, stretched out by the nanosecond pace of Twitter and amplified by endless media discourses, of how extraordinarily bad this moment is. In that moment, the left never grows or learns, it writhes in the hellish agonies of its own hatred at Trump’s continuing unnatural existence.

Imagine 1984’s Two Minutes Hate stretched out over years. That’s the #resistance.

Abnormalization is at the root of that pain and anger. We can tolerate differences, but the abnormal is a threat to our sense of normalcy. Its existence is an attack on us. Its freakishness must be destroyed for us to resume feeling normal again. The feelings it engenders are deeply tribal and violent.

The abnormalization of Trump doesn’t change him, but it does change those who hate him.

It’s their brains, not his, that adapt to a new way of seeing the world. The constant stream of outrage transforms their nervous systems. The abnormalization of Trump makes the entire world seem aberrant. Paranoia and isolation leads to clustering into virulent organizations that abnormalize them. The conspiracy theories that they clutch are reinforced by irrational echo chambers at odds with reality.

Reality isn’t abnormal. But denying it is.

Denying reality makes you crazy and stupid. It ends with you “collectively yelling at the sky” to protest Trump’s inauguration. Or denying history, medicine and science because truth has become abnormal.

The abnormalization of President Trump retroactively rewrites history. The same media that treated McCain as a vile racist and Romney as a new low, now celebrates both men as the epitomes of dignity. Judicial rulings reflect the same abnormalization as the powers that previous presidents held and utilized are retroactively deemed to be off limits. Not only history, but legal history, is being rewritten.

Military parades were once a staple of Washington D.C. politics. But now they’ve been retroactively abnormalized. As is having two scoops of ice cream or anything else that President Trump does.

This is bad for America. But it’s even worse for common sense.

The media and the mindless lefties consuming it have built a senseless culture of outrage that is hostile to history and uninterested in the truth. Its house of ideological cards is bolstered with fake fact checks.

The more it insists that President Trump is abnormal, the more abnormal the left becomes.

Saudi Graduate of Al Qaeda Terror Training Camp Arrested In Oklahoma

Feb 9th 2018, 05:25, by Michael Cutler
On February 6, The New York Times published a chilling report on the arrest in Oklahoma of a foreign national who had attended an al Qaeda training camp. The defendant in this case is Naif Abdulaziz M. Alfallaj, a 34-year-old citizen of Saudi Arabia who has been residing in the U.S. since 2011. Allegedly he attended a terror training camp in Afghanistan in 2000 when four of the 9/11 hijacker/terrorists also attended training sessions at that very same camp.
 
Here is an excerpt from the Justice Department’s press release on the arrest:
 

According to the (criminal) complaint, the FBI found 15 of Alfallaj’s fingerprints on an application to an al Qaeda training camp, known as al Farooq, which was one of al Qaeda’s key training sites in Afghanistan.  The document was recovered by the U.S. military from an al Qaeda safe house in Afghanistan.  The document is also alleged to include an emergency contact number associated with Alfallaj’s father in Saudi Arabia.  Alfallaj is alleged to have first entered the U.S. in late 2011 on a nonimmigrant visa based on his wife’s status as a foreign student.  According to the complaint, he answered several questions on his visa application falsely, including whether he had ever supported terrorists or terrorist organizations.
 

The indictment returned today charges two counts of visa fraud.  Count One alleges that from March 2012 to the present, Alfallaj possessed a visa obtained by fraud.  Count Two alleges he used that visa in October 2016 to apply for lessons at a private flight school in Oklahoma.  The third count in the indictment charges Alfallaj with making a false statement to the FBI during a terrorism investigation when he was interviewed and denied ever having associated with anyone from a foreign terrorist group.  

 
This is a “good news/bad news” story.
 
It is certainly impressive that our government was able to uncover the evidence upon which this criminal case is based, however, he was lawfully admitted into the United States in 2011, more than a decade after he received terror training.  He has been in the United States for about seven years and his presence in the United States only came to the attention of the FBI when he sought pilot training in October 2016.
 
It was discovered that he had lied when he applied for his visa to enter the United States by concealing his connection to terrorism.
 
This case causes me to have a sort of flashback to the congressional hearing at which I testified on March 19, 2002. The title of the hearing was the “INS’s Notification of Approval of Change of Status for Pilot Training for Terrorist Hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi.”
 
The C-SPAN video of that hearing is one that every member of Congress and the leadership of DHS, the State Department and other agencies of the Trump administration should be required to watch, especially as they contemplate calling into action a bureaucracy that continues to demonstrate its ineptitude in effectively screening aliens applicants for immigration benefits.
 
I have frequently noted in many of my articles and in my testimony before congressional hearings that the 9/11 Commission identified immigration fraud as the key entry and embedding tactic of terrorists.  This is why the second largest contingent of law enforcement personnel assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) are ICE agents.
 
As a former INS agent I don’t like to speculate, I certainly prefer to deal with facts, however, there are some very serious and obvious questions that the Alfallaj case raises.
 
While it may be that Alfallaj had no nefarious purposes for taking pilot training, it is impossible to not consider the that Alfallaj is a “sleeper agent,” that is to say, an enemy combatant who entered the United States with the ultimate goal of participating in a deadly attack.  If so, was he planning to participate in a hijacking of an airliner with others who perhaps have yet to be identified? Or was he perhaps planning to complete his flight training and then use a rented airplane as a weapon?
 
Having considered the case of Alfallaj, we must contemplate President Trump’s offer to provide 1.6 million DACA aliens with lawful status and pathway to citizenship.
 
Purportedly these illegal aliens entered the United States as children and hence had no control over their situation.  However, because they may be in their mid 30’s it is entirely possible that a significant number of them may lie about their actual dates of entry and that, although they claimed that they entered as children, they may well have entered relatively recently as adults.
 
Furthermore, these aliens are citizens from countries around the world, as reported by the DHS.
 
I addressed my misgivings about the the president’s plans in a recent articleDACA Solution Must Heed 9/11 Commission Findings. In conducting their deliberations about President Trump’s solution for DACA illegal aliens, members of Congress must take into account that the adjudications process would be conducted by a division of the DHS, along with other agencies that have failed, time and again, to properly vet aliens who have turned out to be terrorists and/or criminals.
 
President Trump ignited a firestorm, awhile back, when he issued executive orders to prevent the entry of aliens from countries that sponsor terrorism who could not be effectively vetted by our officials. President Trump’s stand on this issue was entirely proper and prudent, given the totality of circumstances. As I noted in an article back then, a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182, provides the President of the United States with the discretionary authority to imposed such restrictions even though he was enjoined by judges from implementing his orders.
 
The President is still very much concerned about the vetting process for aliens seeking entry into the United States to prevent the entry of terrorists and criminals. Indeed, during his State of the Union Address, when he discussed the second of his “four pillars” for reforming the immigration system, he referred to the “loopholes” by which criminals and terrorists enter the United States.  In reality, there are no “loopholes” but fraud that goes undetected and a lack of integrity of the immigration system.
 
Nevertheless the President is willing to rely on that same system to legalize 1.8 million DACA aliens.  It is likely that even more aliens would file applications, many laden with fraud information and claims.
 
After the attacks of 9/11 we were frequently told that for America to be safe, our officials had to “get it right 100% of the time” while in order for the terrorists to succeed, they only had to “get it right once.”  Every application filed by an alien for a visa or for lawful status provides terrorists with that opportunity of “getting it right.”
 
Consider this excerpt from Chapter 12 of the 9/11 Commission Report:
 
Before 9/11, no agency of the U.S. government systematically analyzed terrorists’ travel strategies. Had they done so, they could have discovered the ways in which the terrorist predecessors to al Qaeda had been systematically but detectably exploiting weaknesses in our border security since the early 1990s.
 
We found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers were potentially vulnerable to interception by border authorities. Analyzing their characteristic travel documents and travel patterns could have allowed authorities to intercept 4 to 15 hijackers and more effective use of information available in U.S. government databases could have identified up to 3 hijackers.
 
Looking back, we can also see that the routine operations of our immigration laws-that is, aspects of those laws not specifically aimed at protecting against terrorism-inevitably shaped al Qaeda’s planning and opportunities. Because they were deemed not to be bona fide tourists or students as they claimed, five conspirators that we know of tried to get visas and failed, and one was denied entry by an inspector. We also found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who or what they claim to be-and ensuring routine consequences for violations-it could potentially have excluded, removed, or come into further contact with several hijackers who did not appear to meet the terms for admitting short-term visitors.
 
Our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system’s inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism.
 
The succession of terror attacks carried out by aliens who gamed the immigration system and acquired political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even citizenship, prove just how incapable that system is to deal with its current workload of 6 million applications annually, sounding alarms the President must hear.
 
False security is worse — far, far worse — than no security, particularly where terrorists are concerned.

Hezbollah Border Dispute Places Region On Edge

Feb 9th 2018, 05:23, by Ari Lieberman

The winds of war are once again brewing on Israel’s tense northern border. A series of Iranian inspired provocations in Syria and Lebanon are creating the perfect storm for outbreak of hostilities and full-scale conflagration.

On Tuesday, Lebanese President Michel Aoun met with Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, and Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri at the presidential palace in Baabda where the three discussed Israel’s construction of a border wall and alleged violations of Lebanon’s maritime rights. Following the meeting, Aoun’s office released a belligerent statement accusing Israel of undermining stability and threatening Lebanese action “at various regional and international levels to prevent Israel from building the cement wall…and from the possibility of infringing on Lebanon’s oil and gas wealth and its (territorial) waters.” 

Midweek, Lebanon’s so-called Higher Defense Council released a statement calling on Lebanon’s armed forces to confront Israel’s “aggression” on land and sea. Contemporaneous with the HDC statement, Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah issued pamphlets and a video threatening to attack Israel’s offshore gas rigs. 

Lebanon can best be described as a dysfunctional, failed state. It has long ceased to be an independent, sovereign nation having abdicated nearly all its power to Hezbollah, which means that Lebanon has essentially been transformed into a pawn of the Islamic Republic. In an article published in the Wall Street Journal, Lebanese analyst Hanin Ghaddar insightfully pointed out that Hezbollah used to be considered a state within the Lebanese state. Today, it is Lebanon that is a small state within the Hezbollah state. 

That analysis is wholly accurate. Lebanon’s army, a once venerated Lebanese institution that was considered a unifying force and above politics is now nothing more than an auxiliary force for Hezbollah. President Michel Aoun and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri are thoroughly corrupt and have been bought and paid for by the mullahs. Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri has little power and is kept in line by implicit threats to his life. His father, Rafic, was murdered in 2005 by Hezbollah operatives acting on behalf of Syrian intelligence agents.

Iran, through its proxy Hezbollah, is using Lebanon’s corrupt and subservient government as a vehicle to initiate belligerent rhetoric and actions against Israel using contrived Israeli border transgressions as a pretext. Lebanon’s claims are of course entirely without merit. Israel has been beefing up its border with Lebanon by constructing a series of berms, cliffs, electrified fencing and concrete barriers as an effective means of preventing Hezbollah border infiltrations. Despite Lebanese claims to the contrary, these fortifications are entirely within Israel’s borders. 

Moreover, Israel has made efforts to settle the maritime dispute and establish firm maritime borders through diplomatic means. However, Hezbollah controlled Lebanon has steadfastly refused to negotiate with the “Zionist entity.”  Lebanon recently broke the status quo, advertising a tender to energy companies to search for natural gas in the so-called Block 9 area of the disputed zone. In response to this overt provocation, Israel moved forward with a bill to unilaterally delineate the maritime border.

So why has there been a sudden uptick in aggressive rhetoric from the Lebanese side? Israel has been constructing fortifications along the border for some time without provoking too much protest from the neighbors to the north. In addition, while the maritime dispute was always on simmer mode, it never reached the boiling point of where it is today. There are two likely answers.

As the civil war in Syria winds down, and Iran consolidates its position in that war-torn country, its emphasis is shifting westward toward Israel. Resources which had previously been expended in Syria can now be deployed against Israel. Hezbollah’s raison d’être is to wage war against the Jewish State but for the last six years, the group has been focused on killing fellow Muslims. Hezbollah wants to once again reposition itself as a leader of the so-called “Lebanese resistance.”  

In addition, it is no secret that Iran is currently experiencing a period of distress. Widespread demonstrations that wracked the country in late 2017 and early 2018 caught the mullahs entirely by surprise and have left them shaken. They were only able to suppress the popular protests through sheer ruthlessness and brutality but they have not managed to extinguish the flame entirely. The embers of resistance are still burning. With increasing regularity, brave Iranian women have taken to the streets and publicly removed their hijabs in overt defiance to the repressive theocratic authorities. This form of protest would have been unfathomable in the recent past. Clearly, Iran is nearing a precipice and its repressive leaders need to deflect attention away from domestic woes. Nothing accomplishes this better than by steering the population to the Muslim world’s proverbial boogey man, Israel.

Despite this new level of belligerence, the prospect of war breaking out this year in the north is still low. In the summer of 2006, Hezbollah undertook an adventure against Israel that cost them dearly. In 33 days of fighting, the terrorist group lost 1,000 fighters and much of its infrastructure. It took them years to recover, and only with the infusion of billions of dollars poured in from Tehran. To put things in proper perspective, in five years of fighting in Syria, Hezbollah is believed to have lost just over 2,000 men killed. The level of firepower that Israel can bring to bear against Hezbollah is unfathomable and Hezbollah and its paymasters in Tehran are cognizant of this. 

This potent level of deterrence should keep the terror group in check, at least in the short term. Moreover, Israel has conveyed messages to Tehran through Russia that an Iranian buildup of forces next to its borders is unacceptable and represents a red line that if crossed would trigger an immediate Israeli military response. The Russians are certainly no friends of Israel but they do understand that Iranian provocations against Israel run counter to Russian interests. Therefore, we can expect Putin, who holds considerable sway in Syria, to pull the reins on Iranian recklessness and adventurism. 

Poland's New Law Criminalizing Speech about the Holocaust

Feb 9th 2018, 05:18, by Danusha V. Goska

“When you say the word ‘Poland’ what comes to mind? It’s real scary. I’d have to be in disguise to go there because I don’t wanna be caught and murdered.”

“I have this image of a very gothic place. Everything’s in black and white and very foggy. Otherwise, I have no real sense of Poland other than food with lots of sour cream, pierogis, and borscht. No, that’s Russian. I guess I get confused. All these Eastern European foods seem so similar.”

“The only thing I knew of Eastern Europe was in black and white. Probably from reels of Holocaust films. I pictured gray, cold, concrete. I wasn’t aware that I was thinking this until we landed in Warsaw and everything was in color. There is nothing attractive about Poland. Even though I know it’s in color, in my mind it has degenerated back to black and white.”

“It’s cold and desolate. I think of large, round women making sausages.”

“Just concentration camps. From brick to brick that’s all there is.”

“I associate Poland with hatred of Jews. I learned this going to Sunday school. In Sweden where all them wore stars, that portrayed sort of a positive in terms of Sweden’s relationship with Jews.”

“When you said ‘Poland,’ an image popped into my head, which is it’s gray, it’s dirty, it’s polluted. There’s no color. There’s one complete cloud over the entire country. I would go with the idea that I’ve gotta prepare myself. I’m probably going to be depressed at the condition of misery that people are living in. And it probably would be a safer bet if I just don’t identify myself as Jewish to too many people and my passport says I’m American.”

In 2000, in Bloomington, Indiana, I was asking Jewish people what they thought of Poles and Poland. I was researching what would become my prize-winning book, Bieganski, the Brute Polak Stereotype. My informants were nice people living in a self-consciously progressive university town. They insisted that they would never tell a dumb Polak joke. Then I would ask them a hypothetical question. “You need brain surgery. You have a choice between two doctors whose qualifications, on paper, are all but identical. One is named Dr. Smith. One is named Dr. Kowalski. Which doctor do you choose?”

Their jaws would drop. They suddenly had to confront their own prejudices, prejudices that they did not know they had.

One said, “It’s hard for me to say [long pause]. I fear that I might choose Dr. Smith, even though I think that’s a terrible thing, but I’m trying to be completely frank. I think just because of those subconscious stereotypes, the things that got in me as a kid and stick around in the back of my mind that are not up for examination.”

Before actual questioning began, my informants often insisted that they knew all there was to know about Poles and Poland. “Danielle” informed me that she had received a “comprehensive Holocaust education” from March of the Living. “Every two weeks I received another two hundred pages of reading material. I had, you know, one of these seven-inch binders.” She was now a professional Holocaust educator. Danielle told me that the only reason she could ever conceive of travel to Poland would be to “educate Poles.”

I asked Danielle if she had ever heard of Jan Karski, a Polish underground army officer who had volunteered to be smuggled into both a concentration camp and the Warsaw Ghetto, in order that he could bring the first eyewitness account of the Holocaust directly to Franklin Roosevelt. Danielle had never heard of Jan Karski. Danielle had also never heard of the 1264 Statute of Kalisz, a Polish document granting Jews legal rights. Polish-Jewish author Eva Hoffman called the Statute of Kalisz “a set of laws that could serve as an exemplary statement of minority rights today.” Danielle had also never heard of Adam Mickiewicz, Poland’s national poet who celebrated Jews’ contribution to Poland in the person of the character Jankiel, Adam Michnik, a Jewish leader of Solidarity, or the 1940 Katyn Massacre of 22,000 Poles, including 8,000 military officers, and, as classified by their Soviet murderers, “intelligence agents, gendarmes, landowners, saboteurs, factory owners, lawyers, officials, and priests.”

Another informant, “Sally,” told me that she “knew” that “there is a lot of neo-Nazism in Poland.” If she ever went to Poland, she said, “I would look for regret” for Poles’ assumed Holocaust guilt. Later, Sally made the offhand comment that, “I don’t know much about Polish literature, if there is much.” Six Nobel Prize Laureates in literature were born in Poland; four were Polish non-Jews (Sienkiewicz. Reymont, Milosz, Szymborska); two were born in a Polish-Jewish milieu (Agnon and Singer).

“Moses” expressed outrage that Poles had opened a discotheque in the Polish town of Oswiecim, where Auschwitz is located. Moses insisted that this discotheque was prima facie evidence of ingrained Polish anti-Semitism. I asked Moses if he knew of any non-Jews who had been imprisoned, tortured, experimented on, or gassed in Auschwitz. Moses had no idea that any non-Jews had suffered these fates. In fact, one hundred forty thousand Polish non-Jews made up approximately 11% of Auschwitz inmates. About half died there.

Many of my informants, in a completely unselfconscious manner, made statements like the following, “I’d love to go back to Vienna. We had a wonderful time in Vienna. We walked around and spoke German. It was a fabulous time,” and “I spent days in Berlin and I want to return.” Nazism was a German phenomenon; Hitler was born in Austria. These facts did not contribute to my informants’ stereotyping these nations in the way that they stereotyped Poland.

Informants often combined popular mythology with factual errors. The informant, quoted above, who believed that “In Sweden all them wore stars” is confused. There is a myth that Danes, not Swedes, wore yellow stars of David in solidarity with Jews. In any case, the “Danes wore yellow stars” myth is false.

My informants’ vocabulary was formulaic. Poland was always “gray.” I heard the same phrases over and over: “Poles are worse than animals;” “They suck anti-Semitism with their mother’s milk.” Such formulas are right out of The Painted Bird, a lurid novel that depicts Neanderthal peasants engaging in orgies of violence, incest, and bestiality. Such formulaic depictions of Polish peasants had appeared in literature published before the Holocaust, in some cases centuries before. The Painted Bird was eventually exposed as plagiarized fiction disguised as a memoir.  

It’s undeniable that in interwar Poland, that is, between the end of WW I in 1918 and the onset of WW II in 1939, anti-Semitism flourished. The interwar period, for complicated historical reasons, saw one of the worst outbreaks of anti-Semitism in Poland’s history. Interwar anti-Semitism was largely predicated on economic grievances. Jews had occupied the middleman minority caste. Most Poles were impoverished peasants. They wanted to own shops and study to become doctors and lawyers. For some, not all Poles, these honorable ambitions veered into the dark, twisted path of anti-Semitism.

What’s unexpected is that some pre-war anti-Semites did not become Nazi collaborators. Jan Mosdorf was a self-identified nationalist and anti-Semite before the war. Under Nazi occupation, he helped Jews, and was killed for it in Auschwitz. Calel Perechodnik, a Jewish Holocaust survivor, writes of two Polish brothers, “Staszek and Stefan.” Before the war, they thought of “a Jew as a wealthy man who exploited Polish labor and as an opponent deserving of a fight.” During the war, Staszek and Stefan saved Jews, both friends and strangers.

A February 4, 2018 frequently-shared Facebook post exemplified the belief that Poles were and are worse than Nazis. I copy it here without editorial changes. “The Poles were worse than the Germans…mean and cold blooded…they were informers and killers and for a piece of bread or a cigarette sold Jews to the slaughter…Warsaw Ghetto was where? excuse me? but here is proof again – The tiger never changes his Spots, Once a killer always a killer and once a Jew Hater always a Jew hater —as my father said: It’s in the blood, its in the genes, its inborn…nothing changes – in the end, the truth always reveals itself …I find it actually comical for a country to so blatantly lie to the world…but silly me – why…there are those who belie the holocaust as never having existed at all…so why not the Poles…”

Statements like these entered the world conversation on Friday, January 26, 2018, the day before Holocaust Remembrance Day. The lower house of the Polish Parliament passed a law criminalizing speech about the Holocaust. On Tuesday, February 6, Polish President Andrzej Duda ratified the law with his signature.

The full text of the law can be read here. The law threatens punishment to anyone who attributes to Poles or Poland crimes properly attributed to German Nazis. The law was written to “Protect the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation.”

This law offered the sorry, public spectacle of Polish leaders shooting Poles’ and Poland’s reputation in the foot. Immediately and inevitably, numerous commentaries appeared insisting that Poland was sanctifying a form of Holocaust denial and that, of course, Poles were guilty of the Holocaust. “FACT: The Polish People Still Bear Quite A Bit Of Responsibility For The Holocaust,” shouts David Benkof, author of Modern Jewish History for Everyone, capitalizing even his prepositions and articles, in the Daily Caller.

I and many other Poles and Polonians (people of Polish descent living outside of Poland) oppose this new law. I support free speech.

The history of Polish-Jewish relations is immensely complex, and there is a powerful thrust not just to simplify, but to misrepresent, that complexity. NYU professor and World Policy Institute Senior Fellow, MacArthur Genius Grant and Guggenheim winner Paul Berman, in a frequently republished essay, claimed that Jews in “darkest Poland” were “almost the same” as Blacks in the US. Berman writes that “Mississippi is Poland; bigotry is bigotry.” The analogy: Jews in Poland were just like black slaves in the US. Poles were beneficiaries of something like white supremacy and lorded it over utterly disempowered Jews. Poles are world exemplars of bigotry and oppression.

Well, no. Jewish arendators, estate managers, held the power of life and death over Polish Christian serfs. Jews could own property in Poland. As previously mentioned, the medieval Statute of Kalisz protected Jews under law. An international proverb asserted that Poland was the paradise of the Jews, and hell for Polish peasants. When Jews were persecuted elsewhere, they were invited into Poland, not just, as some cynics insist, to fill an economic niche. Poles were enthusiastically proud of their “golden freedom,” their “state without stakes,” and they demonstrated that by protecting Jews menaced by other Christians. The 1573 Warsaw Confederation guaranteed religious freedom.

Those who can only recite one Polish atrocity after another – the Jedwabne Massacre, the Kielce Pogrom, the 1968 purge – are telling truths. But they are not telling the truth. The Jedwabne Massacre, for example, occurred only after Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany invaded Poland simultaneously and terrorized and drastically altered the Polish population. What happened in Jedwabne says less about essential Polishness or authentic peasant identity and more about how any population – including our own – might react after similarly being terrorized.

