| Stop Indoctrinating our Children
Mar 30th 2018, 07:28, by Frontpagemag.com
Editor’s note: The same “progressives” who have made American higher education into indoctrination chambers for cultural Marxism, identity racism and other anti-American ideas are now targeting our K-12 public schools. For instance:
- At the Edina School District in Edina, Minnesota, all employees, even bus drivers, must take “Equity and Racial Justice Training” instructing them that “dismantling white privilege” is at the core of the district’s mission. They must acknowledge their racial guilt, and embrace the district’s “equity” ideology.
- To enhance “cultural diversity,” students at Maryland’s La Plata High School were ordered to copy the Islamic creed “Shahada” which states in part, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” One worksheet distributed by the school states, “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”
- As part of transgender instruction in Rocklin Academy in Rocklin, California, a male kindergartener was reintroduced to classmates as a girl. A first grader at the school was sent to the principal’s office after she called the student by his given name on the playground – apparently unaware that the five year old had changed gender.
These horror stories are not exceptions to the rule. As our important new pamphlet (co-authored by Sara Dogan and Peter Collier), Leftist Indoctrination In Our K-12 Public Schools, shows, they are happening every day in schools all across our country. You can access this work which provides crucial documentation of the indoctrination crisis in our schools here or read the full text below.
To purchase the pamphlet, $3 each or $1 for orders of 25 or more, click here.
To learn more about the Freedom Center’s Stop K-12 Indoctrination campaign, click here.
One of the most dangerous developments of the last few decades has been the subversion of our universities by radicals who in the 1960s first tried to burn them down and then, after this strategy of destruction failed, decided to get on the tenure track to take them over. Their generational long march succeeded, possibly beyond their wildest expectations. With the exception of a few rear guard actions by brave conservative students, American higher education is now an indoctrination center for cultural Marxism, identity racism and other anti-American ideas.
But the left’s demolition project is not yet complete. To make the victory complete, it must take over all of American education, including the schooling of our youngest and most vulnerable students. This effort is now well advanced as radical leftists use their control of the university Ed schools and the teacher unions as a base to extend their ideological campaigns into the K-12 system. Their shock troops include teachers, administrators and textbook publishers and feature “theorists” such as former Weatherman Bill Ayers (who reinvented himself as an eminent Professor of Early Childhood Education at the University of Illinois when his days as a terrorist had ended) who provide the manuals on “teaching for social justice” that target teacher training programs and ultimately children as early as kindergarten for radical indoctrination.
The effects of this systematic effort to radicalize K-12 education are being felt in school districts all over the country. No corner of the classroom is immune from indoctrination. Young students learning arithmetic are given thought problems involving homelessness and the percentage of “undocumented workers” subjected to heartless deportation proceedings. Social studies is now a race, gender and climate change-obsessed curriculum designed to frighten rather than educate. In the hands of leftist teachers, America is a nation of victims rather than a nation of immigrants.
Some concerned parents and educators appalled by this new regime have reported educational horror stories that should concern every citizen. The following give a sense of the scope and intensity of the onslaught our youngest and most vulnerable students face after the school bell has sounded.
Indoctrination on Race and “Social Justice”
*On February 1, 2018, Vermont’s Montpelier High School flew the Black Lives Matter flag for the month of February to mark Black History Month in response to pressure from the Racial Justice Alliance, a student group at the school where 18 of 350 students are African American.
*A teacher at Norman North High School in Oklahoma was recorded by a student stating in class, “To be white is racist, period.” The teacher who made the comment was white. Despite being part-Hispanic, the student who taped the teacher and her family took offense at the comments. “Why is it ok to demonize one race to children that you’re supposed to be teaching a curriculum?” her father wondered.
*Students in a literature composition class at Aloha High School in Aloha, Oregon were given a “White Privilege Survey” to complete as homework. The assignment included such questions as “I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed” and “I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the newspaper and see people of my race widely and positively represented.” A school district spokeswoman attempted to excuse the exercise by stating that the class covers current issues including race and that the goal is for students to “gain empathy, understanding and to build bridges,” but the father of one student in the class stated, “The way this survey is read, it almost wants to like, shame you for being white.”
*Highlands Elementary School located in Edina, Minnesota—one of the state’s highest ranked elementary schools based on standardized tests—has instituted several initiatives on racial inequality and social justice. Kindergarten classes, for instance, spend weeks participating in the “Melanin project,” which involves, among other things, coloring images of their hands which were attached to a banner reading “Stop thinking your skin color is better than anyone else’s!” Meanwhile, first graders were to write poems about social justice and fourth and fifth graders participate in a performance project that links the anti police and racially divisive Black Lives Matter movement with peace. The principal’s page on the website of Highlands Elementary School in Edina, Minnesota, effusively praises Black Lives Matter and reproduced the entry on the BLM’s own website which states, “We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages.’” The school principal also reported on her page that “students of color” had experienced 291 “microaggresions” in a 90 day period, meaning that they had been encouraged by the school’s racialized atmosphere to convert imagined slights all around them into instances of white racism and to inform on their fellow students.
*Teach for America is partnering with the organization EdX to craft a six-week online course for middle school teachers called “Teaching Social Justice through Secondary Mathematics.” A course overview states “This education and teacher training course will help you blend secondary math instruction with topics such as inequity, poverty, and privilege…” Ideas for sample math lessons include instruction on “Unpaid Work Hours in the Home by Gender” and “Race and Imprisonment Rates in the United States.” There is no lesson on violent crime rates by race so the inevitable conclusion is that if more blacks are incarcerated than their proportion in the population, white racism must be responsible.
*In February 2017, teachers and staff serving in the Rochester City School District in upstate New York received an email stating that February 17 would be designated “Black Lives Matter at School.” The email urged staff to purchase a “Black Lives Matter at School” T-shirt and included links to leftist websites featuring propaganda about why the phrase “all lives matter” is racist. The email explained that educational goals for students will include “Understands inequities based on race”; “Affirms that the lives of people of color matter”; and “Believes that we all have a responsibility to work for equity.” In other words the lesson is that inequalities are solely the result of racism, with differential abilities, application and individual talent playing little or no role in social outcomes.
*In January 2017 an activist group within the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers called the Caucus of Working Educators launched an optional lesson plan for the city’s kindergarten-to-12th grade students that included six days of “social justice action.” Children in lower grades were required to work on “The Revolution Is Always Now” coloring book; older students had science lessons about the biology of skin color. The focus in all classrooms was on imbuing children with a heightened awareness of “white privilege” while fostering feelings of racial resentment and guilt. Teachers were also encouraged to wear Black Lives Matter T-shirts. Some Philadelphia teachers objected to such blatant politicization in the classroom, not to mention its racist overtones. One English teacher caused controversy by stating, “I don’t think kids should be taught that Western society is perpetrating a war on black people.”
*At Highlands Elementary School in Edina, Minnesota, one of the publications principal Kate Mahoney touts for younger students in her space on the school blog is an A-B-C book titled A is for Activist. The pages feature text such as this: “A is for Activist. Are you an Activist? C is for Creative Counter to Corporate Vultures. T is for Trans. X is for Malcolm. As in Malcolm X.”