Historian Michael C. Steinlauf, the son of Polish-Jewish Holocaust survivors, wrote that Poles, “after the Jews and the Gypsies [were] the most relentlessly tormented national group in Hitler’s Europe.” Let those words sink in. You know what happened to the Jews. Maybe you have an idea of what happened to the Gypsies. Poles were third in line, in terms of persecution.

Auschwitz was built in order to destroy anyone in Poland who could lead Polish people, for example, teachers and activists. For almost the first two years of its existence, most of its inmates were arrested and detained as Poles. One estimate of non-Jewish Poles killed by Nazis is about two million. Approximately three million Polish Jews were murdered; their vital presence in Polish life was all but erased. One estimate of non-Jewish Poles enslaved by the Nazis puts that number at 1.4 million. Two hundred thousand Polish children were kidnapped, to be raised as Germans, because of imagined Aryan traits. Kidnapped Polish children who could not measure up to their kidnappers’ Aryan ideal were murdered. Nazis killed almost twenty percent of Polish priests. Nazis erased Polish villages. An incomplete post-war count put the number of such villages at two hundred and ninety-nine.

Just about every Polonian is related to someone who lost his or her home, or who was tortured or murdered. The poet John Guzlowski looks like any other sixty-something retired professor. Given that he is tall, white, and male, one might assume he is a recipient of white privilege. John Guzlowski’s Polish Catholic grandmother, aunt, and cousin were murdered by Nazis and Ukrainians. They raped John’s Aunt Sophie and broke her teeth; they stomped his cousin to death. With his bayonet, a Nazi sexually mutilated John’s Aunt Genia. John’s parents were Nazi slave laborers; his father was in Buchenwald. John was born in a displaced persons camp.

Not just the personal pain someone with Guzlowski’s history might feel inspired the new Polish law. It’s the pain someone feels when the truth is obscured. In his infamous speeches to SS leaders, Heinrich Himmler spoke of Generalplan Ost. According to this Nazi plan, the Polish population would be greatly reduced and its remnants would be slaves. Germans would claim Polish territory for themselves. “In Poland in weather forty degrees below zero, we had to haul away thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands … [We] shot thousands of leading Poles.”

Nazis and Soviets rounded up, deported, and liquidated teachers, priests, and other potential leaders. Both conquerors worked hard to “divide and conquer,” that is, to exacerbate pre-existing tensions between Catholics and Jews, Poles and Ukrainians. Nazis mandated death for an entire family if a Pole so much as offered a glass of water to a Jew. An entire village might suffer because of one Pole’s humane act. Historians say that this policy was unique to Poland.

Yes, anti-Semitism has long been one feature of Polish culture. Blood libel, pogroms, discrimination and racist stereotyping all existed in Poland. That is one truth. Another truth: anti-Semitism has been a worldwide phenomenon, from England to Japan. England produced one of the most influential versions of blood libel, in the Canterbury Tales. England exported Shylock and Fagin. What makes Poland different? Scholar Harold B. Segel, author of Stranger in Our Midst: Images of the Jew in Polish Literature, writes that Poland produced a “Judeophilia” or “philo-Semitism” – a love of Jews and Judaism – that had “no parallel elsewhere in Europe.”

Poles of conscience resisted anti-Semitism, not while seated at their computers and sipping Starbucks, but under the worst conditions humans have ever faced. Father Maximilian Kolbe, after being arrested for the crime of being a Polish priest, and, thus, a target of genocide, and then released with a warning to lay low, did not comply with Nazi occupiers. Instead, Kolbe aided 2,000 Jews at his friary. Nazis sent him to Auschwitz. Holocaust survivor Sigmund Gorson testified that Kolbe “gave away so much of his meager rations that to me it was a miracle he could live. Now it is easy to be nice, to be charitable … For someone to be as Father Kolbe was in that time and place … is beyond words … I am of the Jewish faith and very proud of it … I will love him until the last moments of my life.”

Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, after his release from Auschwitz, helped form Zegota, the only organization in occupied Europe whose express purpose was to aid Jews. Witold Pilecki volunteered to be sent to Auschwitz, so that he could aid the resistance there. Communists tortured and murdered Pilecki after the war, and buried him in an unmarked grave. The Ulmas, a family of Catholic peasants, defied Nazi dictates and aided Jews. In his Bible, Jozef Ulma had underlined, in red, the story of the Good Samaritan. The Ulmas, pregnant mother, father, and six children, were murdered by Nazis for aiding Jews.

Bartoszewski bemoaned how the memory hole had swallowed up his efforts, under risk of his own life, to combat anti-Semitism under both Nazis and Soviet Communism. Bartoszewski wrote, “There are no accounts in histories …  of the All-Polish Anti-Racist League, founded in 1946 … Scholars have not been interested in its existence.”

My book argues that there has been a shift in recent years. Blame for the Holocaust has shifted from German Nazis to Polish Catholic peasants. This shift, I argue, is not accidental and not unmotivated. Shifting blame serves a larger narrative.

Nazism’s intellectual and ethical roots are utterly plain. They are nationalism, Social Darwinism, a.k.a. Scientific Racism or Eugenics, and neo-Paganism. Decades before Hitler came to power, American Social Darwinists like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard were proclaiming that the Judeo-Christian tradition’s command of human ethics belonged only to the dustbin of history. Now humans could and should operate under a new ethical system, one that championed racial supermen and stripped inferior specimens of their right to life. In his book Passing of the Great Race, Grant called for the “elimination of the unfit” on Social Darwinist grounds. Hitler called the book his Bible.

Scholar Richard Weikart has, in a series of publications, including Hitler’s Religion, coolly and exhaustively detailed the Social Darwinist influences behind Nazism. One might think that Weikart would be widely celebrated and rewarded for his work. He is widely attacked and denigrated. Weikart is accused of “dishonesty, fact-distortions, ignorance and bias” by folks with an almost religious resistance to seeing any criticism of the impact of Social Darwinism. Powerful people do not want to see any version of the sacred name “Darwin” associated with Nazism. No one says that one must stop believing in the theory of evolution in order to tell the truth about Nazism’s intellectual and ethical history. But too many who hold up Darwin as a demigod insist that the truth of how Nazis and their racist precursors cited “survival of the fittest” concepts in their justification for their beliefs must not be told.

Nationalism is easier to criticize than Social Darwinism. Neo-Paganism, though, is, like Darwinism, a protected concept. Modern Americans may announce that they are goddess-worshipping Pagans and that they reject the misogyny and murderous nature of Judaism or Christianity. Modern Americans self-identifying as Pagans face no serious resistance in the press or in universities. No one is asking them to come to terms with their affiliation with a movement that was embraced by the Nazis.

Nazism was the product of highly educated, modern people. Scientific Racism had been promoted by Ivy League Universities, publications like the New York Times and The Atlantic Monthly, institutions like the Bronx Zoo, the Museum of Natural History, the developers of standardized testing and the SAT, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, and US presidents. Nazism was serviced by IBM, Ford Motor Company, and Hugo Boss. Even Hollywood, which decades after the war gave us Schindler’s List, initially did not do all it could to combat Nazism.

This simple fact – that Nazism was a product of shiny and clean university classrooms and books written, edited, and published by the best-educated people – is just about impossible to confront for those who embrace the Brute Polak stereotype. They want to believe that hideous crimes could only be committed by backward people, primitive people, uneducated people, people untouched by the perfecting hand of progressive ideologies. That is, Polish, Catholic peasants. The best people associate peasants with dirt, with animals, with the past. The best people associate Catholicism with darkness and a lack of evolution. The best people say that they can make sure that crimes like the Holocaust will be made less likely if we lead people away from their superstitious, primitive, religious beliefs, and indoctrinate them in shiny, clean, new ideologies. The best people are wrong, and the falseness of the Brute Polak stereotype is very problematic for them.

Yes, anti-Semitism is one feature of Poland’s history and culture. Yes, many Polish people committed crimes against Jews in war-torn Poland. Yes, good Poles and Polonians must forever reject and condemn anti-Semitism. Yes, the new Polish law criminalizing speech around the Holocaust is a mistake. 

Not but, but and: scapegoating the Polish, Catholic peasant is an historical error. This scapegoating is factually false. It is ethically bankrupt. This new Polish law is an attempt, a misguided attempt, not to deny the guilt of Polish criminals. Rather, it is an attempt to take on the brute Polak stereotype that is a powerful, largely unexamined form of Holocaust revisionism.

The brute Polak stereotype is an intellectual and ethical escape. It’s a way for modern, right-thinking people to distance themselves from atrocity, and to insist that only those people over there – those dirty, primitive, Polish Catholic peasants – could be so cruel. In my years of study of WW II, I encountered one sentence I hope to communicate here. It was written by Zofia Nalkowska. “Ludzie ludziom zgotowali ten los.” “People prepared this fate for people.” Not just Polish people. Not just Catholic people. Not just peasants. People just like us did this to other people just like us, and we must not allow any stereotype to prevent us from identifying with both victims and perpetrators.

#MediocrityToo

Feb 9th 2018, 05:06, by Heather Mac Donald

Reprinted from city-journal.org.

If the #MeToo movement only reduces sexual predation in the workplace, it will have been a force for good. Its most likely result, however, will be to unleash a torrent of new gender and race quotas throughout the economy and culture, on the theory that disparities in representation and employment are due to harassment and bias.

Hollywood and the media are already showing the effect. It’s no coincidence that The Today Show now has two female anchors. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has pledged to double its female and minority members by 2020. Actress Natalie Portman’s sneer in presenting the best director prize at the recent Golden Globe movie awards—“And here are the all-male nominees”—will become the standard response to any perceived lack of “diversity” in entertainment. The Wall Street Journal’s pop music critic, Jim Fusilli, for example, groused that females were underrepresented among Grammy award nominees. “No groups led by women are among the nominees in the Best Contemporary Instrumental, Best Jazz Instrumental, Best Large Jazz Ensemble and Best Contemporary Christian Music album categories. “There is no Grammy category comprised entirely of women,” he complained. Six female music industry executives then complained to the Recording Academy’s board of trustees that the Recording Academy’s leadership suffered from “inclusion issues across all demographics.” In response, management has penitently promised to overcome the “unconscious biases that impede female advancement” in the music industry.  The National Hispanic Media Coalition is planning to protest at the Academy Awards because of the paucity of Hispanic Oscar nominations. Even before the Hispanic protest, Hollywood execs were experiencing quota fatigue, given the pressures from feminist, LGBTQ, and disability activists to hire by identity category.    

The prospect of left-wing entertainment moguls having to sacrifice their box-office judgement to identity politics is an unalloyed pleasure and of little consequence to society at large. But bean-counting won’t be limited to Hollywood. Corporate diversity trainers already sense a windfall from #MeToo. Requests from organizations wanting to “explore further the intersection of power with diversity dimensions and inclusion” have recently increased, according to a “client success” manager at a major diversity-consulting firm. A rival Silicon Valley-based consultancy, Paradigm, sent around an email celebrating Oprah Winfrey’s #MeToo speech at the Golden Globes and reminding potential clients of “how much work needs to be done” regarding “inclusion.” “I absolutely think the broader cultural conversation is motivating organizations to take a more serious look at their cultures,” says Joelle Emerson, Paradigm’s leader. Corporate boardrooms, executive suites, and management structures will be scoured for gender and race imbalances. The advocacy group 50/50 by 2020, which argues for equal male and female representation in business, has recently received several new commitments from organizations pledging to achieve gender parity by the year 2020.

The art world will be hard hit. After harassment allegations surfaced against a publisher of the contemporary-art magazine ArtForum, the Los Angeles Times published a gender tally of art museum directorships. Females hold 48 percent of them—not a promising start for a diversity crusader. There is a silver lining, however: only three women run museums with annual budgets of more than $15 million, and they’re paid less than their male counterparts. It doesn’t matter if director salaries are commensurate with experience and credentials; sexism is assumed, and impossible to rebut.

Two months before the explosion of #MeToo, New York mayor Bill De Blasio anticipated the coming pressures on museum management. The city’s culture funding would henceforth be contingent on the diversity of an arts organization’s employees and board members, he announced. The New York Times helpfully pointed out that the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Carnegie Hall, and the American Museum of Natural History are led “largely by white male executives and power brokers from Wall Street, real estate and other industries.” Have those “white male executives” preserved the cultural patrimony bestowed by visionary collectors of the past? Did those “white male executives” generously donate millions of dollars to the institutions they serve? Who cares? The Times put a picture of conductor Andris Nelsons—a white man—performing at Carnegie Hall on the front page as a damning illustration of the problem.

What hangs on the walls of art museums and galleries is an equally inviting bean-counting target. In a sample of nearly 70 institutions analyzed by the Art Newspaper, females had solo shows only 27 percent of the time from 2007 to 2013. Female artists have graced the cover of Artforum only 18 percent of the time since the magazine’s inception. That is about to change. “The art world is misogynist,” Artforum’s new editor-in-chief David Velasco told the Los Angeles Times. “Art history is misogynist. Also, racist, classist, transphobic, able-ist, homophobic. I will not accept this. . . . Intersectional feminism is an ethics near and dear to so many on our staff.” The history of art that Velasco so derides has produced crushing beauty and profound insight into human nature. That is irrelevant to the coming crusade.

Individual artists will now be subjected to #MeToo litmus tests. Phony sexual-harassment charges against contemporary painter Chuck Close have led the National Gallery of Art in Washington to postpone indefinitely an upcoming exhibition. Museums will try to inoculate themselves against such purges by bulking up in advance on “diversity” acquisitions. They’ll need to expand the definition of who belongs in a museum by bringing in female artists and people of color, Tom Eccles, the executive director of the Center for Curatorial Studies at Bard College, told the New York Times.

Orchestra conductors will be evaluated based on their gender and race, especially after harassment allegations surfaced against Metropolitan Opera conductor James Levine (those allegations involved gay sex but will be leveraged for feminist purposes) and against Royal Philharmonic Orchestra conductor Charles Dutoit. Orchestra boards will pay penance for their own inadequate diversity by a mad rush on female conductors, whose numbers are minuscule. It was already difficult two years ago to land a U.S. conducting position for a universally esteemed white male conductor, reports the conductor’s agent. Now it would be nearly impossible, the agent believes.

Music critic Alex Ross triggered outrage against the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and the Philadelphia Orchestra last week when he tweeted that they had programmed no female composers in their 2018-2019 seasons. Never mind that over most of music history, the greatest composers have been male. At a time of diminishing classical music audiences, it is reckless to wield identity politics against our most important and precious musical institutions.  

The economics field has been hit with #MeToo diversity pressures. A panel at the annual American Economic Association meeting this January charged that gender discrimination was pervasive in economics, an argument that fit into the “larger national examination of bias and abuse toward women in the work force,” the New York Times reminded readers. If females are underrepresented on economics faculties, it is because of such insurmountable barriers as the percentage of male economists cited in leading college textbooks: 90 percent. Were there comparable female economists who could have been cited for the relevant proposition instead? Unlikely, but in any case, we don’t need to know. Is it possible to pursue intellectual inquiry out of love, rather than because you’re following someone of your own gender or race? Apparently not. The Times bemoaned the “shrinking pipeline of women in economics departments”: while females made up 33 percent of first-year Ph.D. students in 2016, only 13 percent of full-tenured professors were females in 2016. But it takes decades for graduating cohorts to work their way through the system; when those tenured economics professors were students, their cohort was much less than 33 percent female.

Economist Deirdre McCloskey rejects the idea that competitively qualified females are being excluded:  “There is nothing like discrimination on the part of hiring committees,” she says. Self-selection may come into play, however, she adds, since economics is a “macho field” that pays relatively little attention to the impact of females’ family roles on the timing of a scholarly career. Modern-day economics has grown increasingly math-based. The percentage of males who score in the upper range of the math SATs (scoring 700 or more on an 800-point scale) is nearly twice as high as the percentage of female high-scorers. Males outperform females on the macroeconomics and microeconomics AP exams. Males are also more competitive than females, economist Johanna Mollerstrom and others have shown. Such facts have a clear bearing on the composition of a “macho,” quantitative field like economics, but they are not allowed to be mentioned in any discussion of “diversity.” 

Stanford’s business school is claiming surprise at a recent whistleblower study showing that it favors females over males in awarding financial aid.  The chance that such a practice was inadvertent is zero.  But such female preferences in business and economics programs will only accelerate to combat an alleged culture of bias. This week, Dow Jones is rolling out IGNITE, a year-long program in leadership development to create a “truly diverse and inclusive senior leadership team.” Participants will receive executive sponsorship, coaching, and personality assessments, something that many aspiring top managers might value. Participation is limited to women, however, as part of Dow Jones’s campaign to reach 40 percent female executive leadership; that 40 percent target is only an initial target. Such efforts are undoubtedly underway at many major news outfits and will only redouble in urgency following #MeToo.

Silicon Valley is a #MeToo diversity bonanza waiting to happen. It’s not for nothing that the Mountain View headquarters of Google is referred to as the “Google campus”; the culture of the Silicon Valley behemoth is an echo chamber of shrill academic victimology. Managers and employees reflexively label dissenters from left-wing orthodoxy misogynists and racists, as revealed in a lawsuit filed against Google by computer engineer James Damore, fired last summer for questioning the premises of the company’s diversity policies. “Punching Nazis” is celebrated on Google chat boards. It is assumed that the lack of proportional representation of female, black, and Hispanic engineers at the company is due to implicit bias on the part of every other type of engineer.

#MeToo will further enflame the gender activists at Google and other big tech firms, who have also been trying to raise their percentage of females (and underrepresented minorities) for years. This February, a panel at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting will address the “cultural and institutional practices” that suppress female and underrepresented minority “voices” in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). But those “voices” have already been the target of hundreds of millions of dollars from government, foundations, businesses, and schools pouring into gender- and race-exclusive math and science programs. The results of such efforts, such as the Latinas in Tech initiative, run by the National Center for Women & Information Technology, or the overhyped Girls Who Code program, have been modest.

Among the reasons for that lack of results is career inclinations, but personal choice is disallowed as a factor in the deterministic, fault-seeking liberal worldview. Women in STEM fields are nearly twice as likely as male STEM workers to say that they seek a job that helps others, according to a Pew Research Center poll. It’s no surprise, therefore, that females are 75 percent of workers in health-related jobs, but only 25 percent of workers in computer jobs and 14 percent of engineering workers. While computer technology and engineering arguably help others as much as health care, the quotidian experience of such work involves less face-to-face interaction with other human beings, something that females on average seek.

It is curious that the #MeToo movement is concerned only with gender representation in particular occupational categories. For instance, most HVAC and refrigeration installers and mechanics are men, yet there is little outcry about getting more girls into vocational training for these jobs. Similarly, virtually all workers in the carting, moving, trucking, and mining industries are males, but female underrepresentation in these high-injury and high-fatality occupations has not sparked celebrity outrage.

As the #MeToo moment swells the demand for ever more draconian diversity mandates, a finding in the Pew Research Center poll on workplace equity is worth noting: the perception of bias is directly proportional to the number of years the perceiver has spent in an American university. Females in STEM businesses who have a postgraduate degree are more than three times as likely as STEM females without a college degree to say that their gender has impeded their success. It is doubtful that those highly educated female STEM workers are actually more subject to chauvinism than their less-educated counterparts. Their workplaces are likely composed of other highly educated products of the academy, marinated for years in an environment dominated by feminist thinking. Those are also the workplaces most subject to external pressures to achieve gender parity. All the incentives run in the opposite direction: away from chauvinism and toward favoring females over males at every possible opportunity. The persistent claim of gender bias is ideological, not empirical. But after #MeToo, it will have an even more disruptive effect.

Paul Joseph Watson Video: Feminist Fight Club

Feb 9th 2018, 05:00, by Frontpagemag.com

In this new video, Paul Joseph Watson exposes a feminist fight club, but warns that you cannot unsee what you will see:

 

Obama Knew

Feb 8th 2018, 05:55, by Matthew Vadum

Former President Obama wanted “to know everything” the FBI was doing in its investigation into claims that Russia was interfering in the 2016 election, a new report suggests, raising the specter of a sitting president becoming involved in a plot to rig the 2016 election.

It was a year ago the outlines of a Watergate-like conspiracy emerged in which a term-limited Democrat president used the privacy-invading apparatus of the state to spy on a Republican presidential candidate. Watergate differed in that President Nixon didn’t get involved in the plot against the Democratic National Committee until later as an accomplice after the fact.

But this new evidence suggests Obama may have been part of a sinister anti-democratic cabal from the beginning.

The assertion that Obama wanted “to know everything we’re doing” came in a private Sept. 2, 2016, text message from FBI lawyer Lisa Page to FBI agent Peter Strzok, with whom she was having an extramarital affair at the time. (The exact message, time-stamped 1:50 p.m., reads “Yes, bc potus wants to know everything we are doing.”) In a separate, previously revealed text message to Page, Strzok wrote something cryptic about an “insurance policy” in case Donald Trump got elected. Some have speculated he was referring to the salacious, unverified dossier the DNC paid rent-a-spy Christopher Steele to compile that purports to show Trump’s nefarious links to Russia.

At one point, the foul-mouthed Trump-hating duo whose text messages show a visceral contempt for Republican voters, both worked for Special Counsel Robert Mueller who has been investigating the still-unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that then-candidate Donald Trump somehow colluded with Russia to throw the presidential contest his way.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that released the emails between Page and Strzok yesterday, told NBC News that the texts were “totally candid, unvarnished” and “just raise an awful lot of questions.”

In a report accompanying the release of the emails, Johnson says that the Sept. 2, 2016, text came in the context of a discussion about preparing talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey to use when briefing President Obama.

But it isn’t clear from the message thread alone which investigation – Clinton emails, or perhaps Russians interfering with the U.S. election – that the talking points are concerned with.

Even if it were clear, the idea of such a briefing would still present bad political optics, John Nolte notes at Breitbart News.

The whole idea of an FBI director preparing talking points for the president on such a sensitive issue is bound to raise questions. So too Obama’s apparent involvement in an ongoing investigation directly involving one of his former cabinet members, and possible successor.

Chairman Johnson suggests, somewhat weakly, that the Comey briefing discussed was about Clinton and her emails.

Clinton used the hacker-friendly “home brew” servers while running the State Department to conceal the corrupt dealings of the anticipatory bribe clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and to evade her disclosure responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act. She also stole tens of thousands of emails that were her work product and therefore U.S. government property, and destroyed them.

As NBC reports:

Johnson’s report only says that the text “may relate” to the FBI’s Clinton investigation, since the Justice Department had redacted other text messages that related to other investigations. An earlier text in that sequence refers to the need to develop talking points for Comey in connection with a morning meeting “on the 7th.”

But Johnson’s conclusion that the text message “may relate” to the Clinton email probe does not appear to be supported by the facts.

It would be fair to say that the investigation discussed in the thread simply could not be the inquiry into the Clinton emails, or so argues a report in the Wall Street Journal.

The newspaper reports that “associates of Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page said that exchange referred to the president’s wanting information on Russia election meddling, which the FBI was heavily involved in over that period.”

“That exchange occurred just days before Mr. Obama met Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit in China,” the newspaper continues. “Mr. Obama said in December 2016 that he had addressed the issue of tampering with the election process with Mr. Putin at that September meeting.”

But – and this is critically important – there was no FBI investigation into Clinton’s emails at the time Page sent the message in question to Strzok.

In August and September 2016, the FBI was no longer actively investigating the Clinton matter, after Mr. Comey had said that July that he was recommending no criminal charges be filed. In late October 2016, the FBI ramped up its investigation into Mrs. Clinton again when the bureau learned about a potential trove of new Clinton-related emails on the computer belonging to the husband of one of her aides. Mrs. Clinton and her allies have cited that announcement as a big factor in her election loss.

Would Comey be requesting a briefing on an investigation that had already been shut down? The question answers itself.

The fateful message was among tens of thousands of texts between the star-crossed lovers that were reviewed by Fox News after being released by Johnson’s committee.

This revelation about the 44th president might be slightly less disturbing but for the fact that Obama assured a Fox News Channel reporter months before in a discussion about the Clinton email matter that interfering with criminal probes is just not who he is.

“I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations,” he said April 10, 2016. “I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line.”

“I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Full stop. Period.”

But as we know after suffering through eight long years of his presidency, Obama is an exceptionally polished con man. He has a pretty well-documented track record of lying, his silver tongue a-flapping, to conceal his various corrupt schemes.

He used the IRS to target conservative and Tea Party nonprofits, along with Catholic, Jewish, and pro-Israel organizations. He brazenly lied about it. There was “not even a smidgeon of corruption” at the IRS, Obama told Bill O’Reilly on Super Bowl weekend in 2014.

After boasting that under his watch al-Qaeda was on the run – it wasn’t – he worked during the final phase of his reelection campaign with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to cover up the fact that the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, was perpetrated by Muslim terrorists, not some spontaneously-formed mob angry about a video that put their prophet in an unflattering light.

Obama told Americans that they would be able to keep their family doctors under the Affordable Care Act, also called Obamacare, and that they would save money as a result of the law. He accused surgeons of performing unnecessary amputations out of greed.                                                                                

Even a memoir that helped make him famous and laid the foundation for his successful career in electoral politics was filled with lies. His ghost-written autobiographical book, Dreams From My Father, was a carefully constructed mixture of truth and fiction, including invented composite characters.

President Trump seemed to claim vindication on Twitter after the latest tranche of Page-Strzok text messages was made public.

“NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!” Trump tweeted in all-caps at 11:10 a.m. yesterday.

The president appears to be right.

Democrats Want to Turn America into Russia

Feb 8th 2018, 05:09, by Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

The Democrats have a bold plan for fighting Russia.

Accuse Republicans of treason, eavesdrop on their conversations and send them to jail. Overturn the outcome of a free election because that it had been tampered with by “foreign interests.” Demand that tech companies censor dissenting media outlets spreading “fake news” to protect “democracy”.  

Good work, comrades. The bold plan is to fight Russia by… becoming Russia. 

State surveillance, endless investigations and locking up political opponents under the guise of fighting foreign influences is how Vladimir Putin does business. It’s how they do it in Turkey, Venezuela and Iran. 

But these days it’s how the Dems do it too.

Totalitarian states aren’t really fighting foreign influences. They’re suppressing domestic opponents. The Democrats, who were for appeasing Russia before they were against it, are doing the same thing.

The same gang of commissars, czars and apparatchiks that giggled when Obama wrote off Romney’s warning with, “the 80s called and wants their foreign policy back” now sees Russians under every sofa. Hollywood, which still weeps for the industry’s victims of McCarthyism, launched a “Committee to Investigate Russia” by Rob ‘Meathead’ Reiner and Morgan Freeman. After several months of trying, the Committee members have finally found Russia on a map and are ready to reveal their findings on CNN.

Do any of these people actually care about Russia? 

What have they done to check Putin’s geopolitical ambitions? What do they plan to do about the Ukraine or Georgia? Nothing. Their administration dismantled missile defense and gave Moscow everything it wanted. If the Dems get back into the White House, they’ll do it all over again with even more uranium on top.

And CNN and the Washington Post will go back to claiming that weakness is really a strength. 

Their only answer now is to mumble about sanctions. Sanctions were a favorite tool of the Obama administration because they were a mostly worthless excuse to do nothing. There was never any fallback plan for what to do if sanctions failed. And when they did fail, there was no Plan B.

All the CNN hawks and the Democrats who suddenly care about Russia still have no post-sanctions plan. They have a plan to get Trump out of the White House. They have no proposals for Putin or Russia.

The leftists who can’t stop “Russianing” all over the place don’t want to fight Russia. They’re using it as a pretext to go after other Americans. The “Committee to Investigate Russia” and the rest of it is a shoddy pretext to lock up Republicans by a political movement that has been appeasing Russia since the 1930s.

After almost a century of appeasement, the doves have suddenly turned into bellicose hawks. And they’re eager to do anything to stop Russia, except build up our military, but they will fight Putin to the last Republican. And they’ll go on fighting until they win another election and freedom dies for good.

If you believe them, Russia’s Facebook posts pose a greater threat to democracy than the entire Communist movement did during the Cold War. And Russian bots are a more dangerous weapon than the nuclear bomb. The ideological movement that protested the execution of the Rosenberg atom bomb traitors would like to send everybody who ever spoke to a Russian to prison for twenty years.

Locking up people for meeting with foreigners was the sort of thing they did back in the Soviet Union.

No mainstream political figure during the Cold War spoke seriously of removing the President of the United States from office. The one member of Congress whom we know spied for Russia, a Democrat, retired comfortably into the bosom of his party’s political machine. Senator Ted Kennedy, who sent a collusion letter to Moscow to prepare for his presidential bid, never suffered any consequences.

His great-nephew even delivered the Democrat response accusing Russia of being “knee deep” in our democracy. 

But it’s the Democrats that are “knee deep” in tyranny.

The same political movement that believes that one of history’s greatest outrages was that a handful of Hollywood hacks had trouble getting work for a few years because they were Communists would like to remove the President of the United States because his son once talked to a Russian 

The anti-Communists were trying to save us from Communism. What is Hollywood’s new McCarthyism trying to save us from? What ideology are they fighting and what terrible evil are they resisting?

That’s when they mumble something about “interference in our elections” and then go back to studying diagrams of Trump hotels in Kyrgyzstan or Alma-Ata. The interference consisted of $100K worth of Facebook ads and some hacked DNC emails. Or they call it in Chicago, Wednesday.

It was never about Russia.

Shouting “treason” isn’t how you fight foreigners, it’s how you delegitimize your political opponents. Sometimes they might be illegitimate traitors. But most of the time the traitor-shouters just want an excuse for getting rid of their political opponents. Domestic politics has limits. War doesn’t.

If your opponents are traitors, you can spy on them, entrap them and imprison them. You can overturn elections, censor the press and take any measures you need to defend against a foreign threat.

And that’s exactly what the born-again Communist patriots of the left are doing.

To save us from $100K in Facebook ads and their own hacked DNC emails, they had to eavesdrop on Trump officials, bring them up on charges and run an endless investigation of the President of the United States. Obama and Clinton supporters in the IRS, State, the FBI, the DOJ and the NSA broke a few rules. But they were protecting us from the Russian menace lurking in Trump Tower.

Just ask Putin. It’s how he does it. It’s how every dictatorship does it.

Waterboarding the mastermind of 9/11 is not “who we are as Americans”. So said the politician whose regime spied on members of Congress, pro-Israel activists, reporters and the Trump team. But Muslim terrorists didn’t represent a grave threat to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Republicans did.

To Obama, ISIS was just a jayvee team. The worst it could do is kill a few thousand Americans and a few million middle easterners. The left’s real enemies are the ones that threaten its policy agenda.

The definition of treason is one important difference between a free country and a totalitarian state.

Treason in a free country is a threat to the nation. In a totalitarian state, it’s a threat to the ruling class. The tighter the tyranny, the narrower that definition of treason becomes until it’s reduced to one man. 

The American left rejected the presidential victories of George W. Bush and Donald Trump. It treats Congress and the Supreme Court as illegitimate institutions because it doesn’t control them.

Legitimate government in its eyes doesn’t derive its authority from the consent of the governed, but from its ideology. Any elected officials who don’t believe in global warming, open borders, freeing criminals, socialized medicine and appeasing terrorists are traitors against the authority of the left.

Tyrants accuse their enemies of treason to the nation, when what they’re really charging them with is treason against their politics. It is the enemies of tyranny who are true patriots while the tyrants are the traitors. And so the tyrants have to portray the patriots as a foreign threat.

The average lefty stopped caring about Russia once it stopped being the motherland of Socialism. You couldn’t get Bernie Sanders to honeymoon there again if you offered him his choice of Stakhanovite brand underarm deodorant in icy gulag or spicy radioactive varieties. 

Russia in America now serves the same function as America in Russia. It’s a casus belli for delegitimizing the supporters of a free society as catspaws of foreign interests who must be suppressed. Like 1984’s Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia, leftist interlinked tyrannies collaborate even while they pretend to fight each other as a pretext for repressing their own populations.  Or as Obama once told Russia’s Medvedev, “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

The left would like this to be the last election so its leaders can have maximum flexibility. 

Not to fight Russia, but to fight America.

The political movement that once took its marching orders from Moscow doesn’t want to stop Russia. It wants to pretend that its political reign of terror, the illegal eavesdropping, the investigations, the censorship, the sudden raids against its political opponents, and the rest of the KGB tactics are a necessarily evil in the face of a “constitutional crisis”. 

There’s a constitutional crisis and it isn’t Russian bots. It’s the left.

When leftists who don’t believe in the constitution speak about a “constitutional crisis”, what they really mean is that we need to suspend the constitution to deal with this emergency. Obama’s illegal KGB tactics of surveillance and investigations have already bypassed the most basic constitutional norms.

Now the Democrats are signaling that they’ll have to suspend all of it to deal with this “crisis”.

The left doesn’t want to fight Russia. It wants to turn Americans into Russia. 

Death of an NFL Dreamer

Feb 8th 2018, 05:08, by Lloyd Billingsley

By one estimate, only 6 percent of American high-school seniors will play college football and Edwin Jackson of Westlake High School in Atlanta was a walk-on at Georgia Southern University. Jackson played well but the odds of making it to the National Football League were not in his favor. 

Of some 20,000 college freshmen only 1.5 percent will make an NFL roster and no NFL team showed much interest in Edwin Jackson. Instead of giving up, he went the free-agent route and after release by the Arizona Cardinals he found a home with the Indianapolis Colts. In the eight games he started for the team, Jackson recorded 66 tackles. In the NFL, performance counts and at 26, the hard-working linebacker had the best of his career before him. 

By all indications, Jackson was popular with teammates and careful to avoid trouble off the field. Indeed, while out late last weekend, Jackson showed the good sense to take Uber rather than drive. He doubtless planned to watch the Super Bowl but Edwin Jackson would not tune in or ever play another game in the National Football League. 

Early on Sunday, a Ford F-150 pickup slammed into Jackson and driver Jeffrey Monroe, 54, who had pulled to the side of Interstate 70 in Indiana. Both men perished in the impact and the driver fled. Police chased down Alex Cabrera Gonsales but that name turned out to be fake.

The man who killed Edwin Jackson was actually Manuel Orrego-Savala, 37. He had no driver’s license and his blood-alcohol level was 0.239, three times the legal limit. The politically correct would say he had a problem with “substance abuse” but in reality he’s a drunk who was not supposed to be in the United States in the first place. 

The Guatemalan national entered the United States illegally in July of 2004. The following year, he was convicted of drunk driving in Redwood City, California, but by all indications not handed over to ICE for deportation. ICE arrested Orrego-Savala in October, 2006, and in January of 2007 deported him to Guatemala. He again entered the United States illegally and made his way to San Francisco, where he was arrested and deported in March of 2009. 

The Guatemalan national again violated U.S. immigration law and made his way to Indiana. In the aftermath of the deadly crash, the illegal lobby was going easy on him. Ana Kotchkoski of the Venezuelan Association of Indiana, which lobbies for DACA and “dreamers,” told the IndyStar “it’s so unfortunate what happened, this is very, very sad.” She spared the Guatemalan illegal any direct criticism. 

The group Faith in Indiana was organizing a February 6 demonstration to support dreamers. Spokesperson Francine Dash told the Star, “what we should not do is minimize the loss of Mr. Jackson’s life by politicizing the driver’s immigration status. Legal status is not the culprit here; drunk driving is.”

In the lexicon of the illegal lobby, to “politicize” immigration status is simply to point out the truth. Orrego-Savala was a serial violator of U.S. immigration law and to avoid that reality is to trivialize the death of Edwin Jackson. 

University of Denver law school professor César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a self-styled expert in “crimmigration,” told the Star, “I’m afraid of what happens if we fall into a trap of not giving the judicial process the time to run its course.” The law professor also urged “a more deliberate approach to this horrible tragedy.” Readers might wonder what, exactly, César Cuauhtémoc was talking about. 

Drunk driving is a crime and the Guatemalan national killed two American citizens. Police deliberately arrested Orrego-Savala and at this writing he awaits a lawful hearing, all within the judicial process. The Guatemalan’s previous drunk driving conviction is a matter of record but his violation of U.S. immigration law is still running its course. Meanwhile, another reality has escaped notice.

Victim Edwin Jackson was African American and his Guatemalan killer Manuel Orrego-Savala is as white as Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto or the late Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Even so, Black Lives Matter did not rush out a statement and the BET website described Jackson’s killer as “a Guatemalan citizen who has been deported twice in the past and tried to give cops a fake name after unsuccessfully attempting to flee the scene on foot.” The evasions are not surprising.

For the politically correct, even those with ancestry on the Iberian Peninsula of Europe are “people of color.” Advocacy for false-documented illegals is a subset of the left’s broader jihad against the United States, the nation that actually exists. For the illegal lobby, legitimate American citizens don’t dream to achieve or work nearly as hard as those who violate immigration law. 

So no surprise that San Francisco shelters career criminals like Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the repeat deportee who fired the shot that killed Kate Steinle. For the illegal lobby, the shooter is completely innocent. 

For his part, Guatemalan national Manuel Orrego-Savala crashed a truck into Edwin Jackson. The default response of the illegal lobby is to trivialize the death of the African American and defend the white drunk who killed him. 

CARTER PAGE: AGENT 000

Feb 8th 2018, 05:05, by Ann Coulter

If you’ve been watching MSNBC and, consequently, have no idea what was in the CONTROVERSIAL! DISPUTED! AMATEURISH! memo released by the House Intelligence Committee (the “Nunes memo”), here is a brief summary: 

The Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee paid a Trump-hating British private eye, Christopher Steele, to produce a “dossier” on Trump, relying on Russian sources. 

The Department of Justice used the unverified dossier to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against Carter Page, an alleged “foreign policy adviser” to Donald Trump and the last frayed thread of the Russian collusion story. The FISA court was not told who had paid Steele to create the “salacious and unverified” dossier — in the words of the showboating former FBI Director James Comey — much less about Steele’s personal hatred of Trump. 

After 18 months of steely-eyed investigation, the only parts of the dossier that have been “confirmed” are bland factual statements — Moscow is a city in Russia — while the untrue parts are anything having to do with Trump or his associates. 

As New York Times national security reporter Matthew Rosenberg explained to MSNBC’s easily excited Chris Hayes last March: 

“Both journalists and others who had copies of it for a long time have not been able to report much of it out. We’ve heard that, you know, the FBI and the Intelligence Community believe about 30 percent of it may be accurate, but most of that 30 percent, if not all, has been non-Trump stuff.” 

Four points: 

1. The only reason the hapless Carter Page was mentioned by Trump as a “foreign policy adviser” during the campaign was that the media and “foreign policy community” (FPC) threatened to excommunicate any FPC types who went near Trump, the better to laugh at him for having no decent foreign policy advisers.

Danielle Pletka, with the “conservative” American Enterprise Institute, expressed the FPC’s disdain, telling the Times: “It’s always surprising when a member of our relatively tightly knit community is willing to sacrifice their reputation to stand with someone like Donald Trump.” 

This is standard procedure for the left, akin to how they treat black Republicans. Step One: Viciously attack any black person who works for a Republican. Step Two: Mock the GOP for being all white. 

Their slanders against Trump worked! No one from the FPC would associate with him, so in a moment of desperation, Trump read five names off a list, including Page’s, during an interview with The Washington Post. 

The New York Times, the next day: 

“Top Experts Confounded by Advisers to Trump … 

“… the Republican foreign policy establishment looked at them and had a pretty universal reaction: Who? 

“… even Google offered little but outdated biographies of Mr. Trump’s new cast of experts … 

“… None have spoken to their new boss.” 

This has led to an inane media narrative, with Page being simultaneously portrayed as an all-powerful spy of Kim Philby proportions — but also a laughable nobody. Or, as a Russian spy described him in an intercepted conversation back in 2013: “An idiot.” 

2. No one ever checks anything in Hollywood. You could go around claiming to have written “Gone With the Wind,” and you’ll never be busted. 

It’s the same in Washington, D.C., only worse. Contrary to the self-admiring cliche about Washington being a city that runs on power, almost no one in D.C. has any real power, so it’s a city that runs on suck-uppery and B.S. I personally know of five people who claim to be advising the president, who aren’t, and I don’t get out much. 

That’s why Page won’t just come out and say: DONALD TRUMP HAS NO EARTHLY IDEA WHO I AM. 

3. The use of the federal government’s spying powers against an American citizen is yet another problem of unrestricted, unvetted immigration. 

The only reason the FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Act can be used against American citizens in the first place is that we have all these “American citizens,” like Omar Mateen (Pulse nightclub), Syed Farook (San Bernardino), Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Boston Marathon), and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (killed by Obama drone strike in Yemen). 

Maybe like California’s new “Real” I.D. cards — required by the federal government because the state gives driver’s licenses to illegals — we could start distinguishing “American Citizens” from “Real American Citizens.” 

Because of this confusion, the FISA court that was supposed to be used against terrorists and spies is instead being used against Trump supporters. Here’s Malcolm Nance, terrorism analyst, smugly warning Page back in March 2017 on MSNBC: 

“I have a message for him, all right? U.S. intelligence is not going to be coming at him like a lawyer, right? We will turn on the entire power of the U.S. collection system. And if he is lying, it is going to become very well-known very quickly. … If there’s a FISA warrant out there … we have the ability to collect anything on him, including all of his finances and every relationship he has with anybody in this world.” 

If only the federal government were as gung-ho about spying on terrorists as it is to spy on Page, the FBI might not be a complete laughingstock right now. (My late father, an FBI agent, is rolling in his grave.) 

The FBI will still miss the next 9/11, but at least no one is going to forget to file with the Foreign Agents Registration Act anytime soon. 

4. Rep. Trey Gowdy recently defended the Mueller investigation in a clip that has now aired on TV more times than “The Shawshank Redemption.” According to Gowdy, the House Intelligence memo has nothing to do with Robert Mueller’s investigation because he’s just looking into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. 

With all due respect to Gowdy, that’s not what Mueller is investigating. 

The letter from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointing Mueller expressly directs him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” 

Since it has appeared for quite some time now that there is no collusion, the only thing left for Mueller to investigate is Trump’s “obstruction of justice,” i.e. Trump being pissed off that his time is being wasted. 

But without evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians, no independent counsel should have been appointed in the first place. The Department of Justice already has more than 10,000 lawyers. Why pay another dozen to look into foreign interference in our elections unless the president is implicated and can’t investigate himself? 

The reason Rosenstein appointed Mueller was that he believed the “salacious and unverified” dossier. We know that because Rosenstein personally signed one of the FISA warrant applications based on the dossier — backed up by a Yahoo article, which was also based on the dossier. 

A cabal of anti-Trump fanatics cooked up the Russia collusion story, and don’t-rock-the-boat bureaucrats went along with it, so we now have a behemoth investigative monster chasing unicorns. 

Prager U Video: Can Climate Models Predict Climate Change?

Feb 8th 2018, 05:03, by Prager University

Predicting climate temperatures isn’t science – it’s science fiction. Emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton University Will Happer explains.

Take the 'Racist Xenophobe' Quiz: Who Said This About Illegal Immigration?

Feb 8th 2018, 05:03, by Larry Elder

Which alleged “racist xenophobe” made these statements about illegal immigration?

“Those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law, and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented (and) unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”

A) Adolf Hitler

B) Donald Trump

C) Barack Obama

Answer: Then-Sen. Obama, news conference, 2005

“Our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.”

A) Joseph Stalin

B) Donald Trump

C) Bill Clinton

Answer: President Clinton, State of the Union address, 1995

“If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering an award to be an illegal immigrant. No sane country would do that, right? Guess again.”

A) Jack the Ripper

B) Donald Trump

C) Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Answer: Reid, Senate floor, 1993

“In approaching immigration reform, I believe we must enact tough, practical reforms that ensure and promote the legal and orderly entry of immigrants into our country.”

A) Idi Amin

B) Donald Trump

C) Barack Obama

Answer: Sen. Obama, Senate floor, 2007

“We all agree on the need to better secure the border, and to punish employers who choose to hire illegal immigrants.”

A) Pol Pot 

B) Donald Trump

C) Barack Obama

Answer: Sen. Obama, 2005

“All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.”

A) Michael Myers

B) Donald Trump

C) Bill Clinton

Answer: President Clinton, State of the Union address, 1995 

“We will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace.”

A) Jeffrey Dahmer

B) Donald Trump

C) Bill Clinton

Answer: President Clinton, State of the Union address, 1995

“I continue to believe that we need stronger enforcement on the border and at the workplace. And that means a workable mandatory system that employers must use to verify the legality of their workers.”

A) Kim Jong Un

B) Donald Trump

C) Barack Obama

Answer: Sen. Obama, Senate floor, 2007

“If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides — and that’s a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of babies born at taxpayer expense (in) county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?”

A) Kim Kardashian

B) Donald Trump

C) Harry Reid

Answer: Sen. Reid, Senate floor, 1993

“We need to start by giving agencies charged with border security new technology, new facilities and more people to stop, process and deport illegal immigrants.”

A) Rasputin 

B) Donald Trump

C) Barack Obama

Answer: Sen. Barack Obama, 2005

“Right now we’ve got millions of illegal immigrants who live and work here without knowing their identity or background.”

A) Freddy Krueger

B) Donald Trump

C) Barack Obama

Answer: Sen. Obama, 2005

“We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”

A) Vlad the Impaler 

B) Donald Trump

C) Bill Clinton

Answer: President Clinton, State of the Union address,1995

“Let me repeat: We need strong border security at the borders.”

A) Hassan Nasrallah

B) Donald Trump

C) Barack Obama

Answer: Barack Obama, 2005

“If only everyone (in the Middle East) could be like Scandinavians, (achieving peace) would all be easy.”

A) Al Capone

B) Donald Trump

C) Barack Obama

Answer: President Obama, 2016

“There are too many (migrants) now. … Europe, for example, Germany, cannot become an Arab country. Germany is Germany. … From a moral point of view, too, I think refugees should only be admitted temporarily.”

A) Joseph Goebbels

B) Donald Trump

C) Dalai Llama

Answer: Dalai Llama, 2016

Not long ago, both Democrats and Republicans advocated safe, secure borders and an immigration policy of admitting immigrants who benefit, not burden, Americans. Que pasó?

Sweden Appoints Pakistani Muslim Head of National Heritage Board

Feb 7th 2018, 05:14, by Robert Spencer

Qaisar Mahmood, a Muslim born in Pakistan, is the new head of the Swedish National Heritage Board. This is an extremely anomalous appointment, since he readily admits that he has not read anything about Sweden’s cultural heritage. But his new job is not really about preserving and protecting Sweden’s cultural heritage and historical sites at all.

Qaisar Mahmood, who once rode his motorcycle around Sweden in an apparently failed attempt to discover what being Swedish consisted of, is using his position as head of the Swedish National Heritage Board not to highlight and celebrate that heritage, but to downplay Sweden’s cultural heritage and history, and to create a false narrative that will help compel Swedes to accept mass Muslim migration. He says he doesn’t want simply to alert people to Viking artifacts and the like, but to use Sweden’s history to “create the narrative” that will make Muslim migrants “part of something.”