*The Edina School District’s employees must take “Edina School District Equity and Racial Justice Training: Moving from a Diversity to a Social Justice Lens.” This includes bus drivers, who are instructed that “dismantling white privilege” is “the core of our work as white folks,” and that working for the Edina schools requires “a major paradigm shift in the thinking of white people.” Drivers were exhorted to acknowledge their racial guilt, and embrace the district’s “equity” ideology.
*In October 2016 2,000 Seattle educators wore Black Lives Matter shirts at their schools in a district-wide action. The event was organized by Social Equality Educators, a group of Seattle teachers. At Chief Sealth International High School, dozens of educators and students gathered outside the building and held up banners and signs that said “Black Lives Matter” and “We Stand Together” with logos in the shape of a clenched fist.
Indoctrination About Islam
*In May 2017, the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) inaugurated an anti-Muslim bullying campaign developed in conjunction with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR is part of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist network and was named as an “unindicted co-conspirator” by the U.S. Department of Justice in a 2007 case brought against the Holy Land Foundation, which funneled money to Hamas. The San Diego campaign will include giving teachers and administrators new calendars showing Muslim holidays, creating “safe spaces” for Muslim students, and including lessons on Islam in the curriculum which emphasize prominent Muslims in history. No such educational programs exist to teach students about Judaism, although religious hate crimes against Jews are eight times greater than those against Muslims.
*Students at La Plata High School in Maryland were ordered to copy the Islamic creed “Shahada” which states in part, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” Students were also made to memorize and recite the Five Pillars of Islam. Two weeks of class time were devoted to instruction in Islam while only one day was reserved for Christianity—which was portrayed in a negative light. One worksheet distributed at the school stated “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”
*Middle School students in the Maury County School District in Tennessee were ordered to copy the Five Pillars of Islam including the Islamic conversion creed, the Shahada, which states “Allah is the only god” during a unit on world history. Several weeks were spent on Islam and its doctrine compared to the much more limited and perfunctory time spent on Christianity and Judaism.
*In 2007, San Diego’s Carver Elementary School made special accommodations for 100 Somali Muslims who had transferred from a charter school that had been closed. The school rearranged recess periods to allow time for Muslim afternoon prayer, added Arabic to its curriculum, and took pork and other non-halal foods off the lunch menu. When these changes resulted in complaints from non-Muslim parents, the school removed the prayer break, but changed the lunchtime schedule so that prayer time was still accommodated.
*In 2015, a Huntington Beach, California teacher taught a class of seventh graders a song to which she had crafted lyrics supporting and romanticizing Islam. The song is set to the tune of Rachel Platten’s “This is my Fight Song.” The lyrics state: “Like how a single faith/can make a heart open/They might only have one God/But they can make an explosion.” A parent brought the song and lesson to public attention after her son came home with a notebook showing a stick figure stating “Believe in Allah! There is no other god.”
*Freshmen at Salem Junior High School in Utah were told by a teacher to get inside the mentality of a terrorist organization like ISIS. The project worksheet asked students to list “eight reasons why young Muslims join ISIS” and instructed them to create a “terrorism propaganda poster.”
*Third grade students at the Beverly J. Martin elementary school in Ithaca, New York were made to sit through a blatantly one-sided presentation featuring radical anti-Israel activists who told Hamas propaganda lies about the Israeli state. The presentation on “Palestinian human rights” was led by pro-terrorist and radical Israel-basher Bassem Tamimi who videos his own children attempting to provoke Israeli soldiers and Ariel Gold who holds “delegitimizing Zionism” as a personal goal. Full footage of the event was released only after the school district was compelled by a Freedom of Information Act request. This footage revealed that the presentation included a video made by Tamini and featuring his daughter sharing a “message for the world from the Palestinian children.” This “message” states: “We don’t like [that] Israel kill us, kill Gaza, kill Palestinian and we don’t like they to kill us [sic]” and “They [Israel] can’t be terrorists. We don’t like them to be terrorists.” After parent complaints, the full footage was released and the superintendent of the Ithaca City School district issued a Letter of Reprimand stating that the event was “politically skewed” and “inflammatory.”
Indoctrination on Gender
*Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools in North Carolina assigned the book “Jacob’s New Dress,” a story about a boy who prefers to dress like a girl, to all first grade classes. After a teacher launched a complaint which sparked outrage among lawmakers the decision was reversed. Instead, first graders will read “Red: A Crayon’s Story” about a red crayon who views itself as blue. The school board is now attempting to add sexual orientation and “gender identity/expression” to its diversity policy.
*New health and physical education standards created by the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) became part of the curriculum for students from kindergarten through high school in the 2017-2018 school year. It required the teaching of “gender identity” and “gender expression.” Its goals were summarized as follows: Beginning in Kindergarten, students will be taught about the many ways to express gender. Gender expression education will include information about the manifestations of traits that are typically associated with one gender. Cross dressing is one form of gender expression. (One of the books kindergarteners read is “Introducing Teddy.” In it Errol, a friend of a bear named Thomas, asks why he is sad and Thomas says, “I’m a girl teddy, not a boy teddy” and asks to be called Tilly instead.) Third graders will be introduced to the concept of gender identity. These children will be taught that they can choose their own gender. Fourth graders will be expected to “define sexual orientation” and taught that they can choose their own. Fifth graders will learn about the relativity of gender roles and why such roles are “social constructs” not inherently related to who we are as male or female human beings, a fundamentally anti-scientific view that ignores the biological fact is that gender is not a choice but genetically determined. Seventh graders will be expected to “distinguish between biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.” High school students will critically “evaluate how culture, media, society, and other people influence our perceptions of gender roles, sexuality, relationships, and sexual orientation.”
*Sixth graders at Fox Chapel Middle School in Spring Hill, Florida were given a survey by their teacher that included explicit questions on sexuality and race. Students were supposed to read each of these statements and indicate how comfortable they were with the situation described:
“A friend invites you to go to a gay bar.”
“You go to the gay bar and a person of the same sex invites you to dance.”
“You discover that the cute young man/woman that you are attracted to is actually a woman/man.”
“You discover your teenage brother kissing a male friend.”
“Your two next door neighbors in your hall are lesbian/gay.”
“Your mother ‘comes out’ to you.”
When some of the children proposed bringing the survey home, the teacher told them not to show it to their parents.
*A kindergarten class in Rocklin Academy, a prestigious school in Rocklin, California was exposed to transgender instruction without parental notification. Two children’s books espousing transgender ideology were read to the class. Also a male kindergartener was reintroduced to his classmates as a girl. Later on, a first grader at the charter school was sent to the principal’s office after a girl accidentally “misgendered” the classmate in what administrators called a “pronoun mishap.” The girl called the student by his given name – apparently unaware that the boy now identified as a girl.
*Before the 2016 election, a teacher in an advanced placement history class at Minnesota’s Edina High School demanded that students known to be Trump supporters explain to the rest of the class why they shouldn’t be considered racist. The day after the election, many of the teachers at the school were in tears, one telling her students, “Today is worse than 9/11 or Columbine.”
*After the 2016 election, Chicago Public Schools sent students home with a letter bashing Illinois’ Republican Governor Bruce Rauner and President Trump. The letter stated, “Dear Families, Governor Bruce Rauner, just like President Trump, has decided to attack those who need the most help. Governor Rauner and President Trump regularly attack Chicago because they hope to score political points. It is shameful.”