We have already seen how that works. Remember the fake news story about the Viking burial cloth bearing the word “Allah”? Last October, a Swedish researcher gained international headlines by claiming that burial costumes from Viking graves dating back to the ninth and tenth centuries had been found to be inscribed with the name “Allah.” The intent of this was obvious: to convince Swedes that Islam had always been a part of Sweden, all the way back to the days of the Vikings, and so they should not be concerned about the mass Muslim migration that was now bringing Sweden unprecedented rape and other crime rates. Islam has always been a part of Sweden! Stop opposing mass Muslim migration!

The Viking burial cloths didn’t really feature the name “Allah” at all, as Stephennie Mulder, an associate professor of Medieval Islamic art and archaeology at the University of Texas at Austin, proved shortly thereafter, but by then the damage had been done. The idea had entered, however dimly, the popular consciousness: the Vikings were really Muslims. Islam is Swedish. Sweden was Islamic before it was Christian. The Muslim migrants are Swedes.

The “Allah” Viking burial cloth propaganda offensive was one manifestation of what Qaisar Mahmood and others like him are doing. There is no Muslim history in Sweden, but Qaisar Mahmood is working to change the very idea of cultural heritage and fabricate fictions about a historical Muslim presence in Sweden in order to advance his political and sociological agenda.

Qaisar Mahmood, as a Pakistani, of course has no Swedish heritage of his own. His admitted lack of knowledge of Swedish heritage and history ought to have disqualified him from his position, but this is how Sweden is obliterating itself and committing cultural and national suicide. After all, Swedes appointed Qaisar Mahmood to this position. It is Swedish leaders who want to destroy Swedish cultural and national identity.

It also must be remembered in connection with Qaisar Mahmood’s role as head of the Swedish National Heritage Board that the Qur’an suggests that ruins are a sign of Allah’s punishment of those who rejected his truth: “Many were the Ways of Life that have passed away before you: travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who rejected Truth.” (3:137)

This is one of the foundations of the Islamic idea that pre-Islamic civilizations, and non-Islamic civilizations, are all jahiliyya — the society of unbelievers, which is worthless. Obviously this cuts against the idea of tourism of ancient sites and non-Muslim religious installations such as are found all over Sweden.

V. S. Naipaul encountered this attitude in his travels through Muslim countries. For many Muslims, he observed in Among the Believers, “The time before Islam is a time of blackness: that is part of Muslim theology. History has to serve theology.” Naipaul recounted that some Pakistani Muslims, far from valuing the nation’s renowned archaeological site at Mohenjo Daro, saw its ruins as a teaching opportunity for Islam, recommending that Qur’an 3:137 be posted there as a teaching tool.

It does lead one to ponder what Qaisar Mahmood might allow to be done, or not done, with Sweden’s historical sites and artifacts. But whatever destruction may ensue is, obviously, what Swedish authorities want.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His new book is Confessions of an Islamophobe. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

 

The Clinton Dossier

Feb 7th 2018, 05:10, by Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

There were many damning revelations in the Nunes memo released by a House Intelligence Committee vote. But the most damning of them all doesn’t raise questions about process, but about motive.

The memo told us that the FISA application would not have happened without the Steele dossier. The document known as the Steele dossier was a work product of the Clinton campaign. Not only was Christopher Steele, the former British intel agent who purportedly produced the document, working for an organization hired by the Clinton campaign, but he shared a memo with the FBI from Cody Shearer, a Clinton operative, listing some of the same allegations as the ones in his dossier.  That memo has raised questions about whether Steele had been doing original research or just dressing up a smear by Shearer.

A redacted memo by Senate Judiciary Committee members Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham also states that there was a second Steele memo based on information that Steele had received from the State Department and which had been passed along by “a friend of the Clintons.” Victoria Nuland, a Clinton protégé and top State Department official who helped cover up the Benghazi attack, recently went on a media tour in which she revealed that Steele had passed along his material to State.

Shearer and Nuland are both Clinton associates. Under President Clinton, Nuland had been Strobe Talbott’s Chief of Staff. Shearer was Strobe Talbott’s brother-in-law and his connection to the Clintons. 

Not only was the Steele dossier a work product of the Clinton campaign, but the State Department, which had been run by Hillary Clinton and staffed by many of her loyalists at the top, had been used to route information to Steele from the Clintons, and then route information back from Steele. Clintonworld had not only paid for the Steele dossier, but influenced its content and passed it around.

Calling it the Steele dossier is a mistake. It’s the Clinton dossier. At best, it’s the Clinton-Steele dossier.

The media’s counterattack against the Nunes memo rests on the argument that while the FISA applications didn’t mention that Steele was working for the Clinton campaign, they admitted that the dossier had a political origin. Media apologists and Never Trumpers have acted as if an admission of political origin to the FISA court is some sort of rebuttal of the Nunes memo. It obviously isn’t.

There’s a world of difference between admitting that the dossier came from a “political” source or that it came from the campaign of his greatest political opponent who was obsessed with destroying him.

The media apologists and Never Trumpers have churned out echo chamber articles claiming that courts routinely evaluate evidence from biased and tainted sources. If so, then why not tell the court?

If admitting the truth wouldn’t have made a different, then why not admit the truth?

Defenders of the investigation frequently invoke national security. But there was no intelligence need to protect the Clinton campaign. Keeping Steele anonymous might have protected a source. But keeping the Clinton campaign anonymous wasn’t a defense against the Russians, but against the Republicans.

There were only two reasons to withhold the information about the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier.

1. Fear that the court would have viewed the Clinton origins of the dossier as disqualifying.

2. Concern about exposing the Clinton campaign’s funding of the dossier. 

There’s no question that the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier were being concealed. If they were being concealed to fool the court, then the whole process was tainted. But such things have been known to happen. The truly damning possibility here is that it wasn’t the court they were concealing it from.

Either the DOJ and FBI deliberately misled the court. Or they were colluding with the Clinton campaign.

The Nunes and Grassley/Graham memos both make it clear that Steele was playing a double game, acting as an FBI source while spreading the Clinton dossier through the media. And the FBI chose to ignore these abuses until it could no longer do so. The double game was criminal and political. 

Steele was spreading the Clinton dossier through the media to taint Trump politically. But he was also working with the FBI to go after Trump with a criminal investigation. The information was withheld by the DOJ so as not to expose the fact that his paymasters were actually in the Clinton campaign. 

Were the DOJ and the FBI covering up the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier to protect the criminal investigation or the political campaign? The refusal to crack down on Steele’s media leaks (not to mention the plethora of leaks coming from within the FBI and DOJ) suggest that it was the latter or both.

Admitting a political origin on the FISA application suggests they were less worried about the court than about the public exposure of their actions. And that’s the situation that they find themselves in now.

The Clinton campaign had taken great care to conceal its ownership of the Clinton-Steele dossier. Having a law fire hire a smear firm which then hired a British former intel agent in another country indicates that the campaign was spending a lot of time and money trying to cover its tracks. It wouldn’t have needed to work so hard just to protect the distribution of opposition research to the media.

There was never any shortage of reporters eager to cooperate with Clinton officials. Would the same insider media that allowed the DNC to review articles and ask for changes have really refused to keep the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier a secret? Even if the reporters who were briefed by Steele didn’t know that he was working for the Clinton campaign, they could have guessed it from their contacts. 

Concealing the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier wasn’t necessary for opposition research. And that means that the dossier had always been intended to serve as the basis for a criminal investigation. Even before he wrote a single word, Christopher Steele had been hired to generate a criminal investigation.

The eavesdropping and the Mueller investigation aren’t unintended outcomes, as the apologists want us to believe, that a zealous Steele triggered by passing the information to the government. 

It had always been the intended outcome before Christopher Steele even officially came on board.

But because the campaign was underway, the dossier was a double game. Spreading it through the media acted as classic opposition research while routing it through the DOJ generated an investigation. And the Clinton campaign used Steele to do both. His Fusion GPS handlers ferried him from briefing reporters to briefing the FBI. And the FBI was obligated to keep his secret the way that the media did.

Short of an email hack, there’s no way to get at what a reporter knows. The Los Angeles Times still has Obama’s Khalidi tape locked up. The recent release of a photo of Obama posing with Farrakhan which had been kept locked up for over a decade, and the media’s subsequent refusal to report on it, shows just how impermeable the media’s black wall of silence is. But that’s not true of government agencies.

Government agencies have to respond to orders from the President, queries from members of Congress and even requests from the public. The investigation of the Clinton-Steele dossier was met with stonewalling at every step of the way, but it is yielding results that would be impossible in the media.

The origin of the dossier was omitted to conceal it from conservative activists and politicians. 

Would telling the truth about the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier to the FISA court have been disastrous? Let’s take the word of the media apologists and Never Trumpers who insist that the court would have shrugged. And considering the inclusion of a Yahoo News article (also allegedly generated by Steele), that’s entirely possible. The court was stacked with Obama appointees. The acts of judicial activism that defied the law to undermine Trump have gutted the credibility of the Federal judiciary.

But if the DOJ and FBI weren’t hiding the truth from the judge, they were hiding it from everyone else. They were protecting the dual media smear campaign run by Fusion GPS which was parading Steele in front of selected insider reporters. And they were protecting the public perception of the investigation. If everything had gone as planned, bias might have been suspected, but never proven.

The real question about the concealment of the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier isn’t whether disclosing it on the FISA application would changed the outcome. That’s a serious legal question that may have a major impact on those who failed to disclose it and on the investigation even if the court response would have been the same. But the real question is, what was the motive for concealing it?

Why did the leadership in the DOJ and the FBI cover up the role of the Clinton campaign? They weren’t protecting intelligence or sources. They covered it up to protect their political allies. 

The omission of the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier is an admission of guilt. It shows that these were not the routine abuses that can occur in an investigation, but that the investigation was politically motivated. A cover-up reveals not only a crime, but the motive for which the crime was committed.

The missing information is evidence of the collusion between the DOJ and the Clintons.

My Sister Kate: The Destructive Feminist Legacy of Kate Millett

Feb 7th 2018, 05:10, by Mark Tapson

Feminist icon Kate Millett passed away recently in Paris at the age of 82. Her 1970 book Sexual Politics, called “the Bible of Women’s Liberation” by the New York Times, had a seismic effect on feminist thought and launched Millett as what the Times called “a defining architect of second-wave feminism.” In a cover story that same year, TIME magazine crowned her “the Mao Tse-tung of Women’s Liberation.” Fellow feminist Andrea Dworkin said that Millett woke up a sleeping world.

Kate’s sister Mallory, a CFO for several corporations, resides in New York City with her husband of over twenty years. In a riveting article from a few years back bluntly titled, “Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives,” Mallory revealed what she saw of the subversive undercurrent of her sister’s passionate radicalism.

Asked for her thoughts on Kate’s legacy, Mallory shared her very personal responses, which follow.

Mark Tapson: Your sister was an icon of female empowerment, but what do you think the reality of feminism has been for generations of women since Kate helped launch the second wave of the movement?

Mallory Millett: How bizarre it is to have to argue the obvious; to have to prove over and over again what is self-evident so let me be as offensive as I possibly can: Men are men and women are women. They are essentially different and designed for a natural division of labor. Period.

I get a kick out of the feminists’ love affair with the word “empowerment.” They have clever formulas for ensnaring hapless souls into their deceits. One of their slicker moves is to create a vocabulary designed to get around long-held beliefs, mores, taboos or fears. “Pro-choice” is their Newspeak euphemism for the casual murder of an human being; “Dreamers” means illegal immigrants; “Progressives” denotes a group dragging us back to the cave; “Sanctuary City” means a place where no actual US citizen is safe. This “empowerment” thing makes me especially crazy.

We need only go back to Eden in Genesis where God commanded Adam not to eat a certain apple. Eve demanded he eat it. Adam obeyed Eve against the will of God Himself. That’s not power? It only proves that man will do anything to please woman even if it means going against the wishes of his Almighty Creator. The point of the story is not that woman is evil but that woman is all-powerful and definitely runs the show. Woman sets the boundaries. Man is lost if he is surrounded by bad women. Mae West’s famous double entendre is so appropriate:  “When women go wrong men go right after them.” The Genesis admonition to women is to be careful of your influence over others because you already, innately, wield great power… actually, if we believe The Bible, all the power.

Having had that power, feminists were so greedy for more that they destroyed our society in order to prove they were exactly like men. In doing so they have destroyed the American family and our children which has resulted in the demolition of society. We are now in a world where Satanism is on the rise, where judges are removing the Ten Commandments from city squares, where abortion is a mere trifle. We allowed [the late atheist activist] Madalyn Murray O’Hair to remove prayer from the classroom and Kate Millett to remove mommy from the home. Deadly combo!

My thesis is this: when men ran the world and women ran society we had a chance to conduct our lives in some semblance of balance, but women have abdicated their running of society and thus, it has collapsed dramatically. Women forced their way into the running-the-world deal and now we have a world gone mad. And the beautiful society which we Western women built is in tatters. Moms decided they were the same as men so they deserted the home and babies to grab their briefcases and rush out to run the world.

When women ran society power emanated from the home.  Men labored to keep their families sheltered, warm, clad and fed while women mostly stayed in the home to run the children and the community. Mother oversaw the household and carefully watched the children’s behavior. Most of the neighborhood women knew each other and had informal meetings in their living rooms and kitchens, called “coffee klatches.”

It was here that the community developed ground rules on how to manage children and husbands. Any mother was free to chastise anyone else’s child should they misbehave. It was pretty unheard of for someone to say, “How dare you correct my child!”  They would agree amongst themselves what was desired behavior. Good manners were required and trained. Neighbors backed each other up. It was expected. 

The essential rules that Moms formed in their infants and homes radiated outwardly into streets, schools, offices, boardrooms, departments, factories and agencies to form the framework of Western ethics. The communities, churches and schools all echoed the same values because most people went to Church or Temple and so, the foundation of our mores being Judeo/Christian, Mom’s rules were designed by the Ten Commandments. Many towns didn’t lock their doors, even at night.

So, after fifty years of the almighty “consciousness-raising” experiment to empower women, and during the recent Harvey Weinstein [sexual assaults] scandal, what we are hearing from the little girlish voices of the victims is, “I froze, I was paralyzed. I gave in because I didn’t know what to do. I was terrified!” Hey, that’s some weird kind of empowerment. When I was a girl we did what our moms instructed: we yelled “NO,” slapped his face, and left the room or called a cop.

MT: Many people aren’t aware of feminism’s roots in cultural Marxism, but you were present at early meetings of the revolutionaries who would go on to form NOW, the National Organization for Women. Can you tell us what you witnessed behind the scenes about their true aims?

MM: In 1969 I attended consciousness-raising sessions in New York City with my sister, Kate, where a group of 10-15 women sat around a long oval table and plotted the New Feminist Movement and the founding of NOW. Their template was Mao’s China and the group confessionals conducted in each village in order to “cleanse the people’s thinking.” The burning objective of Kate’s “consciousness-raising” was “the destruction of the American family,” as she deemed it “a patriarchal institution devoted to the oppression and enslavement of women and children.”

They went on to form NOW and, with that organization, achieve their stated goal of taking down the Patriarchy through a massive coordinated promotion of promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution, abortion and homosexuality. Their proposed method was to infiltrate every institution in the nation: the universities, the media, primary and secondary schools, PTAs, Teachers Unions, city and state governments, the library system, the executive branches of government as well as the judiciaries and legislatures.

One of their most desired results was the smashing of every taboo in Western culture. Imagine that! Think of that alone! The normalizing of every taboo: polygamy, bestiality, Satanism, pornography, promiscuity, witchcraft, pedophilia – all activities which rot the human soul and city. Nothing burns down a society with such dispatch and totality as the unleashing of taboos.

My sister Kate decided her contribution would be to establish Women’s Studies courses at every U.S. college and university, which she efficiently executed. On examination, these courses emerge as nothing more than Marxism 101. Kate taught that the family is literally a slave unit with the man as the bourgeoisie and the women and children the proletariat. Two of her own books were required reading. In these classes young girls are conditioned into murderers who will dispense with their own precious unborn child as readily as a dirty Kleenex without a twinge because “it’s my body.” I can’t hear of the 70 million Americans killed before birth without a catch in my heart over Kate’s role in this. She taught girls to “be an outlaw; be a damned outlaw, cuz all the laws were made by evil white men. Be a slut and be proud of it!” Now we have girls parading about with the word “SLUT” emblazoned across their tee-shirts. Orgies? “Absolutely! Try everything. There are no rules.” So the woman whose job it is to construct the basic rules threw them all to the wind. Then she ran away from home and from any babies she didn’t kill in order to run the world.

We’ve had women running the SEC, the Secret Service, the IRS, the DNC, yada yada yada. They run so many things now and a great many are under investigation with one female head of department after another either lying or refusing to answer legitimate questions being asked by the people (i.e., congressional committees). Aren’t public officials required to answer to the people? “Be an outlaw, be a damned outlaw!”

So, they infiltrated every system and department in education, media, entertainment, government, justice, Wall Street, you name it and they’re there. For decades since they started their stealth invasion the father in every sitcom has been debased and, most of all, clueless. I am dumbfounded at the efficiency with which these women recruited others and wheedled their way into everything in fifty short years. Oh, yes, woman is one hell of a powerful force. Now, we have a nightmare army of militant feminists:  Lois Lerner, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Huma Abedin, Nancy Pelosi, Oprah Winfrey, Samantha Power, Elizabeth Warren, Cheryl Mills, Maxine Waters, Donna Brazile, plus the main outlaw, Hillary Clinton, lying and obfuscating us into chaos. That’s what outlaws create: chaos!  

Today, 60% of babies who escape abortion are born outside of marriage. On top of that they are miserably reared, thrown into child-care shortly after birth, with not only a lousy education but a miseducation in classrooms infiltrated by Mao, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Howard Zinn, Naom Chomsky, Marx, and Saul Alinsky rather than readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmatic, American History, and Civics. Our children now score poorly compared with other countries, whereas before the feminist “experiment” we led in almost all categories. In 1964 we had 90% literacy and 5% illegitimate births. We now score shockingly low on literacy (38% of American men read at the lowest levels; only 11% of men and 12% of women are proficient readers) and of course, those out-of-wedlock births at 60%.

I would say that raising several ill-prepared fatherless generations of slackers, meth and opioid users, porn dogs, disheveled rockers, and illiterates speaks poorly of any degree of empowerment in parenting. Most parenting is done by absent single women since two-thirds of mothers are raising their youngsters outside of marriage. So, we have the filthy clothes, ten o’clock shadows on guys, shocking grammar, plethora of tattoos, sullen misfits in torn filthy clothing listening to violent hate-filled so-called music; entitled attitudes and non-existent manners say it all. Empowerment? Why, the facts scream that feminists are two generations of the worst-ever educators of America’s children. In what manner does this speak of empowerment? Woman, by your fruits are you known! And those fruits didn’t come out of your briefcases.

MT: In obituaries upon Kate’s passing, the news media wrote largely glowingly of her influence, but what do you think the good and bad of her feminist legacy has been?

MM: As I scan the wreckage of our beautiful America, knowing that my own sister was in great part responsible, I feel as if my heart has been kicked down the stairs. So, on pondering this question about the good and the bad of militant feminism, it reminds me of the joke in which the reporter asks, “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?”

MT: Can you tell us a bit about Kate’s mental instability, and if you think it had anything to do with her radicalism? Or vice versa – do you think her radicalism affected her mental state?

MM: Kate was mentally ill for as long as I remember. She was five when I was born and our elder sister Sally says that once I arrived, Kate was hanging over my bassinet plotting my murder. We shared a bedroom from my birth. From my earliest memory I recall trembling from the vibrations of her insanity. She was the most disturbed, megalomaniacal, evil and dishonest person I have ever known. She tried to kill me so many times that it’s now an enormous blur of traumatizing horrors. She was a sadist, a torturer, a deeply-engrained bully who took immense pleasure in hurting others. Incorrigible and ruthless, she was expelled multiple times from every school she attended. I spent my childhood with heart hammering as I tiptoed through the house so as not to be noticed by the dreadful Kate. Our mother was helpless, paralyzed with terror in the face of Kate.

It’s a grinding hardship to bring oneself to write such harsh things about one’s own blood. It took some bucking up for me to start telling the truth. I must say here that, always and forever, I had a reservoir of love for my sister Kate, but reality trumps all and her brand of nihilistic darkness was an implacable obstacle. I spent decades laboring to reason her into the light. One day my counselor guessed it: “So, do you understand that you’re trying to make your sister sane?”

“I know,” I said, thinking of her stiff smile, which was never real. Her smile was that chilling kind in which the mouth is rigidly arranged into a smile shape showing all the teeth, but it’s obviously a joyless mask. “If only she could be happy. If only she could cease being so agitated and miserable.”

“You cannot make that happen,” said my advisor. “We cannot talk another into sanity. That’s entirely up to her.”

“But what can I do?” I pleaded.

“Sometimes, you just have to leave the room.” I understood in a flash that, so loyally attached to her was I, it had never occurred to me I could actually, simply, leave the room.

Kate announced her atheism very early on and the vacuum created sucked in even more corruption, lying, stealing, fury and domination of others. If God and the afterlife are abandoned then you’re going to be cranky, morose, generally angry, and it’s simple to toss out the Ten Commandments. I would venture that her mental instability created her affinity for the atheism of Marxism. To quote Dennis Prager: “My belief in God and the afterlife keeps me sane. The thought that just this life is all there is would mean that life is random and pointless. It means I will never again see those I love. This would drive me mad. I don’t see how it wouldn’t drive anyone mad who cares about suffering and who loves anyone. So, is there an afterlife? If there is a God, of course there’s an afterlife.”

Most everyone on the left is atheistic, depressed, dark and miserable, and they want us all to be miserable. Winston Churchill said, “Socialism results in the equal sharing of misery.” They detest happiness. Nothing makes them more miserable than another’s happiness. There is no more comedy! Since they swooped in and took over Hollywood and Broadway, everywhere you search for comic relief is dark, dark, dark. Surf through 200 TV channels and it is grim, grim, grim and then there’s a dismemberment. Our “entertainment” has become death, terror, horror and filth. Americans were funny people – funniest in the world after the Brits. First, they lost humor and then we followed. Tina Fey? Major funny-killer. Lena Dunham? A disgrace! Saturday Night Live? David Letterman? Kill me, just shoot me.

I love the term “Feminazi,” as these humorless women are, indeed, fascists, killers of faith and society. So many people think the rise of women and the evisceration of our culture are somehow coincidental. But it’s been calculated and deliberate. It’s the only way America can be “fundamentally transformed” into the Marxist test-tube to dazzle the world. It’s the result of HATE: hating God, hating life, hating society, hating men, hating babies, hating history, hating our fathers, hating our families, hating our white male Founders, hating happiness, hating heterosexuality, hating Western civ. Is this not madness?

I was with them at that table as they founded the Women’s Movement and NOW. The entire stated point of their activities was to destroy the American family and with that, Western Civilization. Is this not crazy? They were tooth-grittingly determined. They were driven by destruction and deeply violent impulses toward men and the patriarchy. Their goal? To establish a matriarchy in order to end all war because that’s what men do, wage war. They believed that if women ran everything there would be no more war. In their madness they have conspired to destroy masculinity, drugging our little boys while trying to remake them into little girls and thus, emboldening our enemies who now see us as easy pickings. No nation is easier to overwhelm than one which has feminized the men and put females at the head of the tribe. Matriarchies never survive – never have, never will!

So, they plotted for Hillary Clinton to go to the White House simply because she was female. She is a proven liar, a persecutor of her husband’s sexual victims, a woman whose campaign for President was remarkably incompetent. Yet, they were certain (still are) that she was up to running America and to be the Leader of The Free World! She couldn’t even run her own campaign. But that didn’t matter to Kate and her pals. She was a woman and that was enough. Is this not sexism? Is this not madness?  

Kate’s life story is a saga of our family desperately trying to have her involuntarily received into a mental institution where they may have helped her. She vividly chronicles most of it in two of her books, Flying and The Looney-Bin Trip. Over and over our elder sister Sally, our mother and I, and various nephews and nieces endeavored to have her hospitalized.  

This was especially true after an incident when I was trapped alone with Kate in an apartment in Sacramento for a week and she did not allow me to sleep for five days as she raged and ranted, eyes rolling in her head, frothing at the mouth and holding chats with “little green men.” Not knowing a single person in Sacramento, I had nowhere to turn. Too terrified to go to sleep, I wasn’t sure she even knew who I was but I could imagine a butcher knife thrust into my back as I slept. Big sister Sally came from Nebraska to rescue me.

After that there was an enormous effort by the family wherein we all took Kate to court for legal commitment in Minnesota. She hired a male feminist hotshot New York lawyer and managed to swim back out into the world to hurt, menace, and harm ever more people. When Sally called last September to say Kate dropped dead in a Paris hotel room that morning, I was flooded with such indescribable relief that she could no longer spread her filth, lies and misery, nor could she go on threatening the lives and safety of others. Once, she wrote an entire book describing her deep passion for her lover, Sita. Sita’s response was to kill herself. My biggest anxiety about Kate has always been that one day she would take out a family of five on the Saw Mill River Parkway as – laced with liquor, wine, lithium, marijuana, and God knows what else – she hurtled, ranting and raging, up that difficult road. For many years I have braced for that call in the night. 

She had enablers everywhere. She was worshiped on all seven continents. We did a massive intervention with twelve of us: family and friends, a psychiatrist, two ambulances standing by, several cops, and she managed to elude us all by hopping on a plane for Ireland. Her “instability,” as you put it, was apparent enough to both airline and cops in Shannon that she was committed by the police straight from the plane to an Irish psychiatric ward whereupon her ubiquitous groupies – this time Irish – managed her escape through a second-story window in the middle of the night.

Without a doubt, over time, once she became enmeshed in the larger group of leftist activists around the world, her madness, buoyed by their lunacy, became even greater and more impossible to penetrate. Their groupthink is so dense, so full of lies, the vocabulary is so deceptive and intricately designed to brainwash, that just to witness it and their interactions from a distance is beyond alarming. After we buried our mother I never spoke with Kate again, as I’d finally come to accept that there is no honest communication with this mental illness that is today’s liberalism. Finally, I left the room.

I'm Not 100% White. Honest Injun!

Feb 7th 2018, 05:06, by Bruce Bawer

When I was a child I became curious, as children sometimes will, about my family history. Although my grandfathers were dead, my grandmothers were alive, and I asked them what they knew about our origins.

The answer: not much. But they provided me with a few names, enabling me to draw up the rudimentary beginnings of a family tree.

Later, I spent a good deal of time in the New York Public Library’s genealogy room, trying to trace my ancestry back from those names. (There was no Internet then.) I didn’t get anywhere with my father’s side of the family – his parents were Poles who’d fled Europe during World War I – but I was able to follow a couple of lines on my mother’s side back to colonial Virginia and Pennsylvania.

It was fun. But nobody else in the family cared. And then life came calling, and I put away all my findings in a folder in my parents’ basement.

Fast forward forty years. Recently a relative dusted off that folder, picked up where I left off, and has nailed down a lot more information about our ancestry than I ever imagined possible. She’s traced some lines back to fifteenth-century England. I knew I had English, Welsh, and Scots blood, and that some of my ancestors were French Huguenots, but I didn’t know I was part Dutch. I’m even descended from Italian Protestants (!) whose flight from Catholic oppression led them, over a couple of generations, to France, Britain, and eventually America.

But the biggest news (so far) came just the other day. Did you ever hear of the Nansemond Indians? Me neither. When English settlers founded Jamestown, the Nansemond Indians were their neighbors. At first, relations weren’t exactly chummy. But there were exceptions, one of which was the marriage, in 1638, of a settler named John Basse to the daughter of the tribal chief, no less.

Follow their line for several generations and you arrive at one Nancy Jane Bass, who married a fellow named William Colwell. In 1841, these two had a daughter whom they named Celestial, of all things, and who grew up to marry one William Frank Hines. One of their sons, Charles, fathered a daughter named Ruth Elizabeth Hines, who was born in 1898 in South Carolina and who, as it happens, was my maternal grandmother.

In short, if you go back far enough – eleven generations, to be specific – I’m part American Indian. Sorry: native American.

Yes! Really! At first I was stunned. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this new bit of data explains a lot. In fact, it explains everything. Not to go into too much detail, but, hey, my life hasn’t been all that easy. There have been some rough patches. I’ve always worked hard, but sometimes I haven’t made nearly enough wampum. All these years I thought it was just, you know, the way life is for pretty much everybody: you win some, you lose some. You have fat years and lean years. If something bad happens, you should pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start all over again. But no! Now I realize it was all racism. All these years, you white people, with your white privilege, have been conspiring to keep me down.

The more I think of it, the more enraged I get. You filthy Europeans came to my land, my paradise, my Eden, where the red man lived in harmony with the noble elk and hawk, and in brotherhood with plant and tree and stream, and forced me to study your history and literature, your math and science – white man’s culture! – and thereby denied me the knowledge that would otherwise have been mine, like how to carve a totem pole or make turquoise necklaces. You stole it all from me, while infecting my pristine continent with cholera, diphtheria, malaria, and the plague.

Let’s face it: you bastards have been my oppressors ever since I was a little papoose! You dragged me out of the wigwam into your concrete jungle! You pushed your evil firewater upon me! (And all this time I thought it was my fault that I drink too much.) Now I realize why, when I was a kid, I enjoyed wearing moccasins! I could still be wearing them now – but no, you forced me into your own uncomfortable, constricting footwear and made me tread your hard pavements when I could have been walking in the sunshine of the meadow and the shadow of the forest!
Of course, I realize now that I’ve been all wrong in my political views – specifically, my foolish disapproval of identity politics. So here’s a message to all of my redskin brothers and sisters, far and near, whom I may have alienated with my opinions: we bury hatchet! We smokum peace pipe! We go on warpath together against palefaces!

To put it a little differently, so that you lousy whites will understand: I’m a twofer now. I’m no longer a gay white male, that lame excuse for a subjugated minority. I’m a bona fide person of colora gay native American maleand therefore a double victim, being persecuted from multiple directions. It’s called intersectionality, you creeps, and I’m putting you on warning: the resistance starts now. Deal with it!

 

 

Memo to Dan Rather: Shut Up About Memos

Feb 7th 2018, 05:04, by Michelle Malkin

Old liberal media liars never fade away. They just rage, rage against the dying of their dinosaur industry’s light.

I’m looking at you, Dan Rather.

After years of trashing alternative media, which exposed the veteran CBS News reporter’s monumental Memogate fraud in 2004, Rather has joined the ranks of pajama-clad online broadcasters. The 86-year-old grandfather of fake news now uses Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to stoke the left’s anti-Trump resistance — all while clinging bitterly to the vestiges of his defunct “legendary” newsman persona.

Consider Gunga Dan’s comments on the House Intelligence Committee’s release of the four-page Nunes memo alleging domestic surveillance abuses by politicized FBI brass working with Democratic operatives.

“Most respectable analysts,” Rather asserted, “have determined that the contents of the memo are thin.”

Who determined that these unnamed analysts are “respectable”? Dan Rather. Why are they “respectable”? Because they confirm Dan Rather’s opinions. Why are Dan Rather’s opinions more valid than others? Because he’s Dan Rather, the veteran teleprompter reader America must trust.

“With the release of the memo,” Rather railed, “the goal of the White House and its willing enablers is to make what is really the truth into a forgettable sidebar.”

He lambasted “cherry-picking” and taking things “out of context.” And, Rather fretted, “what will be the endgame if a big segment of the public confuses what they hope to be true with what turns out to be true?”

This “disgraced former journalist” fraudster’s got more gall than a bladder bank.

Document Dr. Dan is the man who fronted the notorious “60 Minutes” propaganda hit piece on George W. Bush based on fake documents about his Texas Air National Guard service in the 1970s and nonexistent sources upon whom Rather’s team relied to verify these documents.

(If that self-validating circularity of bogusness sounds eerily similar to what the Nunes memo revealed, you’ve been paying attention.)

Rather and his CBS team perpetuated journalistic fraud of the highest order. Conservative bloggers and alternative media called out Dan Rather and his con artist producer Mary Mapes for their malpractice. CBS denied this and delayed addressing the hoax. The mainstream media tried to shoot the messenger and discredit critics of CBS/Rather.

The evidence of bias was overwhelming — forcing CBS to appoint an independent review panel that concluded that the network “failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece,” was “rigid and blind” in its defense, and demonstrated “myopic zeal” in its manufacturing of the Bush/National Guard fraud. After the report was issued, Mapes and three executives were fired and the editorial practices at CBS were revamped.

The New York Times infamously coined the phrase “fake but accurate” to describe the left’s stubborn defense of the four manufactured memos attributed to Texas Army National Guard commander Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. Less remembered are the scathing conclusions of the independent panel who identified these worst defects of Rather’s work in 2004:

“1. The failure to obtain clear authentication of any of the Killian documents from any document examiner;

“2. The false statement in the September 8 Segment that an expert had authenticated the Killian documents when all he had done was authenticate one signature from one document used in the Segment;

“3. The failure of 60 Minutes Wednesday management to scrutinize the publicly available, and at times controversial, background of the source of the documents, retired Texas Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett;

“4. The failure to find and interview the individual who was understood at the outset to be Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’s source of the Killian documents, and thus to establish the chain of custody;

“5. The failure to establish a basis for the statement in the Segment that the documents “were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files”;

“6. The failure to develop adequate corroboration to support the statements in the Killian documents and to carefully compare the Killian documents to official TexANG records, which would have identified, at a minimum, notable inconsistencies in content and format;

“7. The failure to interview a range of former National Guardsmen who served with Lieutenant Colonel Killian and who had different perspectives about the documents;

“8. The misleading impression conveyed in the Segment that Lieutenant Strong had authenticated the content of the documents when he did not have the personal knowledge to do so;

“9. The failure to have a vetting process capable of dealing effectively with the production speed, significance and sensitivity of the Segment; and

“10. The telephone call prior to the Segment’s airing by the producer of the Segment to a senior campaign official of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry — a clear conflict of interest — that created the appearance of a political bias.”

Fourteen years later, after courts laughed his $70 million lawsuit against CBS out of court, the blog-blaming fake news forefather has the audacity to hold forth on truth, trust, accountability.

Sit down, Dan Rather. Be humble.

Video: Communism Will Always be Violent

Feb 7th 2018, 05:02, by Frontpagemag.com

In this new video, the Capital Research Center reveals why it doesn’t matter if the Soviet Union or China were examples of “real communism.” Communist dictatorships are not an accident, rather they’re the natural outcome of Marxism put into practice:

 

The Left’s Memo Hysteria

Feb 6th 2018, 05:10, by Matthew Vadum

Democrats and other left-wingers melted down in unison over the weekend after the release of a congressional memo asserting that Obama-era officials relied on the discredited Trump-Russia dossier to obtain court-ordered foreign-intelligence wiretaps against U.S. citizens in a bid to reverse the results of the 2016 presidential election.

The extended freakout came after the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence publicly unveiled a newly declassified four-page report detailing intelligence surveillance abuses perpetrated by the Obama administration during the past election cycle. As expected, the document confirmed more or less all the terrible things we’ve been hearing about the disgraced Federal Bureau of Investigation and its parent agency, the U.S. Department of Justice.

One of the more outrageous examples of hyperbole came from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who absurdly claimed “the release of this memo is really reminiscent of the darkest days of the McCarthy era.”

As left-wingers see things, when governmental transparency exposes Republican wrongdoing, it is noble, patriotic, and just. When it exposes Democrat wrongdoing, it is terrorism and treason.

The memo itself is devastating. It shows how corrupt the swamp-dwellers in the nation’s capital are. No wonder Democrats shrieked so loudly in protest of the memo’s release: it indicts them. (Full memo here.)

The Left tried to use the power of government to rig a presidential election, and then when that failed, to frame Donald Trump for an offense he did not commit – “collusion” – that isn’t even actually a crime.

As expected, the memo provides evidence that during the 2016 election cycle top officials in the Obama administration abused their authority to obtain surveillance warrants against members of President Trump’s election campaign from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The memo makes clear that DoJ and FBI officials relied on the ridiculous “piss-gate” dossier filled with Kremlin-supplied misinformation about President Trump’s virtually nonexistent ties to Russia to obtain surveillance warrants from the secret court.

The dossier by rent-a-spook Christopher Steele, whom the memo reveals as a frothing-at-the-mouth Trump-hater, was a Democrat work product. Steele was paid $160,000 by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign via the Perkins Coie law firm and Fusion GPS. Obama administration officials knew this and committed a fraud on the court by withholding the information. In fact, the administration, that is, the FBI, “had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information,” according to the memo.

The Obama administration compounded the fraud on the court by presenting a Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, the journalist who had the sex scandal story involving President Bill Clinton and intern Monica Lewinsky but suppressed it, as supposed corroboration for the dossier, knowing that the article didn’t contain actual reporting and was a mere regurgitation of the dossier’s major points. The memo states, “This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News.” Of course, information about the leaking was conveniently left out of court documents.

On (at least) four occasions the Obama administration committed a grotesque abuse of process, the memo suggests, by failing to disclose the origins of the dossier in applications for surveillance of Carter Page, an American citizen and obscure Trump campaign volunteer. Democrats now dispute what the secret court was told about the provenance of the dossier, but once again, they’re probably lying.

Russia supposedly tried and failed repeatedly to recruit Page as a spy, but despite this big nothing-burger of a data point, the corrupt leadership of the DoJ and FBI wouldn’t drop Page as a target because he was part of the Trump campaign. He was too valuable to them as a means of undermining Trump.

The Steele dossier was the sine qua non of the strategy. Without it, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would not have granted a warrant against Page.

The dossier’s centrality to the plot is not a figment of Republicans’ imagination.

As the memo states, “Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.”

Everything Trump-haters said about the memo last week before it was released turned out to be lies and what they said after it was made public amounted to legalistic parsing, distortions, and misdirection.

Democrats, in particular, pushed the panic button. They claimed the memo would undermine national security and was loaded with “classified information” that if made public would expose “our spying methods,” by which “[t]hey meant Obama’s spying methods,” Daniel Greenfield writes. The memo, he adds, “reveals a treasonous effort by the Democrats to use our intelligence agencies to rig an election and overturn the will of the voters.”

A parade of Democrat lawmakers flew at warp speed to TV stations to get the word out that the memo release, an act of government transparency, was actually part of a dastardly plot to somehow undermine the democratic process.

The ranking member on the HPSCI, the ubiquitous boob tube presence known as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), said at least twice on the weekend that the memo’s release could lead to another Oklahoma City bombing.

“Sources will dry up,” Schiff said on MSNBC. “If you have a neighbor next door who’s buying a lot of fertilizer and it seems odd to you because they don’t have a yard, are you going to think twice before calling the FBI?”

Sen. Mark Warner (D- Va.), ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said releasing the memo was “reckless and demonstrates an astonishing disregard for the truth.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) claimed before the release that if the memo was made public, the FBI and DoJ “will refuse to share information with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.” Of course, if they did so, the two organizations’ funding could be cut off by Congress in order to compel cooperation.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) emoted that releasing the memo was “treasonous” and might be “revealing sources and methods” and even “endangering fellow Americans in the intelligence community.”

On Sunday TV shows, two of Obama’s CIA directors denounced Republicans for releasing the memo. Both lied their faces off, feigning ignorance of the strict rules governing the declassification process.

Leon Panetta, a former Democratic congressman from California who was also one of President Clinton’s White House chiefs of staff, said it was “irresponsible” to put the memo out there “without looking at the entire [warrant] application, without talking to the judges who actually make these decisions.”

On Thursday, the Communist-friendly public figure said President Trump may be creating a “constitutional crisis” by declassifying the document over the objections of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

Former Obama CIA Director John Brennan, who has admitted voting for a Communist Party presidential candidate at the height of the Cold War, attacked Nunes saying the HPSCI chairman “abused the office” by not letting Democrats on the committee release their rebuttal document.

That Devin Nunes and Republicans denied the ability of the minority, the Democratic members of that committee, to put out its report is just appalling. I think it, it really underscores just how partisan Mr. Nunes has been. He has abused the office of the chairmanship of HPSCI. And I don’t say that lightly.

Brennan also hit Nunes for not releasing the classified documents on which the memo is based. “We don’t have access to the underlying information of the Nunes memo which really, you know, clearly indicates that he was being exceptionally partisan in this.”

The problem with the objections offered by the two men is that they are nonsensical.

It is true that Chairman Nunes did not read the documents upon which his committee’s memo was based, but there are good reasons for that.

Congressional Republicans struggled mightily to extract documentation from the Justice Department for about the last 12 months. In the end, Nunes had to threaten officials with contempt citations to get the DoJ to act. The agreement the committee made with the DoJ stipulated that only one person would be given access to the classified material.

HPSCI member Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was given the task by Nunes based on his experience as a federal prosecutor, Nunes told The Hill newspaper. After viewing the documents, Gowdy briefed the committee members on what he read.

Nunes and his committee members still don’t have continuing access to the classified documents. Senior Democrat Adam Schiff has known this all along but he keeps playing dumb whenever he goes in front of a TV camera.

Other left-wingers waved the bloody shirt.

As American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson reports, ad executive and MSNBC pundit Donny Deutsch, who calls Republicans “cockroaches,” became so unhinged at the release of the memo that he urged violent revolution. “Our democracy is under siege,” he said. “People need to start taking to the street. This is a dictator … this is frightening stuff … we need a revolution at this point.”

When Tucker Carlson grilled Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) on TV, the wily lawmaker insulted Carlson and accused him of being a Putin stooge. “You’re peddling a narrative that undermines the rule of law,” Swalwell said.

Former CIA counterintelligence agent, Phil Mudd, openly threatened President Trump, boasting that the unelected intelligence community would prevail over the nation’s duly elected Chief Executive.

The workforce is going to look and this and say, this is an attack on our ability to conduct an investigation with integrity… The FBI people, I’m going to tell you, “are ticked” and they’re going to be saying, I guarantee you, “You think you can push this off this?”… You better think again, Mr. President. You’ve been around for 13 months. We’ve been around since 1908. I know how this game is going to be played. We’re going to win.

Of Deutsch, Swalwell, and Mudd, Lifson concluded:

I think that these three prominent people make it quite clear that they are happy to change the nature of our regime from a constitutional republic to something else – a revolutionary government, perhaps with guillotines or gulags – or a government run by and for the secret police bureaucrats.

But it’s not just the Left. Plenty of Republicans suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome have been wildly lashing out, indignantly claiming those who want to get to the bottom of the present controversy aren’t good Americans.

Some are useful idiots for the Left; others know exactly what they’re doing.

According to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), those Americans now demanding accountability from the FBI and Department of Justice for conspiring to subvert the democratic process are themselves the real enemy.

“The latest attacks on the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests — no party’s, no president’s, only [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s,” McCain said.

Former communications director for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Amanda Carpenter, whose deep personal animus toward Trump drove her during the campaign to compile an enemies list consisting of those who merely endorsed Trump’s candidacy, shot her fellow Republicans in the back.

Carpenter wrote a shameful, profoundly dishonest op-ed for Politico titled, “I’m a Republican. Why is my party gaslighting America?” Pooh-poohing the overwhelming evidence that the Trump-the-Russian-puppet narrative is fabricated nonsense and that senior staff at the Obama-era FBI and Justice Department conspired to alter the outcome of the election, Carpenter tries to paint truth-seeking patriots as conspiracy-obsessed kooks.

“Prompted by Trump, his allies on Capitol Hill and in the Trump-affirming media universe, millions of Americans have been led to brainstorm all the various ways faceless bureaucrats embedded in the government could be working to undermine Trump.”

Slimy, demonstrably corrupt bureaucrats like James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Sally Yates, Dana Boente, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, and Robert Mueller are faceless? Carpenter treats Comey and McCabe, in particular, as innocent victims of what she calls Trump’s “shameless bullying, rumor mongering and conspiracy peddling.”

And what “Trump-affirming media” could Carpenter be talking about? The mainstream media that initially gave Trump 5 percent positive coverage and uses dubious anonymous sources daily now to smear the president with made-up palace intrigues? Even conservative talk radio and conservative publications like National Review, Weekly Standard, and Washington Examiner are filled with NeverTrumpers.

Talk about gaslighting.

To people like Carpenter and her left-wing comrades the real offense that President Trump and Chairman Nunes are guilty of is daring to fight back against the Left and the Deep State and the ongoing witch hunt.

These people have been driven mad by their hatred of Trump and they don’t mind turning America into a banana republic in order to drive him from power.

Did Clinton Associates and Obama State Dept. Feed Info to Steele?

Feb 6th 2018, 05:09, by Joseph Klein

Democrats and their apologists in the mainstream media are in a state of pitiful denial. They refuse to accept the fact that certain senior officials at the FBI and Department of Justice with political agendas misled the FISA court in their applications for a warrant to spy on an American citizen, Carter Page. First, the Democrats and their apologists raised the specter of a national security crisis if the House Intelligence Committee memo on the discredited Christopher Steele anti-Trump “dossier,” used in part to justify the surveillance warrant, were made public. Then, when the memo was made public, they claimed, in the words of California Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu, that it was a “nothing burger.” There was in fact a lot of beef in the memo, but Democrats and their progressive friends have eliminated truth from their diets. 

We shall see what so-called “context” the Democrats put into their rebuttal memo, if and when released. Given their tendency to put their heads in the sand when evidence of malfeasance by partisan higher-ups in the nation’s chief law enforcement agencies stares them in the face, we can expect little more than spin.

From what has been reported so far by the New York Times, the “Democratic memo is said to contend that the F.B.I. was more forthcoming with the surveillance court than Republicans had claimed.” The article quoted Connecticut Democrat Jim Hines, who is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, claiming that the FBI did not mislead the FISA court because “the judge had some sense that this information came out of a political context.” However, the article went on to say that, according to people familiar with the Democratic memo, the memo concedes that “the F.B.I. did not name the Democratic National Committee and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign as having funded the Steele research.” Instead, the FBI merely disclosed that the information it had received from Steele was “politically motivated,” which the Democrats believe is sufficient. 

Even if the FISA court were given “some sense” that the information in the Steele dossier “came out of a political context” and was “politically motivated,” that is far too general to have any real meaning to judges who deserve to be informed of all relevant facts. It is a far cry from informing the FISA court of the material fact that the Steele dossier was bought and paid for by the campaign of presidential candidate Donald Trump’s adversary, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic National Committee which Hillary Clinton controlled by that time. The members of the Department of Justice and FBI who signed the FISA warrant applications without disclosing the specifics behind the dossier’s funding, which would have cast doubt on its credibility, engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by concealing or withholding from the FISA court critical information in their possession. As a result, they misled the FISA court as to the worth of the dossier in deciding whether or not to grant the warrant request. 

Democratic Representative Hines also said that what Americans will learn from the Democratic memo is that “it is not true that this FISA warrant was awarded solely on the basis of the Steele dossier.”