*A high school art teacher in Seth, West Virginia, wore a profane anti-Trump patch on the back of her jacket during school hours stating, “Tuck Frump” with the T and F highlighted in white.
*Brainerd High School, a public school in Minnesota, published a 2017 yearbook containing violent and derogatory quotes from students about President Trump. One student stated, “I would like to behead him.” Another commented, “I feel like Donald is very racist and sexist and doesn’t care to give people a chance before knowing them.” Yet another stated, “I don’t like the way he comes off, he seems really rude.”
*The Wall Township Public Schools in New Jersey ordered a school yearbook to be reissued after at least three photos of students wearing clothing with logos supporting Trump were intentionally altered. Grant Bernardo, a school junior, wore a “Make America Great Again” shirt in his school photo, but the image that appeared in the yearbook was digitally altered to show him in a black T-shirt instead. A photo of a student wearing a Trump logo on his sweater vest was also cropped to erase the logo. And a quote from Trump sent in by the freshman class president to appear on her page also did not appear in the yearbook, although it was confirmed that it was received before the deadline.
*A teacher of sixth-grade English at Paulo Intermediate School in Staten Island, New York assigned students to complete a vocabulary assignment that forced them to insert words in sentences disparaging President Donald Trump. Among the phrases students were asked to complete were the following:
“President Trump speaks in a very superior and _________ manner insulting many people. He needs to be more ________.
“Barack Obama set a ________ when he became the first African American president.”
The teacher was looking for students to insert the words “haughty” and “humble” in the one question and “precedent” in the other. When the father of an eleven-year-old in the class objected to the assignment and refused to have his child complete it, the teacher docked the student 15 points for an incomplete assignment.
These are not isolated incidents but part of a national pattern. This leftist indoctrination in K-12 schools is the daily classroom experience of children around the country, a concerted assault on the values of the families from which they come as well as on the intellectual integrity of the students themselves. Under this regime, students are not taught how to think, but told what to think. And what they are told to think is racially divisive, intellectually vulgar, politically partisan, and often unscientific and simply untrue. It is little wonder that after years of such classroom indoctrination, buttressed by forced readings of anti American texts by Howard Zinn and other leftist propagandists, many high school graduates arrive at college seeing the world through the lens of grievance and victimhood, illiterate in basic civics, hostile toward the rich complexity of the American experience, and willing accomplices in the leftist political order that now controls higher education.
Combatting the Assault on K-12 Schools
The David Horowitz Freedom Center has historically taken a leadership role as an early warning system for America on the radical subversion of American higher education. It uses that experience in a new campaign designed to make K-12 schools places of objective and unbiased education rather than indoctrination. The goal of this campaign is to secure legislation in 50 states that would create a “Code of Ethics for K-12 Teachers” that would enforce traditional rules of fairness and non-partisanship in our public school systems. Among other things, the Code forbids teachers from taking partisan political positions in the classroom which include endorsing candidates or pending legislation; introducing controversial material not germane to subjects being taught; engaging in actions which impede access of military recruiters or federal law enforcement authorities to the school site; advocating either side of public controversies; segregating students by race or singling out one racial group as responsible for the sufferings or inequities of other racial groups.
In short, the Code of Ethics for K-12 teachers we have designed forbids teachers from using their classrooms as a bully pulpit for political, ideological, racial, or religious indoctrination, or attempting to use the authority of the classroom to support one side of a public controversy.
The Code, in other words, is a reassertion of the common sense principles—presenting unbiased educational materials in an unbiased way—that guided American public education from the time of the one-room schoolhouse of the 18th century until radicals began their assault on the contemporary K-12 classroom.
Teachers in violation of the Code would be subject to penalties such as probation, suspension and loss of their teaching licenses. This Code has the potential to stop the leftist assault on our schoolchildren in its tracks.
Translating the Code into Action
The public may have become inured to the radicalization of higher education, whose appalling absurdities have become so notorious that they are now the stuff of nighttime comedy routines. But while parents may feel that the universities are at least temporarily beyond repair, they continue to be heavily invested in our public schools. It is our belief that when the public learns about the stranglehold “progressives” are trying to obtain on K-12 curriculum it will be outraged and demand action.
But while public awareness is important, stopping the indoctrination in our schools ultimately requires a legislative solution. The Code of Ethics will ban the abuses without infringing First Amendment rights. (It has already been thoroughly reviewed by First Amendment lawyers.)
The Freedom Center campaign to implement the Code will identify legislators on education committees of states across the nation who are concerned about the conversion of our public schools into indoctrination centers for leftist politics and racial views, and willing to draft and introduce statutes based on our Code of Ethics. We are simultaneously identifying think tanks and public policy organizations in those states to collaborate in generating public awareness about this issue and promoting this legislation.
We are now working with concerned legislators in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Texas and other states.
The subversion of our K-12 public schools is already well advanced. It is imperative that parent groups and concerned organizations initiate a counter-offensive to turn back this determined effort to make our schools into academies for leftist ideologies and anti- Americanism. The Center’s Code of Ethics for K-12 Public Schools will educate the public about the extent of the threat to our educational system and our essential liberties and carry the fight directly into the political and legislative arena.
A Code of Ethics for K-12 Schools
[The following Code of Ethics for K-12 teachers forbids teachers from using their classrooms for political, ideological, or religious advocacy. Teachers in violation of the Code would be subject to penalties such as probation, suspension and loss of their teaching licenses.]
Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility For Educators in K-12 Public Schools
Whereas the purpose of public education in America is to produce knowledgeable and competent adults able to participate as informed citizens in the democratic process;
Whereas education in a democracy is best served by teaching students how to think, not telling them what to think;
Whereas our country is divided over many issues affecting its citizens;
Whereas it has been established through surveys that a majority of K-12 teachers discuss controversial issues in their classrooms;
Whereas it has been established that some teacher training institutions, teacher licensing agencies, state education departments and professional teacher organizations have condoned and even encouraged this behavior under the guise of “teaching for social justice” and other sectarian doctrines;
Whereas time spent on political or ideological indoctrination takes time away from instruction in the academic subjects taught by public educational institutions including the foundational subjects of mathematics, science, English, history, and civics and prevents students from receiving the best possible public education as funded by the taxpayers of this state;
Whereas parents and taxpayers have a right to expect that taxpayer resources will be spent on education, not political or ideological indoctrination;
Therefore be it resolved that this state’s [board of education or other relevant regulating body] will promulgate clear regulations and enforcement mechanisms for appropriate professional and ethical behavior by teachers licensed to teach in this state; that these guidelines shall make it clear that teachers in taxpayer supported schools are forbidden to use their classrooms to try to engage in political, ideological, or religious advocacy.