Whether the dossier was the sole basis for the FISA court’s decision to issue the surveillance warrant is beside the point. The Department of Justice and FBI obviously would not have considered the dossier significant enough to include in their original application and renewals if they did not think they needed it to succeed in their applications. It is fair to assume that the evidence they already had compiled on Carter Page, who was said to be on the FBI’s radar for years, coupled with what they had learned from ex-campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, was insufficient. The transcript of testimony to the House Intelligence Committee by former deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, should be made public to verify what exactly he said regarding how critical the Steele dossier was in obtaining the FISA surveillance warrant to spy on Carter Page.

In any event, Steele’s role did not end with the dossier. The Senate Judiciary Committee has just released a highly redacted document, which, according to a report by the Washington Examiner, is an unclassified version of the criminal referral targeting Christopher Steele that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. filed with the Department of Justice early last month. It says that Steele, in addition to his infamous anti-Trump dossier, was involved with a separate memo on Donald Trump and Russia. From what can be gathered from the redacted version of the referral, as the Washington Examiner article reported, “Steele wrote the additional memo based on anti-Trump information that originated with a foreign source. In a convoluted scheme outlined in the referral, the foreign source gave the information to an unnamed associate of Hillary and Bill Clinton, who then gave the information to an unnamed official in the Obama State Department, who then gave the information to Steele. Steele wrote a report based on the information, but the redacted version of the referral does not say what Steele did with the report after that.”

In short, Steele was being fed information by Clinton associates and the State Department while he was creating his anti-Trump dossier and providing materials to the FBI against Trump. This may explain why House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said last week that his committee would be expanding its inquiry to probe “the State Department and the involvement they had in this.” He added, “We will work to find answers and ask the right questions to try to get to the bottom of what exactly the State Department was up to in terms of this Russian investigation.”

Fox News has reported that Senators Grassley and Graham, whose criminal referral requested an investigation of Christopher Steele for possibly lying to the FBI about his contacts with the media, are asking the FBI for an emergency review of their criminal referral “so it can be made public, with limited redactions.” In a letter they wrote to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray, quoted by Fox News, the two senators said, “It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele’s work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility.”

The truth is closing in on exposing the efforts by high level partisan members of the anti-Trump Deep State, beginning during the waning days of the Obama administration, to misuse the enormous power of the Department of Justice and FBI, as well as possibly the State Department, for corrupt political purposes. 

Instead of doing everything they can to undermine congressional oversight of these executive department bureaucracies, Democrats would do well to review the work of the committee led by former Senator Frank Church (D-ID) more than 40 years ago. The Church Committee helped expose, in the words of Stuart Taylor, Jr., author of the Brookings Essay, ‘The Big Snoop: Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Terrorists,’ “secret, arguably illegal wiretapping, bugging, and harassment of American citizens, including Supreme Court justices, reporters, and government officials, all in the name of collecting intelligence about threats to national security.” The Church Committee’s hearings led to the passage of the FISA Act of 1978, which established the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in the first place.

Democrats are now condoning fraud committed on the very judicial institution that their late colleague played a central role in establishing to protect Americans’ civil liberties.   

How Trump Changed Saudi Attitudes to Israel and the Islamo-Fascists

Feb 6th 2018, 05:08, by Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

What a difference an administration makes.

Under Bush, Muslim World League secretary-general Abdullah Al-Turki described the Jews as “perfidious” and suggested that “it is the natural disposition of the Jews who inherited this deception from their forefathers.”

Under Obama, the Muslim World League Journal ran an article claiming that “Jews” and “Jewesses” run the media. It was one of many violently anti-Semitic pieces that had appeared in the publication.

Under Trump, the Muslim World League sent a letter to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum before the commemoration of International Holocaust Memorial Day expressing, “our great sympathy with the victims of the Holocaust”. It goes on to completely disavow any support for the Holocaust or its denial, “This human tragedy perpetrated by evil Nazism won’t be forgotten by history, or meet the approval of anyone, except criminal Nazis or their genre. True Islam is against these crimes. It classifies them in the highest degree of penal sanctions and among the worst human atrocities ever.”

The letter was signed by Dr. Mohammad Al Issa, the new Secretary General of the MWL who had replaced Al-Turki in the summer of ’16. The MWL is under Saudi control and Al Issa, who is loosely associated with the reformers, was appointed as major changes were sweeping the desert kingdom.

The MWL Holocaust letter never mentions the Jews by name. It was sent to the Holocaust Memorial Museum, a United States government institution, rather than a Jewish communal institution. The new alignment between the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia is based on a growing threat from Iran. The letter allows Saudi Arabia to distinguish itself from Iran’s anti-Semitic obsession with the Holocaust.

“One would ask, who in his right mind would accept, sympathize, or even diminish the extent of this brutal crime,” the Muslim World League letter asks. The answer is meant to be quite obvious.

Two years ago, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, commemorated International Holocaust Remembrance Day with a Holocaust denial video. Iran’s bizarre obsession with Holocaust denial, convening a conference and hosting Holocaust cartoon events, is extreme even by the standards of a region where Mein Kampf is a bestseller and it’s generally believed that Hitler didn’t go far enough.

After Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad left office, he claimed that his Holocaust denial “broke the spine of the Western capitalist regime.” His successor, Hassan Rouhani, tried to put on a moderate façade by being ambiguous about the subject. And that gives the Saudis an easy opening.

But it’s not just the Iranians.

Not all that long ago, the Muslim World League had hosted Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi at its First International Islamic Conference on Dialogue. Also present was William W. Baker, a Neo-Nazi, who found a second career appearing at Islamist events to bash Israel.

Qaradawi would later combine the typical Islamist toxic cocktail of Holocaust fantasies and denial by declaring that Allah had sent Hitler to punish the Jews.  “The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.” The believers are Muslims. The Brotherhood’s icon was fantasizing about a Muslim holocaust of the Jews. It’s a theme to which Brotherhood clerics frequently return to.

The genocidal hadith once featured in the Hamas charter has recently been preached at mosques from California to New Jersey. “Judgment day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews. The Muslims will kill the Jews, and the Jews will hide behind the stones and the trees will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’”

In June of last year, the Muslim World League booted Qaradawi from the Islamic Fiqh Academy. The realignment was strategic. The Saudis, UAE and Egypt were fighting the Brotherhood and Qatar. The new regional battle lines put Iran, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood on the same side.

The MWL letter is meant to remind us that the Saudis are different than Iran and the Brotherhood.

The Obama era had broken the old alliance between the Brotherhood and most of their Gulf allies by giving the Islamist group too much and too soon. With political backing from the Obama regime and financial support from Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood had begun seizing entire countries. Qatar was too drunk on the power of being able to conquer countries with its checkbook to stop. Its former allies isolated it and the Sunni terror state in Doha formed an alliance with the Shiite terror state in Tehran.

The Saudis went looking for allies in strange places. One of those places was Israel. They adapted to a radical new environment with major changes at home and abroad. The MWL letter is a product of shifts in an organization associated with support for the ruthless export of Wahhabism. Those same shifts have opened some limited opportunities for women in Saudi Arabia as it questions Wahhabism.

It would be unwise to read too much into the new Saudi attitude. There have been clear political changes in response to military, social and economic threats. If those threats were to go away, if oil were once again a sure thing, if Iran were to fall apart, if the Islamists became more pliable, then reform would likely prove to be another mirage. Like Gorbachev’s Perestroika, the Saudi reforms are necessitated by circumstances rather than sincerity. They might become the real thing in time.

But it would be a mistake to confuse posturing with principle. Or to disregard its significance.

The repercussions of Osama bin Laden’s original campaign against the House of Saud have transformed the region and the world. 9/11, the Iraq War and the Arab Spring have changed everything. Iran has become a regional power. Islamist organizations have been able to seize entire countries. Energy independence for America and Europe is becoming a reality. Qatar controls the foreign media’s narrative of the region through Al Jazeera. And that narrative is very unfriendly to the Saudis.

The House of Saud responded by questioning whether its arrangement with the House of Wahhab, the two swords on the coat of arms of Saudi Arabia, temporal power and religious power, is still relevant. Its reforms negotiate a complex balancing act between modernizing its political system while still holding on to religious power. The Saudis need America more than ever even as we need them less than ever. Its show of social changes, like the abolition of slavery in response to pressure from JFK, are also a message.

Had Hillary won, the Saudis would have been left alone to mastermind a regional struggle from Yemen to Lebanon to Libya. The former Secretary of State had made it clear that she would double down on the Arab Spring. But instead Trump won. And that’s one of the reasons that the MWL letter exists.

The Trump administration is unlike any of its Republican predecessors. It mixes the type of traditional energy diplomats like Tillerson, whom the Saudis have always been very comfortable with, with non-traditional thinkers and a sprinkling of serious pro-Israel people. Unlike the Bush era neo-conservatives who believed in regional democracy, but who have been frozen out of the Trump administration, they have very little interest in the democracy folly that led to the Arab Spring. Instead they are realists who prioritize fighting terrorism and stabilizing the region by throwing out a lot of the discredited old ideas.

That’s why President Trump imposed a travel ban and recognized Jerusalem, among other moves.

The realists reflect Trump’s desire for results over the misguided fantasies that led to the Palestinian Authority and the Arab Spring. And after decades of negotiating ideological delusions from D.C., the Saudis have eagerly embraced that realism. Trump, the Saudis and the Israelis want to stop Iran, stop the destabilizing expansion of Islamist civil wars and restore a measure of stability to the region.

Trump and Netanyahu want stability because they don’t want the region’s problems to be their problems. Trump doesn’t want to have to deploy more soldiers in more wars. And Netanyahu doesn’t want to see more terrorists showing up on Israel’s borders. Neither man wants Iran to have nukes.

The Saudis want to reclaim their central role in the region. They’ve offered Trump a way out of more regional wars that will be unpopular at home and they’ve offered Netanyahu a “Palestine” solution that may appear more feasible than the PLO dead end represented by Abbas. Like the Trojan Horse, it’s best to be wary of such gifts. But for now they’ve cemented a secretive alliance in a complex conflict.

The Middle East is a region of shifting sands and illusory mirages. Like thirsty caravans crossing the bleak desert, even the experts often see what they want to see. But one thing is as clear as water in the oasis.

President Trump has redefined what we expect of the Saudis. We can’t know whether the ripples in the House of Saud extend below the surface, but we do know that America is a moral authority again.

 

Milestone for the Media Fact-Free Zone

Feb 6th 2018, 05:06, by Lloyd Billingsley

On Sunday in Minneapolis, the Philadelphia Eagles defeated the New England Patriots 41-33 in Super Bowl LII. From start to finish, players on both teams fought hard but the game did not inspire men across America to beat their wives and girlfriends. That was the narrative 25 years ago leading up to Super Bowl XXVII in Pasadena. 

A coalition of “women’s groups” held a press conference to announce that Super Bowl Sunday is the “biggest day of the year for violence against women.” Former child actress Sheila Kuehl – she played Zelda Gilroy on “The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis” – of the California Women’s Law Center cited an Old Dominion University study finding that beatings and hospital admissions rose 40 percent after Washington Redskins games. Linda Mitchell of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) appeared at the press conference and a mass mailing from Dobisky Associates warned women “don’t remain at home with him during the game.” 

Psychiatrist Lenore Walker, author of The Battered Woman, appeared on “Good Morning America” touting ten years of data showing sharp increases of violence against women on Super Bowl Sundays.  The day before the game, Linda Gorov of the Boston Globe reported that on Super Bowl Sunday women’s shelters and hotlines are “flooded with more calls from victims than on any other day of the year.” Across the nation, Gorov wrote, such calls reported a 40-percent climb. In similar style, a Toronto Star writer opined, “the Super Bowl’s most brutal hits will occur in living rooms across Canada and the United States.” 

Before the game, NBC sports and the National Football League aired a 30-second announcement, produced by the Philadelphia Coalition on Domestic Violence, proclaiming that “domestic violence is a crime.” Michael Lindsey of the advocacy group Third Path told Robert Lipsyte of the New York Times that the announcement “will save lives. It will give people the permission to call for help. The same way so much violence in football gives people permission to batter.” 

“If Super Bowl tradition holds,” Lipsyte wrote, “more women than usual will be battered today in their homes by the men in their lives; it seems an inevitable part of the post-game show. A big football game on television invariably becomes the Abuse Bowl for men conditioned by the sports culture to act out their rage on someone smaller.” Practically alone in the establishment media, Ken Ringle of the Washington Post took the trouble to investigate the claims.

Battered Women Who Kill author Charles Patrick Ewing, quoted in the Dobisky release, told Ringle, “I never said that,” about the increase of violence on Super Bowl Sunday, and “I don’t know that to be true.” Psychologist David Silber of George Washington University, an expert on domestic violence, told the reporter “I know of no study documenting any such link.”

Ringle called Janet Katz, co-author of the study cited by Sheila Kuehl on the alleged rise in beatings and hospitalizations after Redskins games. “That’s not what we found at all,” Katz told the reporter. Linda Mitchell of FAIR told Ringle she knew Keuhl was misrepresenting the study but as for challenging her, “I wouldn’t do that in front of the media.”

Lenore Walker referred Ringle’s calls to Michael Lindsey, who said, “I haven’t been any more successful than you in tracking down any of this.” The Boston Globe’s Lynda Gorov said she never saw the study about the 40 percent jump in domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday. Gorov had only been told about the study by FAIR, supposedly a media watchdog.

On the academic side, Who Stole Feminism? author Christina Hoff Sommers was one of the few to challenge the 1993 Super Bowl hoax. Sommers took issue with those who use “manufactured data,” view America as an oppressive patriarchy, and look the other way at genuine abuse in other countries.  “In Pakistan and Iran,” Sommers told the Daily Caller, “they will defend their societies by saying women are imperiled in the West, that women are beaten — especially Super Bowl Sunday! — there can be no distinction between women who are free and are oppressed.” 

The old-line establishment media have trouble with that distinction, and with anything less that worshipful of Islam, which actually mandates wife-beating. The establishment media also have trouble distinguishing truth and falsehood. With no evidence, they churn up hysteria about Russian collusion to steal the 2016 election. In that cause, they serve as a public relations agency for leftist Democrats and the Deep State. 

Both the New York Times and Washington Post opposed the release of the intelligence memo about FBI and DOJ collusion in the surveillance of U.S. citizens. On such key issues, the establishment media don’t want readers to see the data and make up their own minds. So when it comes to truth and transparency, the establishment media are worse than in 1993, when they eagerly retailed the “day of dread” hoax for Super Bowl XXVII.

For the record, millions watched as the Dallas Cowboys defeated the Buffalo Bills 52-17. The game did not inspire men to beat their wives and girlfriends. 

 

Video: It's Time: To Submit to Islamic "Tolerance"

Feb 6th 2018, 05:02, by Frontpagemag.com

In his new video below, comedian Owen Benjamin declares It’s Time: To Submit to Islamic Tolerance” and he nails leftist hypocrisy to the wall:

 

Let's Limit Spending

Feb 6th 2018, 05:00, by Walter Williams

Some people have called for a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution as a means of reining in a big-spending Congress. That’s a misguided vision, for the simple reason that in any real economic sense, as opposed to an accounting sense, the federal budget is always balanced. The value of what we produced in 2017 — our gross domestic product — totaled about $19 trillion. If the Congress spent $4 trillion of the $19 trillion that we produced, unless you believe in Santa Claus, you know that Congress must force us to spend $4 trillion less privately.

Taxing us is one way that Congress can do that. But federal revenue estimates for 2017 are about $3.5 trillion, leaving an accounting deficit of about $500 billion. So taxes are not enough to cover Congress’ spending. Another way Congress can get us to spend less privately is to enter the bond market. It can borrow. Borrowing forces us to spend less privately, and it drives up interest rates and crowds out private investment. Finally, the most dishonest way to get us to spend less is to inflate our currency. Higher prices for goods and services reduce our real spending.

The bottom line is the federal budget is always balanced in any real economic sense. For those enamored of a balanced budget amendment, think about the following. Would we have greater personal liberty under a balanced federal budget with Congress spending $4 trillion and taxing us $4 trillion, or would we be freer under an unbalanced federal budget with Congress spending $2 trillion and taxing us $1 trillion? I’d prefer the unbalanced budget. The true measure of government’s impact on our lives is government spending, not government taxing.

Tax revenue is not our problem. The federal government has collected nearly 20 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product almost every year since 1960. Federal spending has exceeded 20 percent of the GDP for most of that period. Because federal spending is the problem, that’s where our focus should be. Cutting spending is politically challenging. Every spending constituency sees what it gets from government as vital, whether it be Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid recipients or farmers, poor people, educators or the military. It’s easy for members of Congress to say yes to these spending constituencies, because whether it’s Democrats or Republicans in control, they don’t face a hard and fast bottom line.

The nation needs a constitutional amendment that limits congressional spending to a fixed fraction, say 20 percent, of the GDP. It might stipulate that the limit could be exceeded only if the president declared a state of emergency and two-thirds of both houses of Congress voted to approve the spending. By the way, the Founding Fathers would be horrified by today’s congressional spending. From 1787 to the 1920s, except in wartime, federal government spending never exceeded 4 percent of our GDP.

During the early ’80s, I was a member of the National Tax Limitation Committee. Our distinguished blue-ribbon drafting committee included its founder, Lew Uhler, plus notables such as Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, Paul McCracken, Bill Niskanen, Craig Stubblebine, Robert Bork, Aaron Wildavsky, Robert Nisbet and Robert Carleson. The U.S. Senate passed our proposed balanced budget/spending limitation amendment to the U.S. Constitution on Aug. 4, 1982, by a bipartisan vote of 69-31, surpassing the two-thirds requirement by two votes. In the House of Representatives, the amendment was approved by a bipartisan majority (236-187), but it did not meet the two-thirds vote required by Article 5 of the Constitution. The amendment can be found in Milton and Rose Friedman’s “Tyranny of the Status Quo” or the appendix of their “Free to Choose.”

During an interview about the proposed amendment, a reporter asked why I disagreed with the committee and called for a limit of 10 percent of GDP on federal spending. I told him that if 10 percent is good enough for the Baptist Church, it ought to be good enough for the U.S. Congress.

Here Comes the Dems’ Nineteenth Nervous Breakdown

Feb 5th 2018, 05:50, by Bruce Thornton

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

To paraphrase a more recent song, it’s hard out there on a Dem. Staggered by Donald Trump’s unthinkable victory in the presidential election, Democrats have continued to be pummeled by the Trump’s tax reform, the supercharged economy, his withering tweet-scorn for them and their media flunkeys, their own failed government shut-down, and a rousing State of the Union address that raised his poll numbers and made the Democrat Congressmen in the audience look like pouting prom wallflowers. 

And now comes the “Memo,” the House Intelligence Committee’s exposure of the slow-motion coup engineered by partisan FBI and DOJ functionaries, and other deep-state members of the “resistance.” Now it’s up to “we the people” to demand accountability from these abusers of the public trust and violators of the Constitution.

The intensity of the hysterical spin before and after the memo’s release has revealed the depths of anxiety over the chickens of corruption coming home to roost. Shrieks of “nuance” and “context” are desperate attempts to drown out the bad news. “How dare you!” protestations of the “professional integrity” and “sterling character” of political appointees and rank careerists in the intelligence agencies are pleas to the voters to pay no attention to the blue-state man behind the curtain. 

Equally duplicitous as the Dems’ desperate misdirection is the squealing about damaging national security or intelligence gathering methods or vulnerable spies or the Constitution. But we know the FBI wanted to redact the names only to shield the possibly guilty men and women. None of the contents of the memo exposed intelligence-gathering techniques or undercover agents. And since when have progressives cared about the integrity of the Constitution? Where were they when their Messiah Obama, an alleged Constitutional scholar, trashed the Constitutional separation of powers and used an executive order to legislate the DACA program––something he said several times he couldn’t do because it was un-Constitutional?

All this caterwauling and bluster are an obvious misdirection away from the what the memo has revealed: compelling evidence that a cabal in the FBI and the DOJ––anxious to ensure a Hillary victory, and then determined to derail Trump’s presidency––used a flimsy, unverified Russian-manufactured “dossier” financed by Hillary Clinton and the DNC to get a FISA warrant to spy on a fringe member of the Trump campaign preposterously suspected of being an agent of a foreign government. They didn’t inform the court that the dossier was paid for by the political party opposed to Trump, nor did they tell the judge that their other pretext for a warrant comprised leaks to the media engineered by the same fabulist who created the dossier in the first place. 

But larger issues are at stake here than the abuse by some in the intelligence agencies to serve partisan or careerist interests. This whole sordid business is a deep and dangerous attack on the foundations of our political order. The Constitution is based on a healthy fear of human nature and its subjection to the corruption of power that is known as tyranny–– “arbitrary power . . . which is responsible to no one, and governs all alike, whether equals or betters, with a view to its own advantage, not to that of its subjects, and therefore against their will. No freeman willingly endures such a government,” as Aristotle defined it. This classic definition of tyranny lay behind the indictment of George III in the Declaration of Independence, which accused the king of “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” 

Fearful of tyranny and its assault on political freedom, then, the Founders dispersed political power among the three branches of government, and between the federal government and the states. The scope of power is reduced, and checked by countervailing powers, all subject to accountability to the sovereign people through their elected officials. This is the structure that progressives starting in the late 19th century sought to dismantle, and that the current scandal undermines to serve ideology and personal interests at the expense of the sovereign people.

Take a further step back, and we see that the arrogance and power of the government agencies multiplied and expanded by progressives have created the opportunity for the abuse evident in the current scandal. It’s bad enough when the IRS or EPA––their mostly anonymous bureaucrats shielded from accountability to the people––usurp the political power of all three branches of government. Just ask the conservative groups whose tax-exempt status was delayed and subject to arbitrary barriers by IRS functionaries who were opposed to their politics.

But intelligence and law-enforcement government agencies can wield much greater power much more directly on private citizens. The power to surveil secretly American citizens, and to interrogate and indict them based on the secret intelligence the agencies have gathered, lends itself to even worse tyranny. We may not be at risk of torture, death, or endless incarceration, but our lives can be destroyed by the expense of defending ourselves, and our reputations ruined by indictments and convictions not for crimes, but for procedural missteps engineered by zealous prosecutors who, as the cliché goes, can indict a ham sandwich. Soft despotism is still despotism, an assault on our foundational freedoms.

Take the case of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was Dick Cheney’s assistant during the George Bush administration. He was caught in the ginned up “scandal” over the alleged outing of CIA analyst Valerie Plame, whose husband was a vocal critic of Bush’s rationale for the Iraq War, and hence a darling of the progressive media. Libby wasn’t convicted of revealing Plame’s name after a two-year investigation, but of questionable charges of “perjury” and “obstruction of justice.” Libby was punished even though the man who revealed Plame’s identity, and was known to the prosecutor, went free. Such injustice should infuriate anyone who prizes freedom.

Such prosecutorial abuse is the embodiment of tyranny as defined by Aristotle and the Founders. Hidden behind veils of secrecy, such inquisitions can use a power that is “arbitrary” and “responsible to no one.” Often the tool of partisan interests, given that so many wielders of this power are political appointees, this power is used “with a view to its own advantage, not to that of its subjects.” The abuse of the FISA court unveiled by the House’s memo, and the investigation of “collusion” with Russia by Robert Mueller, both fit the paradigm of tyranny.

The Constitution, however, has given us our defense against this tyrannical power. Currently Congress is holding investigations to expose those responsible. The memo is just the first step in this process, and we are told it will be followed by others. And there are many more abuses to expose: Uranium One, the rapacious Clinton Foundation, Hillary’s private server and exposure of classified information, her pay-to-play State Department, the Obama administration’s blatant lies about the Benghazi attacks, James Comey and Loretta Lynch’s torpedoing of the investigation into Hillary’s server, Comey’s perjury and leaking of classified information––all need the disinfectant of sunlight provided by the sovereign people’s representatives in Congress.