At a minimum, these regulations shall provide that no teacher is permitted during class time or while otherwise operating within the scope of employment as a teacher in a public educational institution to do the following:
(1) Endorse, support, or oppose any candidate or nominee for public office or any elected or appointed official regardless of whether such official is a member of the local, state, or federal government;
(2) Endorse, support, or oppose any pending, proposed, or enacted legislation or regulation regardless whether such legislation or regulation is pending, proposed, or has been enacted at the local, state, or federal level;
(3) Endorse, support, or oppose any pending, proposed, or decided court case or judicial action regardless of whether such court case or judicial action is at the local, state, or federal level;
(4) Endorse, support, or oppose any pending, proposed, or executed executive action by an executive branch agency of the local, state, or federal level;
(5) Introduce into class any controversial subject matter that is not germane to the topic of the course being taught;
(6) Endorse, support, or engage in any activities that hamper or impede the lawful access of military recruiters to campus;
(7) Endorse, support, or engage in any activities that hamper or impede the actions of state, local, or federal law enforcement;
(8) Advocate in a partisan manner for any side of a controversial issue, defined as an issue that is a point in electoral party platforms at the national, state or local level. To ensure that students have the resources to make up their own minds on such issues, teachers must provide them with materials supporting both sides of the controversy, and present those views in a fair-minded non-partisan manner. Teachers may express their opinions on these matters but only in such a manner that students understand that they are free to make up their own minds and to disagree with the teacher without incurring any penalty for doing so.
(9) Segregate students according to race, or sin-gle out one racial group of students as responsible for the suffering or inequities experienced by another racial group of students
The regulations promulgated pursuant to this act shall apply to all teachers at public educational institutions, tenured and non-tenured. Moreover, the regulations shall contain clear guidelines for enforcement and provide penalties for violations, up to and including termination. The state’s [board of education or other relevant regulating body] shall provide written notification to all teachers, parents, and students of their respective rights and responsibilities under the regulations promulgated pursuant to this act and shall provide at least three hours of annual continuing teacher education instruction to teachers to instruct them regarding their responsibilities under said regulations.
Moreover, we call on the state’s professional teacher organizations and unions to voluntarily adopt an educators’ code of ethics and professional responsibility that incorporates the above principles and specifically prohibits teachers in K-12 schools from using the classroom for political indoctrination.
Peter Collier is the Vice- President of Programs and Co-founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center
Sara Dogan is the National Campus Director for the David Horowitz Freedom Center. She has written numerous articles and reports about academic freedom, classroom indoctrination, and anti-Semitism on campus.
| Posters Target Neo-Nazis at Boston and Chicago Campuses
Mar 30th 2018, 04:09, by Sara Dogan
[To learn more about the Freedom Center’s campaign, Stop University Support for Terrorists, click here.]
Students at several Chicago and Boston-area universities awoke this week to find their campuses papered with posters exposing members of Students for Justice in Palestine as neo-Nazis and supporters of anti-Israel terrorism. The posters were designed by the David Horowitz Freedom and were placed in the early morning hours on the campuses of Harvard University, Brandeis University and Tufts University in the Boston area and at the University of Chicago and DePaul University in Chicago.
The posters reveal comments that student activists affiliated with SJP have made on social media praising Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and calling for the extermination of the Jews.
These statements include:
“How many Jews died in the Holocaust? Not enough”
“Wow White Jews are so entitled LMFAOOO Please die.”
“Had to write about a leader for DCL class. Wrote about Hitler. Cuz he’s a boss.”
A second poster exposed Berkeley Professor Hatem Bazian, a co-founder of SJP, as an anti-Semite and supporter of the anti-Israel terror group Hamas. Bazian recently came under fire for an anti-Semitic tweet which featured a caricature of an Orthodox Jew with the caption “MOM LOOK! I IS CHOSEN! I CAN NOW KILL, RAPE, SMUGGLE ORGANS & AND STEAL THE LAND OF PALESTINIANS *YAY* ASHKE-NAZI.” He has also openly called for an intifada, or violent uprising, in America.
A third poster depicts the organization Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) as a puppet of Hamas terrorists. As has been revealed in recent congressional testimony, Students for Justice in Palestine is a campus front for Hamas terrorists. SJP’s propaganda activities are orchestrated and funded by a Hamas front group, American Muslims for Palestine, whose chairman is Hatem Bazian and whose principals are former officers of the Holy Land Foundation and otherIslamic “charities” previously convicted of funneling money to Hamas. Hamas is a State Department-designated terrorist organization whose explicit goals, as stated in its charter, are the destruction of the Jewish state, and the extermination of its Jews.
Aided by this funding and institutional support from Hamas, SJP has become the leading collegiate organization in the Hamas terror network and the campus propaganda campaign to smear Israel as an “apartheid” state. SJP uses Hamas funds to promote the genocidal and anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, a form of economic terrorism which seeks to weaken, delegitimize, and ultimately destroy the Jewish state. Under SJP’s leadership, over 100 college and university student governments have considered adopting pro-BDS resolutions and over 50 have passed them.
As a companion piece to the posters, the Freedom Center will soon be releasing a groundbreaking new pamphlet titled “SJP: Neo-Nazis on Campus,” which reveals the depth and breadth of the neo-Nazi hate epidemic among SJP and MSA activists on American campuses. The pamphlet contains profiles of student activists who have used social media to advocate for violence against the Jews, to spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and to exalt Nazi leader Hitler’s “final solution.”
The pamphlet and posters are part of a larger Freedom Center campaign titled Stop University Support for Terrorists. Images of the posters that appeared on these campuses are reproduced below and can also be viewed on the campaign website, https://stopuniversitysupportforterrorists.org.
| A Muslim Committed the Worst Anti-Semitic Hate Crime of 2018
Mar 30th 2018, 04:08, 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.
The worst anti-Semitic hate crime of 2018 took place outside a restaurant in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Izmir Koch, an Ahiska Turkish migrant who had already been in trouble with the law, allegedly demanded to know if there were any Jews around. A man who been at the restaurant replied that he was Jewish. Izmir punched him in the head, and then kicked him while he lay on the ground.
The victim, who wasn’t actually Jewish, suffered bruised ribs and a fractured eye socket.
Now a federal grand jury has indicted Izmir for committing a hate crime. The violent assault was the single worst anti-Semitic hate crime of 2018. So far. And it’s generated very little interest from the same activists and media outlets who had been accusing the White House of not acting against anti-Semitism.
Izmir had already been facing two counts of felonious assault, one involving a deadly weapon, from 2016. He was found guilty a month after the Cincinnati assault, along with a number of comrades and family members. That assault had taken place outside their trucking company in Dayton, Ohio.
A former employee had come to collect the money that he was owed, and Izmir Koch, Baris Koch, Sevil Shakhmanov and Mustafa Shakhmanov allegedly assaulted him with crowbars, and possibly brass knuckles and a baseball bat. The victim, who apparently had a knife, fought back.
Izmir, Boris and Murad were Turkish Muslims from the former Soviet Union who had migrated to this country. A few years before that fight, the local media was talking up their “positive impact” on the community in Dayton. But it didn’t take long for the legal problems to begin. The benefits of bringing these Turkish Muslims to Dayton were quickly outweighed by the violence they had brought.
The Cincinnati assault is one of the most physically violent recent anti-Semitic attacks. But the perpetrator is a Muslim immigrant and the alphabet soup organizations don’t want to talk about it.
It doesn’t fit their profile or their agenda.
News stories about the Cincinnati attack don’t mention that the perpetrator is a Muslim immigrant. “Give me your violent, your bigoted, your anti-Semitic masses yearning to kill,” doesn’t sound as good.
Lefty Jewish organizations spend all their time forming alliances to support Muslim immigrants against President Trump. Meanwhile the DOJ is fighting the anti-Semitism that they refuse to fight.
While the media and these organizations ignore the most violent anti-Semitic assault of the year, they have been lavishing attention on (((Semitism))), a book by the New York Times’ Jonathan Weisman. The thesis of (((Semitism))) is that Muslims are our natural allies and the worst anti-Semitism today is the alt-right trolling on Twitter. Israel is an unfortunate distraction from all the merchant memes and hashtags.
“Stop obsessing about Israel,” the New York Times writer barks at Jews, “Reach out to Muslim groups, immigrant groups.” Weisman is welcome to reach out to Izmir Koch. But he should watch his eyes.
Tweets of Jews in gas chambers may be ugly, but Cincinnati reminds us of that actually dangerous anti-Semitism looks like an anti-Semitic Muslim thug beating you hard enough to fracture your eye socket.
The triple parentheses that some on the alt-right use to mark Jews had their own counterpart in the New York Times which published a list of Democrats opposed to Obama’s Iran deal, and marked which were Jewish in yellow. Weisman was the man behind the left’s version of the triple parenthesis. And his response to being called out was his own version of the alt-right’s “just kidding” wrongfooting gambit.
(((Semitism))) is only the latest example of how discussions about the rise in anti-Semitism elide the perpetrators actually committing serious crimes and instead dwell endlessly on Twitter Nazi trolls.
The ADL’s widely hyped figures noted that more than half of the anti-Semitic assaults in the country were reported in New York. Quite a few of the serious incidents happened in Brooklyn neighborhoods like Crown Heights and Williamsburg where the only white people are lefty hipsters. The rest are largely African-American and Latino. The first listed assault in Brooklyn was carried out by black teens.
The targets of these assaults are frequently Orthodox Jews who are visibly identifiable as Jewish.
The ADL’s own numbers show that anti-Semitism rates among African-Americans in some years have been nearly twice as high as among the general population. That’s why Tamika Mallory, Barack Obama, Keith Ellison and so many others were comfortable palling around with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. It’s why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are black leaders instead of cautionary tales.
That’s a quite different reality from the one that exists in (((Semitism))) and similar narratives. And yet it’s what violent anti-Semitism actually looks like. And it’s what no major organization wants to discuss.
And even when it comes to rhetoric, they would rather talk about Twitter than real life.
On the University of California-Santa Cruz (UCSC) campus, African/Black Student Alliance protesters harassed Jewish students celebrating Israeli Independence Day with shouts of “Free Palestine” and “F*** Jewish Slugs”. This is the sort of thing that Weisman and (((Semitism))) want us to ignore.
And when is praising Hitler and cheering the Holocaust on Twitter not a problem? When Muslims do it.
Canary Mission is constantly documenting anti-Semitism by members of campus hate groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine, including calls for Jewish genocide, and praise for Hitler. But unlike the same behavior by the alt-right, no major Jewish organization wants to pay attention to the crisis.
MEMRI has documented multiple mosques in the United States preaching the mass murder of Jews.
It’s no surprise that the worst anti-Semitic hate crime of 2018 was committed by a member of a religion whose leaders praise the Holocaust and preach a final apocalyptic conflict between Muslims and Jews.
And it’s also no surprise that lefty Jewish groups enabling Islamic migration don’t want to talk about it.
The Koch clan went from an immigrant success story to a violent nightmare in a matter of years. But the nightmare was always there. We just chose not to see it. And we still aren’t seeing it.
Anti-Semitism is a matter of religion and culture. America is one of the least anti-Semitic countries in the world. When immigrants from anti-Semitic countries come to America, then anti-Semitism increases.
The ADL’s own numbers show that Hispanic immigrants are more likely to be anti-Semitic than Hispanics born in the United States. In 2016, only 10% of white people held anti-Semitic views, compared to 19% of Hispanics born in the United States and 31% of Hispanic immigrants.
The numbers are even worse for Muslims.
An extensive British survey found that negative views of Jews among Muslims were 2 to 4 times higher than in the general population. One German survey found that over 50% of Muslim refugees held anti-Semitic attitudes. An Austrian survey showed that 50% of young Muslim had anti-Semitic views.
The ADL claims that in the United States it’s only 34%. Even if that’s true, that’s more than three times as high as white Americans.
Which should we be more concerned about, 10% or 34%?
But not all attitudes are created equal. Most people have some sort of prejudices. But very few will actually violently lash out at someone, especially a total stranger, the way Izmir Koch allegedly did.
Islamic bigotry doesn’t just stay private. It can turn into a lot more than just a joke or a little graffiti.
The Koran doesn’t just preach hatred. It urges the devout to act on that hatred. That is the ground zero of terrorism. It’s why Jews have been repeatedly targeted in acts of Islamic terror in America.
And why these crimes have been repeatedly whitewashed, brushed aside and forgotten.
That’s why we aren’t talking about a man lying bleeding on the street because a Turkish Muslim immigrant thought he was a Jew.
| Barry Barely Cared About Martin Luther King, Jr.
Mar 30th 2018, 04:05, by Lloyd Billingsley
Back in January, President Donald Trump dedicated his weekly address to Martin Luther King Jr. “Dr. King’s dream is our dream, it is the American dream, it’s the promise stitched into the fabric of our nation, etched into the hearts of our people and written into the soul of humankind,” the president said. “It is the dream of a world where people are judged by who they are, not how they look or where they come from.”
Democrats and their media allies didn’t like it, and as the 50th anniversary of King’s assassination approached, one pundit slapped a gag order on the president.
“When it Comes To Honoring Martin Luther King, Maybe Trump Should Skip It,” headlined a March 7 Miami Herald commentary by Leonard Pitts Jr. “Now April 4 looms, and it occurs to me there is literally nothing Donald Trump can say that will be equal to the moment.” Unlike Clinton and Bush, according to Pitts, Trump “has no credibility here.”
By contrast, “President Obama seemed tailored for such moments, as if sent from some celestial Central Casting to testify to the possibilities and potential inherent in black lives.” That invites a look at what that the celestially cast president said about King on his way up the ladder.
Barry, as mother Ann Dunham called him, was born on August 4, 1961, so he had yet to turn three on August 22, 1963, when King delivered his famous “I have a dream” speech. Ann Dunham married Indonesian Lolo Soetoro and Barry was attending the Besuki school in Jakarta when King was murdered on April 4, 1968. The author of the 1995 Dreams from My Father is pretty quiet about the impact at the time.
In that book, Barry’s strongest influence is “Frank,” portrayed as a kind of Grady Wilson character, drinking whisky from a jar and warning the student of the dangers of womenfolk. After publication, the author clearly identified Frank as Frank Marshall Davis but portrayed him only as a prominent poet. Frank was actually a dutiful Communist who first came to Hawaii to help Stalin bring the island into the Soviet orbit.
In Dreams Frank gets more than 2,000 words but the poet says nothing about Martin Luther King Jr. and bids Barry farewell as he heads to upscale Occidental College. There the student gathers books from the library, but not Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story, from 1958, King’s first book. Neither does he retrieve Strength to Love, Trumpet of Conscience, Where do We Go From Here? or Why We Can’t Wait, also by King.