More important, the abusers of power must be held to account. The DOJ must indict and prosecute all those responsible. We cannot continue to go through year after year of hearings that never end up punishing the guilty. The politicizing and weaponizing of the intrusive power of our intelligence agencies for partisan ends must be stopped, and the deterrence of prosecution created to concentrate the minds of those inclined to continue such abuses. It is intolerable to see a politician as corrupt as Hillary Clinton has been for over two decades profiting from her abuses, or an arrogant partisan careerist like James Comey issuing self-serving tweets, or a disappointed office-seeker like Robert Mueller assembling a partisan staff to weaken a duly elected president with rumor and innuendo. 

In the end, though, it is “we the people” who must demand that their rights to equality under the law, and to accountability from those given such power, be respected. We must make it clear to the Attorney General, the President, and Congress that we hold the sovereignty, that we are the “guards of the guardian,” and that we will not let stand such abuse of their sovereignty. In short, we all must act in such a way that shows we are worthy of political freedom, and that as free men and women, we will not “willingly endure such a government.”

The Dems’ current nervous breakdown suggests that the reckoning may be getting closer, that the people will punish them in November for their shameless rationalizations for these abuses of power. So far, their desperate pleas to “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” haven’t worked. Thanks to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes––who has doggedly weathered the calumny and sabotage of the two-bit Iago Adam Schiff and his media flying monkeys––we can see blue-state political and media minions twirling the dials and pulling the levers of their lies and misdirection. We may see that voters in November will not allow them to redraw the curtain.

How Progressives Use Race as a Weapon Against Our Country

Feb 5th 2018, 05:48, by Frontpagemag.com

Editor’s note: The Freedom Center is proud to debut its new pamphlet by David Horowitz, “How Progressives Use Race as a Weapon Against Our Country,” which unveils the Left’s use of race to delegitimize America and to erode our national legacy of tolerance and pluralism. Read the full pamphlet below or order your copy today by clicking HERE.

     Civilizations die when they cease to believe in themselves, when they lose the will to defend themselves, and thus the will to survive. The empowering inspiration that created American civilization is inscribed in the certificate of its birth. The Declaration of Independence is a proclamation of the equality of individuals, whatever their race, creed or origin, and it asserts their inalienable right to liberty. This statement of national principles is unprecedented in the five thousand years of previous human history.

     Most important is the American Founding’s view of its citizens as individuals, rather than defined by memberships in racial, ethnic, and gender groups. For this reason, the words “white,” “black” “male” “female” “slave” do not appear in the Constitution. The guarantee of individual rights to equality and liberty is the inspiration that created the culture and country that led the world in abolishing slavery, made Americans the decisive force for freedom in three global wars, and established a society that today is rivalled by no other in its inclusiveness, tolerance and freedom. It is America’s founding principles and their practice that has caused this nation to be hailed as a “beacon of freedom” for the entire world, and that led its greatest president to call it, “the last best hope of mankind.”

     One might expect the election of America’s first black president to mark a culminating point in this remarkable, unique legacy – particularly since white Americans made up 56% of his winning coalition.[1] In evaluating this statistic, bear in mind that there are no elected white presidents of majority black countries, or Asian countries. But the presidency of Barack Obama did not lead to a celebration of America’s achievement in creating a successful multi-ethnic and multi-racial society. It led to greater racial and ethnic tensions. That is because Obama was a lifelong political leftist who openly rejected this view of American exceptionalism, equating it with “British exceptionalism” and “Greek exceptionalism,” in other words not exceptional all.[2] Obama’s presidency did not lead to a celebration of America’s achievement in creating a successful multi-ethnic and multi-racial society because Obama is the leader of a political movement that is at war with America and its achievement.

     On the eve of his election Obama predicted that, “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” as though America was so deeply flawed as to require a “fundamental” transformation. In a subsequent statement, near the end of his second term, Obama explained why. In his view not only was America not a beacon of equality and freedom, but was instead a racist society in practice and also by nature. “The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives … casts a long shadow, and that’s  still  part of  our DNA  that’s  passed on. We’re  not cured of it.”[3]

      This is the ideological conviction of progressives and the political left. With the election of Donald Trump it has reached unprecedented levels of self-condemnation. America it is said, is a “white supremacist society” – a claim that would have been dismissed out of hand as an absurdity during the previous administration when the chief law enforcement officers of the land, the head of the president’s National Security Council and the president himself were black. Today, however, the Democratic Party is home to constituencies and organizations promoting this defamation, however ludicrous and disregardful of the reality. In their official party platform, Democrats speak of “systemic” and “institutional racism,” even though systemic and institutional racism were explicitly outlawed over half a century ago in the Civil Rights Acts.[4] In other words, to believe the Democratic Party platform one has to believe that the historic Civil Rights movement, which led to the Civil Rights Acts was an abject failure and achieved nothing.

     Such extreme condemnations originate, and are intended, as attacks on America itself – on the American idea and its achievements. This is the meaning of the nationwide protests of the national anthem, and the attempt by the California NAACP to delegitimize and replace it as “racist,” and by the numerous attempts to destroy monuments to Thomas Jefferson and other American Founders, as though their legacy was not one of freedom but oppression.

     The curricula of American schools originally designed to educate the citizens of a democracy are increasingly devoted to the doctrine that whites are racists, that America oppresses “people of color,” and that “whiteness” is a socio-political “construct” which must be abolished.[5] As one Texas State college student, echoing Obama, wrote in his school paper, “White DNA is an abomination.”[6] Nor is this a view confined to students and their teachers, but rather one with broad currency among the nation’s intellectual elites. According to the winner of the 2016 National Book Award, Ta-Nehisi Coates, “white America’s progress, or rather the progress of those Americans who believe they are white, was built on looting and violence.”[7] In a 2017 book on Obama’s presidency, Coates declared: “white supremacy [is] so foundational to this country that it [will] not be defeated in my lifetime, my child’s lifetime, or perhaps ever.”[8]

     Ta-Nehisi Coates is the nation’s most celebrated and awarded black author. According to George Packer, another National Book Award winner, “Coates has become the most influential writer in America today; [his] latest Atlantic essay is already being taught in college courses.” When Coates was appointed an editor of the Atlantic Monthly one of America’s oldest liberal journals, he reacted this this way: “I knew by then that I was not writing and reporting from some corner of America society, but from the very heart of it, from the plunder that was essential to it, and the culture that animated it. [emphasis added]”[9] In other words, America is not only a racist enterprise; it is a criminal one.

     Coates’ centrality as a public intellectual, along with the universal respect he has garnered from the political left, are reasons why his anti-white racism and virulent hatred for America are noteworthy, or why anyone should pay any attention to him at all. The subject of the Coates essay Packer refers to as already a college assignment is Donald Trump – Obama’s successor – whom Coates employs as a foil to attack America and everything it stands for: “It is insufficient to state the obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it.”[10]

     Coates’ repellent dismissal of a progress that includes what is arguably the greatest transformation of race relations ever, is also the theme of a contemporary campaign called the “Equal Justice Initiative.” This campaign intends to raise awareness of lynchings, a practice that was put an end to at least sixty years ago. It is more particularly a campaign to raise awareness of the lynchings of African Americans, and only African Americans, although about a third of lynching victims were white. The “Equal Justice Initiative” is funded and promoted by one of America’s – and indeed the world’s – largest corporations, Google. Its outrageous campaign theme is, “Slavery did not end; it evolved.”

     America is under attack by forces both within and without, religious and secular, which seek to delegitimize and destroy it. A spear point of the attacks are these very claims – that America is racist, “white supremacist,” and, in some perverse sense, actually a slave society. MSNBC anchor and former Nation editor Chris Hayes has actually written a recent book,  A Colony in A Nation (the “colony” is black, the “nation” is white) advancing this preposterous thesis. By undermining America’s self-image and esteem, these enemies of America hope to sap its will to defend itself.

     Just before the attacks of 9/11 the left launched a movement for reparations for slavery, even though the institution was abolished well over a century ago. “The Case for Reparations” is the title of a 2014 Atlantic article which brought Ta-Nehisi Coates into national prominence. In fact, reparations is an idea that was in the 1960s rejected by all three major civil rights organizations, who viewed it as divisive and misguided, since the slavery power had been defeated by the very government the activists were holding responsible.  The manifesto of the reparations movement was called The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks, and was written by Randall Robinson, who on completion of the book, repudiated his American citizenship and left the country for Jamaica.

     The Debt begins with the following declaration: “This book is about the great still-unfolding massive crime of official and unofficial America against Africa, African slaves, and their descendants in America.”[11] It goes on to claim, “The enslavement of blacks in America lasted 246 years. It was followed by a century of legal racial segregation and discrimination. The two periods, taken together, constitute the longest running crime against humanity in the world over the last 500 years. . . .”19 No wonder, according to prominent professor, television personality and leftwing ideologue, Michael Eric Dyson, “[Americans] can’t talk about slavery because it indicts the American soul.”[12]

    If true, Robinson’s statements would make American slavery a more heinous crime than the Nazi atrocities, the genocides of the Indians, or the thousand years of black slavery in Africa, which took place before a white man ever set foot on that continent. But they are false. Slavery existed in all societies for 3,000 years before anyone declared the institution immoral. That was a contribution of white Christian males in England led by Wilberforce, and even more importantly by Thomas Jefferson and the American founders. The actual enslavement of black Africans was carried out by black Africans, who sold them to Muslim Arabs, and only later to white Europeans in the Atlantic slave trade – a trade that began in 1526 and lasted for 300 years. In other words, Americans generally did not “enslave” black Africans but bought African slaves from their black African masters. They then transported them in the Middle Passage to the continental United States.

     In a more honest time, an African American writer and American patriot, Zora Neale Hurston, saw the historical reality with great clarity: “The white people held my people in slavery here in America. They bought us, it is true, and exploited us. But the inescapable fact that stuck in my craw was [that] my people had sold me. . . . My own people had exterminated whole nations and torn families apart for profit before the strangers got their chance at a cut. It was a sobering thought. It impressed upon me the universal nature of greed and glory.”[13]

     America – the United States of America – did not sustain 400 years of slavery as was long claimed by her attackers, or 246 years of slavery, as Robinson claimed. It was only 78 years from the founding of America in 1787 with the signing of the Constitution, to the Emancipation Proclamation and the Union victory abolished the hateful institution. Thus, historically speaking – accurately speaking – black Africa enslaved blacks, and majority white America liberated blacks.

     Every African American alive today owes his or her freedom to Thomas Jefferson and the American founders and the 350,000 mainly white but also black Union soldiers who gave their lives to end this evil. That is a heritage that black Americans share with white Americans, along with the entire multi-racial mosaic that makes up America today. Professor Dyson’s malice towards white Americans notwithstanding, of course they can talk about slavery, and with pride in their role in ending it.

     In their attack on America, leftists don’t rest with their misrepresentation of the history of slavery. They seek to indict the very Founding that liberated black slaves by denigrating it as a “white supremacist” collusion with slave owners through the so-called “three-fifths compromise.” According to the left, the Founders were racists who regarded a black person as only three-fifths of a human being. This is just a display of historical ignorance. The issue before the Constitutional Convention was whether to count slaves – not blacks – as equivalent to free individuals for the purpose of congressional representation, in other words political power. It was the anti-slavery forces at the insisted that since slaves were not free and could not vote, they should only be equivalent to three-fifths of a free person for this purpose.[14] They did so to diminish the power of the slave-holding south. The Constitution, as already noted, doesn’t use the words “black,” “white,” “slave,” “male” or “female” precisely because its creators were dedicated to creating a society – the society we enjoy today – where the law of the land holds that everyone regardless of race, gender or origin is to be treated equally.

     Why three-fifths then? Why not zero? Why compromise with the slave south at all? The answer should be obvious. America’s enemy at the time was the greatest empire in the world at the time. In War of 1812, the British managed to burn the White House. If the anti-slavery northerners had declared war on the slaveholding south (which is what not compromising would have meant) the empire would have formed an alliance with the south and crushed them, preserving the slave system. Even decades later, when America was much stronger, the outcome of the war between the states was far from certain.

     The anti-Americans project this destructive revision of the historical record into the present by distorting its reality through an ideological prism that is collectivist and racist – the very antithesis of this nation’s founding vision. Progressive ideology is generally referred to as “identity politics,” but is more accurately described as “cultural Marxism.” Cultural Marxists have taken the Marxist model of warring classes and transformed it into a model of oppression by race, gender, and sexual orientation. The reduction of individuals into group objects, creates a new indictment: “people of color,” women, and non-heterosexual groups are said to be “marginalized” and (therefore?) “oppressed” by white supremacist males –America’s ruling caste.

     The facts offered by the left as evidence of “racism” and “oppression” are not actually evidences of racism and oppression. Instead they are statistical disparities between group categories, as the left defines them. Consider these statements in the 2016 Democratic Party Platform: “It is unacceptable that the median wealth for African Americans and Latino Americans is roughly one-tenth that of white Americans. These disparities are also stark for American Indians and certain Asian American subgroups, and may become even more significant when considering other characteristics such as age, disability status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

     This is not just a regret that there are such disparities accompanied by a wish that something could be done about them. It is part of an indictment of America as a society characterized by “systemic racism” and “institutional racism” – and of course “sexism” and other isms that populate leftist indictments. The Democratic platform vows “a societal transformation” that will “end institutional and systemic racism in our society.” To establish some connection to the real world, the platform claims that, “The racial wealth and income gaps are the result of policies that discriminate against people of color and constrain their ability to earn income and build assets to the same extent as other Americans.”

     But are they? If such policies existed they would be illegal under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, not to mention the 14th Amendment to the Bill of Rights. If they existed one can imagine the armada of suits that would fill the courts over which a goodly number of Obama appointees preside. But this is not happening and that is because the disparities are realistically explained by individual details, for example the presence (or lack) of two-parent families, the degree of education or lack of education, or whether (in the case of so-called Latino Americans), they are English speakers, and here legally, so able to get well-paying jobs. More generally, wealth and income are determined in large part by what cultural attitudes guide the choices that families and individuals make. Otherwise Japanese Americans, who are “people of color,” would not be among America’s richest economic groups.

     The very categories are suspect – and racist. Is there a category, “Latino Americans” that is useful for these purposes? Cuban Americans are not really comparable to Puerto Rican Americans for example in education, economic status and cultural attitudes. There is a very large African American middle class in America – encompassing between 40% and 50% of the African American population. In 2014, 21% of African Americans earned more than $75,000 per year.[15] If American society could really be categorized as systemically racist, how did these African Americans succeed while others didn’t? It is only by factoring out the decisions that individuals make, since erasing individuals is the normal practice of collectivists, that leftists can make the ludicrous claims that make up their indictment of a society, which has done more than any other in the world with such large minority populations to provide them the opportunity to succeed.

     The ideological category that underpins the message of the anti-American collectivists is “people of color,” a term they use to define the marginalized and oppressed, which is not even grammatical English. The whole world is people of color – the oppressed – except for white people, the designated oppressors. According to leftists, only white people can be racists, because only white people have power. This is an absurdity, but that doesn’t prevent it from being a staple of the anti-America/anti-white cause.

     But does “people of color” even define a coherent group with a common social identity that can serve as a marker separating oppressor from oppressed? Tell that to the Rwandans, who are all people of color but are divided as Rwandan Hutus who carried out a genocide against the Rawandan Tutsis, or the Pakistanis and Indians who share a skin color but are at war against each other, or the ISIS slaughterers of Egyptian Coptics and Islamic Sufis, Arabs all. To the left these are all “people of color,” therefore oppressed. This bastardized term’s sole purpose is to divide the world into oppressors and oppressed: white people and non-whites, so that white people can be demeaned and attacked.

     This racist view is behind every assault by the left against America today. Take the central claim of the most powerful racial movement on the left, Black Lives Matter. This organization was founded by three self-styled Maoists, and has adopted as its icon a Marxist revolutionary and convicted cop killer, Assata Shakur, who is a protected ward of the Communist dictatorship in Cuba.[16] Not surprisingly, Black Lives Matter condemns America as a “corrupt democracy” and “white supremacist system,… built on Indigenous genocide and chattel slavery,” and claims that it “continues to thrive on the brutal exploitation of people of color”; that blacks are routinely “dehumanized” and rendered “powerless at the hands of the state, … deprived of [their] basic human rights and dignity,” and targeted for “extrajudicial killings … by police and vigilantes.”[17]

     Black Lives Matter has been the chief organizer of riots in Ferguson, Baltimore, Dallas and other cities, inciting violence against police with the claim that there is a “war on blacks” and that the law enforcement agencies – headed in each of the cities named by African American chiefs of police – murder unarmed blacks as a matter of course. This lie has led directly to dramatic increases in the number of homicides – mainly black on black homicides in 56 American cities, including Ferguson and Baltimore, where the murder rates increased by 47% and 60% respectively in the immediate wake of riots organized by Black Lives Matter.[18]

     The actual facts about police and the black community are quite different. “According to the Centers for Disease Control,” writes black attorney and media commentator Larry Elder, “police shootings against blacks have declined almost 75 percent since 1968. Of the 963 people shot and killed by police in 2016, 233 were black, and 466 were white. Last year, a grand total of 17 unarmed blacks were killed by the police, according to The Washington Post. Contrast this with the approximately 6,000 to 7,000 blacks killed annually, almost all — as many as 90 percent — by other blacks.”[19]

     Racist and violent, Black Lives Matter is an organization officially embraced by the Democratic Party, and bankrolled with tens of millions of dollars from Democratic Party donors like George Soros. In the direct wake of the killing of five police officers by a black racist in Dallas during a Black Lives Matter anti-police “protest,” President Obama invited its leaders to the White House, and endorsed its mission: “I think the reason that the organizers used the phrase ‘Black Lives Matter’ was not because they were suggesting nobody else’s lives matter. Rather, what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that’s happening in the African-American community that’s not happening in other communities. And that is a legitimate issue that we’ve got to address.”

     A resolution endorsing Black Lives Matter, adopted by the Democratic National Committee, was more explicit citing the alleged existence of “many…lost in the unacceptable epidemic of extrajudicial killings of unarmed black men, women, and children at the hands of police” (a reference evidently to the 17 cases actually recorded), attributing this “nightmare” to “the vestiges of slavery, Jim Crow and White Supremacy.” 

Therefore be it resolved that the DNC joins with Americans across the country in affirming “Black lives matter … efforts to make visible the pain of our fellow … Americans as they condemn extrajudicial killings of unarmed African American men, women and children …

     It is left to Ta-Nehisi Coates – also a guest of the White House – to reveal the racist mentality behind this adoption by the political left of a movement so hostile to the American idea. A pivotal event in Coates’ National Book Award winner, Between the World and Me, is the killing of his friend, Prince Jones, by a policeman. According to the officer, Jones tried to run him over with his car while the officer was arresting him for drugs. A classic case of what Black Lives Matter is concerned about? Not quite: “Here is what I knew at the outset,” writes Coates. “The officer who killed Prince Jones was black. The politicians who empowered this officer to kill were black. Many of the black politicians, many of them twice as good, seemed unconcerned. How could this be?”[20] 

     Coates answers his own question first by dismissing black crime all together and attributing it to the evil whites – to white supremacists who pull the strings behind the scenes and manipulate apparently passive blacks into committing criminal acts. According to Coates, “‘Black-on-black crime’ is jargon, violence to language, which vanishes the men who engineered the covenants, who fixed the loans, who planned the projects, who built the streets and sold red ink by the barrel. And this should not surprise us. The plunder of black life was drilled into this country in its infancy and reinforced across its history, so that plunder has become an heirloom, an intelligence, a sentience, a default setting to which, likely to the end of our days, we must invariably return…. The killing fields of Chicago, of Baltimore, of Detroit, were created by the policy of Dreamers [i.e., white believers in the American Dream], but their weight, their shame, rests solely upon those who are dying in them.”[21]

     Having blamed whites for every suffering, every deficiency in the black community, and even criminal act by blacks, Coates is ready to answer the question of how it is possible that a black cop killed his criminal friend: “The Dream of acting white, of talking white, of being white, murdered Prince Jones as sure as it murders black people in Chicago with frightening regularity.”[22] Whites killed his friend. Whites are responsible for every black on black crime. d It would be hard to imagine a more racist view. It would be hard to imagine ravings by an actual white supremacist more demented than this. Yet, Coates is an intellectual icon of the progressive left, the toast of the President and the cultural elite.

     This is the nature of the assault on America. It is racist and collectivist, eliminating individuals in favor of groups, laying guilt on some because of their membership in groups and removing guilt from others for the same reason. This is the totalitarian ideology savaged by George Orwell in 1984, which led to the murders of a hundred million souls in the last century.  Yet despite this historical catastrophe so close to hand, the same destructive ideas are already deeply embedded in the nation’s culture and politics. America does not deserve this. Over two centuries it has shaped itself into the most tolerant and inclusive society of its kind in the world. Orlando Patterson, a renowned African American liberal and Harvard sociologist whose award-winning works specialize in the study of slavery and race, has said of America, that “is the least racist white-majority society in the world; has a better record of legal protections of minorities than any other society, white or black; offers more opportunities to greater numbers of black persons than any other society, including those of Africa.”[23] To believe the opposite is not only to deny a reality. If enough Americans are seduced into believing these noxious ideas, it will set the stage for a nation’s suicide.

Notes:


[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_YW4Oaehg

[7]  Ta-Nehisi Coates, Between the World and Me, 2016 p.5

[8]  Ta-Nehisi Coates, We Were Eight Years In Power, p. 159 Kindle edition

[9]  We Were Eight Years In Power, p. 113

[10] Coates, We Were Eight Years in Power, p. 341 Kindle edition

[11] Robinson, The Debt, op. cit. p. 8. Emphasis added.

[12] Kevin Grant, “Socialist Professor Addresses Student Audience on Reparations and Race Relations,” Arizona State Press, April 24, 2001. Dyson, a leading African American intellectual, is a professor at DePaul University and was flown in at University expense to provide a rebuttal to a case against reparations I had been invited by students to present.

[13] Zora Neale Hurston, Dust Tracks On A Road, 1997

[18] Ibid.

[20]  Ta-Nehisi Coates, Between the World and Me, p. 83. Kindle Edition.

[21]  Coates, op. cit. pp. 110-111

[22]  Ibid.

“I Would Have Killed all the Jews in the World”: SJP’s Holocaust Hate

Feb 5th 2018, 05:48, by Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

“‘I would have killed all the jews in the world,But I kept some to show the world why I killed them’ -Hitler- #PrayForGaza #PrayForPalestina.”
–SJP UWM Activist

International Holocaust Remembrance Day is that time of the year when politicians, pundits and university presidents pretend to care about the mass murder of six million Jews.

And then they spend the other 364 days palling around with their modern counterparts.

In South Carolina, Senator Brad Hutto, a state senator, had managed to singlehandedly stall an anti-Semitism bill to protect Students for Justice in Palestine, an anti-Semitic hate group. Hutto had been the Democrat choice to run against Senator Lindsay Graham. And here was the Democrat’s choice to represent South Carolina in the United States Senate doing everything he could to prevent his state from passing a bill to reject anti-Semitism in time for International Holocaust Remembrance Day

The SJP chapter at the University of South Carolina sent Senator Hutto a message that began, “Thank you for your opposition to the Anti-Semitism bill.”

Senator Hutto has been fighting the anti-Semitism bill for at least a year.

Why would Students for Justice in Palestine and its political allies on the left oppose an anti-Semitism bill? The obvious answer is that the campus hate group has a long history of anti-Semitism.