He did gather books by James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, Richard Wright, and W.E.B. DuBois. But as the author explains, “only Malcolm X’s autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me. The blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will.”
The author and his friend Ray meet a tall, gaunt man named Malik, “who mentioned that he was a follower of the Nation of Islam.” The narrative portrays the NOI uncritically and as a positive force. As one character explains, “If it wasn’t for Islam, man, I’d be dead.”
As Stanley Crouch explained in the Village Voice in 1985, in the view of Nation of Islam boss Louis Farrakhan, “the white man was a devil ‘grafted’ from black people in an evil genetic experiment by a mad, pumpkin-headed scientist named Yacub. That experiment took place 6000 years ago. Now the white man was doomed, sentenced to destruction by Allah.” That apparently failed to register with the Dreams author, and a decade later in 2005 he happily posed for a photo with Louis Farrakhan.
In Dreams the author meets the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. “a dynamic young pastor. His message seemed to appeal to young people like me.” POTUS 44 never disowned this hatemonger and was never openly critical of Farrakhan. So his neglect of King makes sense.
Communists like Frank are atheists who despise Christian ministers such as King. As University of Pennsylvania professor Thomas J. Sugrue notes, black-power radicals derided King as “de Lawd” and branded him as “hopelessly bourgeois, a detriment rather than a positive force in the black freedom struggle.”
Malcolm X, meanwhile, left the Nation of Islam in 1963 and after a pilgrimage to Mecca returned to America as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. After he revealed the sexual dalliances of NOI founder Elijah Mohammed, Farrakhan said Malcolm was “worthy of death.”
On February 21, 1965, Malcolm X was shot to death at a rally in the Audubon Ballroom in New York City. As CBS “60 Minutes” recalled in 2000, “three men with ties to the Nation of Islam were convicted in the slaying.”
Despite his admiration of Malcom X in Dreams from My Father, and the smiling photo with Farrakhan, POTUS 44 was pretty quiet in 2015 on the 50th anniversary of Malcolm X’s assassination. So maybe that man from celestial Central Casting is not the one best tailored to honor the legacy of Martin Luther King on April 4.
| Leftist Fascist Reign at U of Penn
Mar 30th 2018, 04:04, by Jack Kerwick
It seems that it’s impossible to pass through a single week without hearing about multiple outrages in academia. And it seems just as obvious that the most obscene of these outrages tend to unfold at the most prestigious institutions of higher learning.
Take, for instance, the University of Pennsylvania. Penn is an Ivy-league school located in the city of Philadelphia. It has recently been in the news because of “controversial” comments made by one of Penn’s veteran faculty members, the Robert Mundheim Professor of Law, Amy Wax.
Back in September of last year, Wax appeared on The Glenn Show, the on-line podcast of Brown University professor, Glenn Loury. During their exchange over some of the deleterious consequences of those race-based preferential treatment policies favoring black student applicants, Wax shared with her host—who is black—some of the observations that she’s made over the duration of her career at Penn.
“Here’s a very inconvenient fact, Glenn: I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class, and rarely, rarely, in the top half. I can think of one or two students who scored in the first half of my required first-year Civil Procedure course.”
Wax and Loury were discussing what’s come to be known as the “mismatch” effect of so-called affirmative action: In their eagerness to satisfy their quotas for black students, colleges and universities wind up mismatching students with institutions. So, Penn, say, recruits black students that, while they would’ve performed excellently at a second-tier school, lack competitiveness at an Ivy-league school. This move on the part of the first-tier schools in turn has ramifications that affect the whole available pool of black students, mismatching them with institutions throughout the entire system.
Black students, in other words, are not benefitted and, in fact, are actually harmed, by the very policy from which they ostensibly benefit.
Wax continued in her conversation with Loury: “Well, what are we supposed to do about that? You’re putting in front of this person [a black student admitted via “affirmative action”] a real uphill battle. And if they were better matched, it might be a better environment for them. That’s the mismatch hypothesis, of course.”
She added: “We’re not saying they shouldn’t go to college—we’re not saying that. Some of them shouldn’t.”
Wax, in noting that the Penn Law Review has a “diversity mandate,” strongly implied that those black law students who contributed enjoyed this distinction because of their race.
Once these remarks of Wax’s became known, a petition calling for her removal from teaching her first-year Civil Procedure course was circulated, and Pennsylvania’s branch of Black Lives Matter went so far as to demand her immediate termination from the university.
Asa Khalif, the head of BLM Pennsylvania, threatened to “begin disrupting classes and other campus activities with a wave of protests” unless Wax was fired. Wax posed a “danger” to “Black and brown students,” he remarked. Khalif also styles himself a voice for the voiceless, or something like this, when he says that other Penn students have told him that “they are afraid to say anything about Wax due to potential reprisal.”
Thus, BLM must “speak for the students who can’t speak for themselves.”
Unsurprisingly, the Dean of Penn’s Law School, Theodore Ruger, caved to the PC pressure and rebuked Wax. “Black students have graduated in the top of the class at Penn Law,” Ruger insisted, “and the Law Review does not have a diversity mandate.”
Wax is no longer permitted to teach any mandatory first-year courses.
Of course, Professor Wax had already come within the crosshairs of leftist militants for an op-ed that she co-authored in August of last year. Wax lamented the disintegration of America’s “bourgeois culture,” identifying this breakdown as among the principal causes of our nation’s many maladies.
From the late 1940’ to the mid-60s, bourgeois culture “laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.”
Wax even boldly declared: “All cultures are not created equal.”
Her fate was sealed. Penn’s National Lawyers Guild issued a statement in which it refers to Professor Wax’s remarks as a “textbook example of [the] white supremacy and cultural elitism” that have been “used to denigrate the poor and sustain and justify the gross wealth inequality that defines American capitalism.” The statement condemns “Professor Wax’s racism and classism, as well as the ‘moral toxicity and…intellectual bankruptcy’ of her opinion.” Wax, the authors of the statement continue, is “bigoted,” “white supremacist,” and a “segregationist.”
The black Brown University academic, Glenn Loury, to whom Wax made some of the remarks that landed her further in hot water with the left, as well as the Manhattan Institute’s Heather MacDonald are among those who have leapt to Wax’s defense. Both have noted that his protestations to the contrary aside, neither Dean Ruger nor anyone else at Penn have supplied a scintilla of evidence to contradict a single syllable that Wax uttered regarding the general performance of black law students at Penn, and MacDonald specifically cited statistical data that dovetails seamlessly with the anecdotal account that Wax shared with Loury on his podcast.
However, while their efforts are commendable, ultimately they are to no avail, for facts, like reason, are suspect from the vantage of today’s militant left. Wax above all people must know this.
In a recent essay of hers, she implores her colleagues in the academy to resist the impulse to substitute coercion for persuasion, ad hominem attacks for reasoned, civil discourse. But one can’t escape the impression that she knows her pleading is an exercise in futility, for she bluntly states that after her August op-ed appeared, many of her colleagues at Penn, including administrators, conveyed their message to Wax loudly and clearly:
“Cease the heresy.”
Exactly right: There will be no reasoning with the self-styled guardians of an orthodoxy that broaches no competitors.