Canary Mission, a civil rights group which has been compiling examples of anti-Semitism on social media by members of campus hate groups, has released its latest report focusing on SJP anti-Semitism.

“Hitler should have killed the Jews when he had the chance.”
—University of Houston SJP activist

Canary Mission’s previous report had focused on anti-Semitism among SJP, Muslim Students Association and other BDS activists at the University of Houston. Its latest report is a broader overview of SJP chapters on campuses at the University of Maryland, Northeastern University, Ryerson University and the University of South Florida.

The racist tactics by anti-Semitic SJP activists included a walkout at Holocaust Remembrance Day at Northeastern University, another walkout by BDS student activists to stop a Holocaust Education Week vote at Ryerson University and an SJP speaker at the University of Maryland who blasted the Jews for commemorating the Holocaust. These SJP attacks on Holocaust commemorations are not aberrations.

NU SJP had previously disrupted a Holocaust Awareness Week event in 2011. What accounts for such a consistent pattern of anti-Semitism that seems to endure long after the students responsible for it have already graduated? The institutional culture around Students for Justice in Palestine perpetuates its bigotry even once a class of activists have graduated and moved on to hating somewhere else.

SJP at Northeastern University is an excellent example of how that works.

Shahid Alam, SJP’s faculty adviser at Northeastern, was caught on tape telling members of the hate group, “If you are a political figure, they think it is fatal if someone calls them anti-Semitic. But if you are an academic, if you are an activist, if they call you [an anti-Semite] wear that as a sign of distinction. This proves that I am working for the right side, for the just cause.”

A faculty member celebrating any other form of racism would have been committing career suicide, but there is a great deal of tolerance and even academic support for campus anti-Semitism.

Steven Salaita lost out on a job offer at the University of Illinois after tweeting support for the murder of Jews. He would also declare that Zionism was “transforming anti-Semitism from something horrible into something honorable”. Academic organizations that defended Salaita’s bigotry included the American Association of University Professors, the Modern Language Association and the Middle East Studies Association. To these groups and Salaita’s other backers, anti-Semitism is indeed honorable.

Unsurprisingly, Salaita is a frequent speaker at SJP events. SJP Loyola described the honorable bigot as “our friend”. SJP at Brooklyn College, one of the hate group’s more notoriously bigoted chapters, has hosted Salaita. As did the Georgetown SJP and a number of other campus BDS hate group chapters.

The Canary Mission report peels back the layers of anti-Semitic campus infrastructure to Hatem Bazian.

 Bazian is the Typhoid Mary of campus anti-Semitism. As a student body president at San Francisco State University back in the 90s, he had led a campaign against Hillel. He was accused of participating in an attack on the offices of the Golden Gater student newspaper because of its Jewish associations.

After members of the SJP hate group disrupted a Holocaust Remembrance Day event, Bazian spewed bigotry at a rally to protest their arrests, saying, “take a look at the type of names on the building around campus — Haas, Zellerbach — and decide who controls this university.”

Hatem Bazian was even reported to have quoted the genocidal Islamic Hadith: “The Day of Judgment will not happen until the trees and stones will say, Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.” More recently, he was caught retweeting anti-Semitic cartoons, one of which depicted North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in Jewish garb declaring, “I just converted all of North Korea to Judaism.”

SJP chapters at Vassar and UCLA have recently been caught up in their own anti-Semitic cartoon controversies.

“We need to put zionists in concentration camps.” “Hitler also had respect for Islam.”
—Former SJP Events Coordinator, SDSU

Where does hate like that come from? It comes from Students for Justice in Palestine.

The campus hate group is a machine for indoctrinating students into anti-Semitism. It transmits the bigotry of Hatem Bazian, Shahid Alam, Steven Salaita and other bigots linked to the hate group to a new generation of students.

Canary Mission doesn’t just list bigotry on social media by SJP and MSA members, it also features messages from former members of these hate groups coming to terms with their indoctrination.

“As a former member of SJP, I now understand how my actions were anti-Semitic and wrong,” one former SJP member wrote, describing an atmosphere of “blatant hatred” that “seems to extend to anyone who was Jewish.”

“As a member of SJP, I was shown a lot of anti-Israel material,” another wrote. “In retrospect, I recognize that these anti-Israel and anti-Semitic messages are lacking in their substance and depth.”

Stories such as these are not unusual when coming from former Neo-Nazis. But these young men and women were indoctrinated into hating Jews on some of the nation’s leading college campuses. And the bigots teaching them to hate were funded by student fees and protected by academic associations. When BDS bigots attack the Holocaust, major academic associations stand behind them.

Remembering history isn’t about the past, it’s about bringing meaningful change to the present.

Politicians, pundits and college presidents pay lip service to International Holocaust Remembrance Day even as SJP and its political allies wage war on Jewish students, disrupt Holocaust commemorations and celebrate Hitler. And they go on functioning as an integral part of the intersectional alliances of the left.

Students for Justice in Palestine is the nation’s leading campus hate group. And it continues to grow and hate. This International Holocaust Remembrance Day, we should hold its political allies accountable.

“I can now relate to why Hitler chose to burn the people he hated. It must have felt great.”
—SJP Purdue Secretary

Anti-Gay Imam Featured Yet Again at Florida Democrat Gala

Feb 5th 2018, 05:06, by Joe Kaufman

The Democratic Party promotes itself as an advocacy group for all matters concerning homosexuals and labels politicians, who take stances opposite theirs on politically charged issues such as same-sex marriage, as bigots. Yet, the party keeps on inviting an imam, who has a long record of hostility toward homosexuals, to participate at its annual functions. This blatant hypocrisy shows the political bankruptcy of their leadership’s claims to be pro-gay and anti-bigotry and reveals their intention to pander to those in the Muslim community who spew intolerance and would wish others harm.

On Saturday, October 7, 2017, the Palm Beach Democratic Party held its 2017 Truman Kennedy Johnson (TKJ) Dinner at the West Palm Beach Marriott Hotel, in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Keynote Speaker at the event was Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe. Other speakers included: United States Representative Alcee Hastings; then-Florida Democratic Party Chairman Stephen Bittel, who resigned in November over allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior; and then-Palm Beach County Party Chairwoman Terrie Rizzo, who was elected in December to take over for Bittel as Chair of the Florida Democratic Party.

Prior to the speakers, there was a joint invocation performed by a rabbi, two pastors and an imam. The imam, Maulana Shafayat Mohamed, is notorious for his unapologetic vilification of homosexuals.

Shafayat Mohamed is the imam of the Darul Uloom Institute, located in Pembroke Pines, Florida. The mosque has been a haven for terror-related individuals and activity. “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla was a student of Shafayat Mohamed’s at Darul Uloom. Now-deceased al-Qaeda Global Operations Chief, Adnan el-Shukrijumah, was a prayer leader at Darul Uloom. And Darul Uloom Arabic teacher Imran Mandhai, along with mosque goers Hakki Aksoy and Shueyb Mossa Jokhan, hatched a plot at the mosque to blow up different South Florida structures, including area power stations, Jewish businesses, and a National Guard armory.

While terrorism plays a huge role in his mosque’s history – and he has been around for all of it – Shafayat Mohamed’s personal history deals much more in bigotry than terror.

One stop on Shafayat Mohamed’s Facebook page and one can view his profile photo of him holding a dark green book with gold border and letters on the cover. The book is “The Meaning of THE HOLY QUR’AN,” a version of the Quran that was banned by the Los Angeles public school system, in February 2002, for containing numerous anti-Semitic commentaries. In it, Jews are described as: “arrogant,” “jealous,” “selfish,” “spiteful,” “greedy,” “cursed,” “apes and swine,” and “under divine displeasure.”

This may seem an innocent mistake on the imam’s part, but his actions against the gay community and sinister views are anything but.

In February 2005, an article written by Shafayat Mohamed was published on the Darul Uloom website, entitled ‘Tsunami: Wrath of God.’ In it, he claims that gay sex caused the 2004 Indonesian tsunami and that most Jews and Christians, whom he refers to as “People of the Book,” are “perverted transgressors.”

It is writings such as these that have gotten Shafayat Mohamed thrown off a number of Broward County boards. Even so, the imam has been unrepentant.

In a speech he gave at Darul Uloom, in August 2015, titled ‘Quraan Torah Bible Forbid Man Marrying Man,’ he admitted that he “got sacked from many [county] boards, because there were a lot of gay people who said, ‘We don’t want him on that board.’” He said he had a choice, to “sit in Paradise or… sit on the board and go to Hell.”

He began his speech by attacking President Barack Obama for supporting same-sex marriage. He asked the following, “Did you hear what President Obama said?… Do you know what a sad situation we are in this country?… Here you have the President of the United States of America saying that a man could marry a man?… Are we sleeping? Do you believe in the Quran? Are we gonna sit and have the Quran be ridiculed?” He then cited the Christian and Jewish Bible, barking loudly, “The Bible says that if a man sleeps with a man, he should be killed!”

Shafayat Mohamed later lamented the existence of Muslim homosexuals. He decried, “Listen. Don’t deny it. They already got Muslim gay communities.” He as well spoke of his support for polygamy, an act that is illegal in the United States. He exclaimed, “Here the President says a man can marry a man, but you can’t say a man can have four wives…!”

The October TKJ Dinner was not the first Democrat event Shafayat Mohamed has participated in. In fact, he has been involved in many, including giving the invocations at the Florida Democratic Party’s annual Leadership Blue Gala in 2014 (featuring Bill Clinton), 2015 and 2016. And given that this author has written about this before, the October event will probably not be the last occasion that he is embraced by the Democratic Party.

Shafayat Mohamed is not the only Muslim extremist that has participated in the Democratic Party’s TKJ Dinner. In October 2015, the dinner invocation was performed by Wilfredo Amr Ruiz, the legal adviser of the American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA), a group that actively promotes former KKK leader and white supremacist David Duke. Ruiz, as well, founded AMANA’s Connecticut and Puerto Rico chapters.

In July 2010, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned Ruiz’s AMANA for posting what the ADL called a “venomous” anti-Semitic Duke video onto the group’s official website. AMANA is currently promoting another anti-Semitic Duke-produced video, on the AMANA site. The President of AMANA, Sofian Zakkout, has referred to Duke as “David Duke, a man to believe in!”

By inviting people like Shafayat Mohamed, an avowed enemy of the gay community, and Wilfredo Ruiz, whose group promotes white supremacists, to participate in its functions, the Democratic Party has effectively revealed its disregard for the concerns of those it disingenuously claims to advocate for and protect.

It is time for Democrats to reject the bigotry of these radicals and see them for the liability they present. Failure to do so exposes the party’s liberal agenda as a sham.

Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

Poland's Attempt to Deny History

Feb 5th 2018, 05:05, by Joseph Puder

Whether by coincidence or intentionally, the Polish Parliament in Warsaw decided to use the week of the Annual International Holocaust Commemoration to act on a draft bill that issues a fine or a prison term to anyone who suggests that Poles are responsible for Nazi crimes committed in Poland. The bill was approved last week in the lower house of the Polish Parliament, and it is expected to be passed by the Senate before being signed into law by Poland’s president.  The draft proposes fines or a three-year jail term for anyone who refers to Nazi death camps as being Polish. 

While it is true that Germans, not Poles, created and operated the death camps, and likewise true that thousands of Catholic Poles risked their lives and their families in protecting and saving their Jewish neighbors, many more anti-Semitic Catholic Poles were complicit in the murder of the Jews.

No one would argue with the fact that Nazi Germany is responsible for the murder of Six Million Jews, among them over three million Polish Jews (my own relatives included).  History however, cannot ignore the collaboration of Catholic Poles in the murder of their fellow Polish-Jewish citizens.  Polish journalist Anna Bikont describes in her book “The Crime and the Silence,” what happened on July 10, 1941 in Jedwabne, a town of 3,000 residents in northeastern Poland.  A mob of Catholic Poles murdered most of their Jewish neighbors that day.  “Using axes, clubs, and knifes, the mob first killed some 40 Jewish men.  The remaining Jews – men, women and children, many of them infants – were herded into a wooden barn on the outskirts of the town.  Then, as the jeering mob watched, the murderers barred the doors, poured gasoline on the structure and lit the fire.  Everyone inside died.”  1,600 Jewish men, women and children perished in the fire, while the mob of peasants plundered the Jewish homes of their victims.  At a monument for the burned Jewish victims erected in later years, the inscription read: “The site of the martyrdom of the Jewish population.  Gestapo and Hitler’s gendarmerie burned alive 1,600 people, July 10, 1941.” No mention of the fact that Catholic Poles perpetrated this heinous murder.

A book by Jan T. Gross, a Polish-American academic of Jewish decent, titled “Neighbors,” dealt with the role Catholic Poles played, including many of its church leaders, in the collaboration and murder of their Jewish neighbors.  Gross exposed the enormous efforts the Polish perpetrators have made, along with their families and the Church leadership in denying Polish responsibilities.  As a result, the Polish authorities would seek to prosecute him under the newly proposed law. The historical truth cannot be denied however, in spite of efforts to silence witnesses and researchers.  

Critics of the proposed law are concerned that it would have a chilling effect on debating history and restricting freedom of expression.  It would also stifle debate on topics that are an anathema to Poland’s current nationalistic leadership.  The ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) in Poland has a particular interest in portraying Poland as a victim of the Nazis rather than admit the painful truth that many Catholic Poles blackmailed Jews, denounced them to the Nazis, or killed them during WWII. 

In 1998, this reporter visited the site of the Kielce pogrom in central Poland.  On July 4, 1946, Polish Catholic anti-Semites murdered in cold blood 42 survivors of the concentration camps who returned to their hometown in search of family and friends.  I was shown the place by a Polish-Catholic medical student who related to me that this medieval pogrom was committed by hate-filled anti-Semites.  He organized a school children exhibit that commemorated the names and lives of the 42 martyred Jews.  

On a visit to Israel last January, Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, in a meeting with Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin, acknowledged Polish complicity in the Kielce pogrom.  He said that, “The members of my people who took part in the pogrom in Kielce after the end of WWII expelled themselves from the Polish people.  That is my deep personal conviction.”  He added, “Anyone who expresses anti-Semitic ideas in Poland is like a person who steps on a grave, a despicable act in Polish culture.”

Israel’s President Rivlin respectfully refrained from mentioning President Duda’s part in denying Polish culpability in the murder of an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 Polish Jews as revealed in an interview with author and academic researcher Jan Gross, including the pogrom at Jedwabne by Polish Catholics.  Among those thousands murdered by Poles was a cousin of this reporter, 10-year Zvi-Leib. He was placed in the hands of a Polish farmer for safekeeping who was given an appreciable sum of money for his deed, while Zvi-Leib’s mother and two sisters were deported and murdered at the Belzec Death camp.  The farmer murdered Zvi-Leib in cold blood…  

Rivlin did point out however, at a dinner in honor of his Polish counterpart that “he has always believed that statesmen have an obligation to shape the future, and to shape history, whereas historians have an obligation to describe the past and study history.  It’s preferable that one not intrude on the other’s turf.”  Rivlin spoke of the close historic ties between Poland and Israel, and the need to deal courageously with the rich and painful past.

The Polish government, in its attempt to uphold its status as a victim of the Nazi occupation, has deliberately and willfully ignored Polish anti-Semitism during WWII and afterward, as well as the betrayal and murder of their Jewish neighbors.  Yet, Poland today is one of the few EU states that is strongly supportive of Israel, and Jewish culture in Poland has been rediscovered and celebrated.  On a 1996 visit to Poland, I was seated at a table with a young Polish-Catholic medical student at a Warsaw Pizza Hut restaurant.  Without knowing my background, the conversation touched on Jews.  He then made the point with outmost sincerity that “Poland is poorer without its Jews.” He added, “The Jews enriched our culture.”

A few days later, encountering a high school group along the Vistula River park in Cracow, I was stunned to hear a common anti-Semitic canard that the Jews “cheated them” according to his father.  When asked if he or his father met with Jews or dealt with them, the response was “no.”  The saving grace in this encounter was that his friends in the group ridiculed his ignorance.

At a weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem last Sunday, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel “Has no tolerance for the distortion of the truth, the rewriting of history, and the denial of the Holocaust.”  This was a clear reference to the proposed Polish Parliament draft bill.  PM Netanyahu also stated that Israel and Poland have agreed to hold talks seeking to resolve the uproar over the proposed Polish legislation that would outlaw blaming Poland for any crimes committed during the holocaust.

What is abundantly clear to Israelis in general and Holocaust survivors and their families in particular, is that close relations between Israel and Poland and the latter support for Israel in international forums, cannot come at the expense of the memory of martyred Jews.

Video: Robert Spencer on UN's Anti-Israel Resolution and Trump's Immigration Ban

Feb 5th 2018, 05:04, by Frontpagemag.com

On February 4, 2017, Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer spoke at a church in Colorado on the new Trump administration, the anti-Israel UN Resolution 2334, and the Trump temporary ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries:

 

The Memo Reveals the Coup against America

Feb 4th 2018, 05:12, by Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

The Democrats and the media spent a week lying to the American people about the “memo.” 

The memo was full of “classified information” and releasing” it would expose “our spying methods.” By “our,” they didn’t mean American spying methods. They meant Obama’s spying methods.

A former White House Ethics Lawyer claimed that the Nunes memo would undermine “national security.” On MSNBC, Senator Chris Van Hollen threatened that if the memo is released, the FBI and DOJ “will refuse to share information with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.”

Senator Cory Booker howled that releasing the memo was “treasonous” and might be “revealing sources and methods” and even “endangering fellow Americans in the intelligence community.”

The memo isn’t treasonous. It reveals a treasonous effort by the Democrats to use our intelligence agencies to rig an election and overturn the will of the voters.

The only two “sources” that the Nunes memo reveals are Christopher Steele, who was funded by the Clinton campaign, and a Yahoo News article, that were used to obtain a FISA warrant against a Trump associate. That Yahoo story came from Michael Isikoff, the reporter who knew about Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky but suppressed it. It was based on more leaks from Steele which the FBI and DOJ chose to ignore. Steele’s identity was already well known. The only new source revealed is Yahoo News.

No vital intelligence sources were compromised at Yahoo News. And no Yahoo News agents were killed.

The media spent a week lying to Americans about the dangers of the memo because it didn’t want them to find out what was inside. Today, the media and Dems switched from claiming that the memo was full of “classified information” that might get CIA agents killed to insisting that it was a dud and didn’t matter. Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive.

On Thursday, the narrative was that the memo would devastate our national security and no one should ever be allowed to read it. By Friday, the new narrative was that the memo tells us nothing important and we shouldn’t even bother reading it. The lies change, but suppressing the memo remains the goal.

Rep. Nadler, infamous for securing pardons for Weather Underground bombers, got caught between narratives when he insisted that the memo was “overhyped,” but suggested that it “endangers national security.” “I don’t think anybody will be terribly shocked by what’s in the memo,” he told CNN. 

And requested an emergency meeting of the House Judiciary Committee – a body he will head if Democrats win the mid-term elections. 

Calling emergency meetings is not the response to an “overhyped” and non-shocking memo.

There is no legitimately classified information in the Nunes memo. But it does endanger a number of “Americans” in the “intelligence community” who colluded with the Clinton campaign against America. 

It endangers former FBI Director Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the current FBI General Counsel Dana Boente who had previously served as the Acting Attorney General. These men and women had allegedly signed FISA applications that were at best misleading and at worst badly tainted.

The Clinton campaign had enlisted figures in the FBI and the DOJ to manipulate an election. The coup against America operated as a “state within a state” inside the United States government. 

“The political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials,” the memo informs us. But they did not reveal on the FISA application that their core evidence came from the Clinton campaign. Sources were certainly being protected. But they were Clinton sources.

The memo reveals that without the Steele dossier there would have been no eavesdropping on Carter Page, the Trump associate targeted in this particular case. “Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.” But the FISA application neglected to mention that its primary source had been paid by the Clinton campaign, was unverified and would continue to be unverified.

FBI Director Comey testified that he had told President Trump that the dossier was “unverified.” Yet the “unverified” piece of opposition research was used as the basis for a FISA application.

As Rep. Jim Jordan noted, “FBI takes ‘salacious and unverified’ dossier to secret court to get secret warrant to spy on a fellow American, and FBI doesn’t tell the court that the DNC/Clinton campaign paid for that dossier. And they did that FOUR times.”

“There’s been no evidence of a corrupt evidence to obtain warrants against people in the Trump campaign,” Rep. Adam Schiff insisted. That’s why he tried to block the release of the evidence.

The evidence was unverified opposition research. Its source had been paid by the Clinton campaign. Not only had Steele been indirectly working for the Clinton campaign (when he wasn’t being paid by the FBI), but he made no secret of his own political agenda to stop Trump.

“In September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president,” the memo informs us.

That’s former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr whose wife was being paid by an organization hired by the Clinton campaign to investigate Trump. Ohr then passed along his wife’s opposition research to the FBI. The evidence couldn’t be any more corrupt than that.

Steele was passionate about Trump “not being president.” So were his handlers who ignored his leaks to the media until he “was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations—an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI.” His previous meetings, including the one that allegedly generated the Yahoo News article, were ignored.

Tainted investigations are nothing new. Law enforcement is as fallible as any other profession. But the memo reveals a snapshot of just how many top figures colluded in this corrupted and tainted effort.

What drove them to violate professional ethical norms and legal requirements in the FISA applications?

Top DOJ and FBI officials shared Steele’s “passion,” and that of his ultimate employer, Hillary Clinton, to stop Donald Trump at all costs. And they’re still trying to use the Mueller investigation to overturn the election results in a government coup that makes Watergate look like a children’s tea party,

Former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is already under investigation. He’s suspected of trying to sit on the Wiener emails until the election was over. This alleged failed cover-up triggered the Comey letter which hurt Hillary worse than a timely revelation would have. McCabe’s wife had financial links to the Clintons.  

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was an Obama holdover who had foolishly tried to use the DOJ to go to war with President Trump. Both Yates and Dana Boente were Obama and Holder choices. During the groundless prosecution of the former Republican governor of Virginia, Boente had declared, “No one is above the law.” We’ll see if that’s true with everyone who signed the FISA applications.

If Boente signed false or misleading FISA applications, he should be removed as FBI General Counsel.

The memo is only the first crack in the wall. But it’s grounds for an investigation that will expose the abuses that led to eavesdropping on Trump officials. And the motives of those who perpetuated them. 

A Washington Post piece suggested that just releasing the memo alone would allow Mueller to charge President Trump with “obstruction of justice.” That’s how badly they want to get Trump.

A clear and simple fact emerges from the memo. 

Top figures in the DOJ and the FBI, some loyal to Obama and Hillary, abused the FISA process in the hopes of influencing or reversing the results of an election by targeting their political opponents. The tool that they used for the job came from the Clinton campaign. Using America’s intelligence services to destroy and defeat a political opponent running for president is the worst possible abuse of power and an unprecedented threat to a democratic system of free open elections. 

We have been treated to frequent lectures about the independence of the DOJ and the FBI. But our country isn’t based around government institutions that are independent of oversight by elected officials. When unelected officials have more power than elected officials, that’s tyranny.  

A Justice Department that acts as the Praetorian Guard for a political campaign is committing a coup and engaging in treason. The complex ways that the Steele dossier was laundered from the Clinton campaign to a FISA application is evidence of a conspiracy by both the DOJ and the Clinton campaign. 

It’s time for us to learn about all the FISA abuses, the list of NSA unmasking requests of Trump officials by Obama officials and the eavesdropping on members of Congress. We deserve to know the truth.

The memo has been released. Now it’s time to release everything.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. By using Blogtrottr, you agree to our policies, terms and conditions.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions.


Geef een reactie