And the leftist ideology that prevails in the contemporary academic world is nothing if not an orthodoxy.
Wax assailed the reigning Politically Correct orthodoxy of academia. For that she is to be treated as a heretic.
| Danny Glover: Hollywood's Biggest Useful Idiot
Mar 30th 2018, 04:03, by David Paulin
Socialist Venezuela has become a workers’ hell – not the paradise Hugo Chávez promised. The poor literally pick through garbage to find food. Yet left-wing Hollywood actor and director Danny Glover was oblivious to this misery during his most recent good-will visit to Caracas, the capital, where he hobnobbed with President Nicolás Maduro and praised the socialist regime. The 71-year-old Glover, however, said nothing about Venezuela’s dire shortages of food, medicines, and even toilet paper – calamities that have made President Maduro widely despised by the poor majority in oil-rich yet impoverished Venezuela.
Shocking news reports emerge daily from Venezuela about its collapsing economy. Has Glover not been paying attention? Poor Venezuelans not only eat from garbage piles but are fleeing abroad, having given up on what the late President Hugo Chávez called “Twenty-First-Century Socialism.” They are joining unending columns of refugees trekking under a blazing into neighboring Colombia. Human rights groups and regional leaders call it a “humanitarian crisis.” Yet when speaking at the presidential palace on Saturday, March 24, Glover nevertheless rattled off a list of Venezuela-style socialism’s supposed accomplishments – comments dutifully reported by local media outlets.
“It is a privilege to be here,” beamed Glover, explaining
that Venezuela’s revolution was about “uplifting human beings” and creating a “collective humanity.” It was a let-them-eat cake moment – or perhaps that should be “let them eat garbage.”And it was interesting to see who failed to show up: none of Glover’s left-wing Hollywood buddies were on hand. They once made a beeline to Caracas to hobnob with Hugo Chávez and praise his socialist revolution, with the two most famous being Oliver Stone, the director and filmmaker; and actor and filmmaker Sean Penn. Both have kept a low-profile regarding Venezuela since Hugo Chávez’s socialist revolution turned into a nightmare.
Perhaps Stone and Penn still have not gotten the tear gas out of their eyes from their visit to Caracas
in March, 2014, when they joined a rogues’ gallery of Latin leftists, including Cuban President Raúl Castro, to honor Hugo Chávez on the first anniversary of his death from cancer. They enjoyed a military parade and civic events – all while massive and bloody anti-government protests raged in the streets. The protests were provoked by an out-of-control murder rate, food shortages, and myriad instances of inept governance.
Did Stone and Penn finally realize they were honoring a thug state? Well, maybe. Yet Glover has no such qualms. He remains a true believer.
ceremonies, Glover praised the socialist regime’s commitment to social justice, falsely claiming that Venezuela had improved education, health care, and other indices of human dignity. That must be news to human rights groups that regularly condemn Venezuela, and news as well to ordinary Venezuelans – millions of whom have fled abroad in recent years as their socialist-run economy collapsed under epic levels of mismanagement and corruption. Indeed, a refugee crisis is now playing out in which some 100,000 Venezuelans per month cross Colombia’s border, both legally and illegally, say Colombian officials
. In all, an estimated 2 to 4 million Venezuelans now live abroad
with an estimated 500,000 in Colombia.
The excuse for Glover’s visit was to join Maduro – a bus-driver-turned politician and Chávez’s former protege – in promoting a feel-good U.N. initiative: “International Decade for People of African Descent” which was adopted in 2015 by the America-bashing U.N. General Assembly. The decade’s theme: “People of African descent: recognition, justice and development”. Glover’s role in this idiotic virtue signaling is as a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). “The international community must increase its commitment to fighting Afrophobia and discrimination against people of African descent,” Glover told a U.N. publication
last year. In its online English-language article about Saturday’s
event, state television channel Telesur ran an annoying headline
: “Venezuela’s Maduro Moves to Eradicate Racism from the Americas.” Glover sits on Telesur’s board.
Maduro, for his part, observed
that the world has gone “from one slavery to another: from direct slavery we have passed to the slavery of capitalism.”
Capitalism is a form of slavery? Well, capitalism may be a dirty word to Maduro, Glover, and fellow Hollywood leftists who claim to be champions of the poor. Yet interestingly, Venezuela’s exodus of poor refugees is now heading to countries where capitalism is alive: Brazil, Panama, and Chile are among the most popular destinations for poor Venezuelans who can’t afford to join well-off Venezuelans in the U.S. and Europe. None of these poor refugees, to be sure, is heading to communist Cuba, which has played a behind-the-scenes role in Venezuela’s drift toward socialism. And while Glover praises socialism, he nevertheless has done pretty well under capitalism. Born in San Francisco to parents who worked as postal workers, he has an estimated net worth of $40 million
Useful idiot or crook?
In visiting Caracas, Glover may have had more than social justice on his mind. He has yet to adequately explain what happened to millions of U.S. dollars that Hugo Chávez gave him, in 2007, to make a biographical movie called “Toussaint” about Haiti’s 1791 slave uprising and man who led it, Toussaint Louverture.
Glover took $18 million from Chávez to make “Toussaint”; and Venezuela’s General Assembly subsequently authorized
another $9.8 million (though it’s unclear whether Glover ever received that sum). According to the Wall Street Journal
, Chávez’s largess was supposed to help Glover cover “the scripts, production costs, wardrobe, lighting, transport, makeup and the creation of the whole creative and administrative platform.” At the time, news of Chávez’s revolutionary largess irked some Venezuelan filmmakers who complained that “Toussaint” had nothing to do with Venezuela. But no matter: Chávez was then flush with a windfall of petrodollars as oil prices soared. Along with funding bread-and-circuses social programs, he sought to project Venezuela’s influence and leftist political ideology throughout the world — from dolling out subsidized fuel oil
to low-income residents in New England (in a program overseen by former Democratic U.S. Rep. Joseph Kennedy II) to financing Hollywood movies with an anti-Western message.
So what happened to “Toussaint” and all the money given to Glover? “We’re still working on it (the movie),” Glover said during an interview
three years ago. “We’re in one of those periods where the idea is still alive and still resonates out there. We just have to get all the resources together to make it happen.” Before work on the movie stalled, its cast was said to have included Wesley Snipes, Angela Bassett, Don Cheadle, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Roger Guenveur Smith, Mos Def, Isaach de Bankolé, and Richard Bohringer.
Somebody should ask Glover some hard questions about “Toussaint”– and demand answers about the millions of dollars he received. That money, after all, did not belong to the autocratic Hugo Chávez or the obsequious lawmakers who bowed to his every whim. The money was the patrimony of Venezuelans and was derived from their oil wealth. In 1998, the poor majority elected Chávez in a landslide, believing he would stop their oil wealth from being squandered due to mismanagement and corruption. But as Chávez adopted socialism, corruption soared to record levels – making many well-connected Venezuelans rich.
Danny Glover obviously profited from this corruption gravy train – and perhaps he hopes to continue doing so. Did Glover discuss the status of “Toussaint” with Maduro, whose government is on the verge of financial insolvency? Perhaps Glover’s effusive praise of Venezuela-style socialism is not only motivated by his left-wing ideology, but by his desire to obtain more funding for his movie project — or perhaps he wants Maduro to forget about the money he got for a movie he never made.
Besides being a useful idiot, Glover also may be a crook. He and others involved in “Toussaint” have much explaining to do.
David Paulin, an Austin, TX-based freelance journalist, covered Hugo Chávez’s rise to power while based in Caracas as a foreign correspondent. He also reported from the Caribbean while based in Kingston, Jamaica.
| Prager U Video: Blacks in Power Don't Empower Blacks
Mar 30th 2018, 04:02, by Prager University
Between 1970 and 2012, the number of black elected officials rose from fewer than 1,500 to more than 10,000. How has this affected the black community? Jason Riley of The Manhattan Institute answers the question in this video:
| Dereliction of Duty
Mar 29th 2018, 04:10, 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.
“We’ll get you through your children,” Allen Ginsberg to Norman Podhoretz.
Where did March for Our Lives come from?
We know where the organization, the money and the leadership come from.
But where do the hundreds of thousands of young people massing into crowds and calling for the abolition of the Bill of Rights come from? It’s not just the Right to Bear Arms: Freedom of Speech and of Religion have never been as unpopular among the youngest generation of voters as they are now.
They came out of the classroom. They’re the politically abused children preyed on by mental molesters.
Your local high school has some of the same radical programming as your local college. The toxic radicalism trickles down to elementary schools. And occasionally even begins in kindergarten.
Americans were shocked and disgusted at the sight of radical leftists dragging 5-year-olds out to participate in the walkout protests in Connecticut. But racist white privilege indoctrination is hitting kindergarteners in New York, Minnesota, Virginia, Missouri and other states. Political indoctrination is being embedded in every subject, including math, with Teach for America pushing, “Teaching Social Justice through Secondary Mathematics”. And teachers are usually radicalized before they ever enter the classroom with classics like Democracy & Education being replaced by Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
To radicals, your children and grandchildren are just another community to be organized into protests.
And while this political child abuse was going on in schools across the country, where were Republicans? If only some politicians would spend as much time protecting our children as they do the DREAMERs.
Political child abuse doesn’t just happen in New York City, Boston or Los Angeles. It isn’t limited to blue states. Indoctrinated faculty with degrees in radicalism, administrators with big plans to spread radical division and non-profits pushing politicized courses can pop up anywhere.
The racist creed of Black Lives Matter isn’t just making its way into Baltimore, Washington and New Jersey schools. You can find it being embedded in schools in Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Kansas.
A Vermont school even flew the racist Black Lives Matter flag.
Walkouts against the Bill of Rights took place in Alabama and Iowa. At a Wyoming school, a test featured, “He was shooting at Trump” as an answer, and in a Utah school, a guest speaker declared himself, “Trump’s worst enemy”. Islamic indoctrination has found its way into schools in Kentucky, Florida, North Carolina, West Virginia and Missouri.
In Colorado, the Pledge of Allegiance began with, “One nation under Allah.”
Where are Republican legislators in these states doing while this political child abuse goes on?
Conservatives used to take, “We’ll get you through your children” to mean college campus brainwashing. But college students are adults. Children as young as 5 are now the targets.
And the politicians have mostly failed to do anything meaningful about it because they don’t have very good tools for handling the problem. When an individual incident goes viral, as some of these did, there’s outrage. But aside from reacting to that one incident, there’s no plan for preventing it from happening again. And none of the various halfhearted measures get at the very heart of the problem.
But the Freedom Center’s K-12 Code of Ethics does.
Featured at the Center’s latest project, Stop K-12 Indoctrination, the Code of Ethics challenges schools to focus once more on education, not indoctrination.
The K-12 Code frees students and parents from political indoctrination in the classroom. It encourages a return to the traditional virtues of inquiry over agenda, of traditional learning over mindless sloganeering. It reverses the Pedagogy of the Oppressed agenda by turning teachers from political advocates to learning facilitators.
The Code doesn’t bar students from studying controversial issues. It prevents teachers from endorsing candidates and judicial rulings. And from advocating for an issue embedded in a party platform. The classroom could be a forum for debate in which both sides are presented and neither side is penalized. But it is not an appropriate forum for one-sided advocacy and indoctrination.
Students can debate gun control. But they would not to be forced to enlist on one side of a political issue, like gun control, that appears in the Democrat platform.
And that would have made the shameful school walkouts against the Bill of Rights as unacceptable as they should have been.
With the K-12 Code, kindergarteners won’t be dragged out to protest against the Second Amendment, racist flags won’t hang over our schools and our children won’t be told that their race makes them racist. And teachers will no longer be pressured into dividing up students by race, sending them out to protest or teaching them that math and science are prejudiced concepts invented by dead white men.
Educational activists have turned the classroom into an activism space focused on the future. But the nature of traditional education has been to convey the wisdom, the information and the achievements of the past to enable students to envision their future as adult members of a national community.
Radical activists are busy destroying the past to make way for the future, pulling down statues, renaming schools, burning books and tossing out entire subjects, like math, as politically incorrect. The K-12 Code of Ethics liberates schools to convey to students the great heritage of human history. Because it is not the slogan of the moment that truly matters, but the lessons that we can learn from the past.
Students are not captive audiences. They’re not a community to be organized into street protests. And, most of all, they are not pawns to be used against their parents and grandparents by leftist radicals.
That’s not education. That’s political child abuse.
And the K-12 Code of Ethics also gives Republican legislators tools for rolling back political child abuse.
There can be no more excuses because there is a solution. And the solution is as simple as it is straightforward and fair. It does not bias classroom discussions to the right or the left. Instead it protects the educational spaces of our classrooms as neutral spaces of ideas instead of biased spaces of slogans.
Every day that they fail to act, more students are being politically abused. And politically abused children will show up at rallies against the Bill of Rights, they will threaten conservative speakers, phone in bomb threats and scream that any contrary opinion is an attack on their existence. The college campus radicals of tomorrow are coming out of today’s K-12 classrooms. And if we fail to act, then the left will win.
“We’ll get you through your children,” has become not just an empty threat, but a prophecy.
It’s time for our elected officials to help us get back our children from their leftist political kidnappers.
| Video: David Horowitz Unveils the Left's Agenda of Destruction
Mar 29th 2018, 04:09, by Frontpagemag.com
Editor’s note: The following speech by David Horowitz took place at the March Reagan Ranch Roundtable Luncheon on March 16, 2018 and was sponsored by the Young America’s Foundation. The event was held in conjunction with the Spring High School Conference at the Reagan Ranch.
| Leftist Rage Over Citizenship Question
Mar 29th 2018, 04:08, by Matthew Vadum
Left-wingers have been throwing an extended temper tantrum across the nation after the Trump administration announced it plans to ask individuals responding to the 2020 U.S. Census if they are American citizens.
Racist. Sexist. Xenophobic. That’s what you are if you dare to believe it is perfectly reasonable in a Census questionnaire to ask respondents if they’re citizens of this country, according to Democrats.
The U.S. Department of Commerce, which administers the decennial, constitutionally required head count, said the surprisingly controversial question will be added to Census forms at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice to help identify possible violations of the Voting Rights Act, something left-wingers claim to care about.
That any sane person would be outraged at this commonsense proposal is a depressing reminder of the power of the leftist, multiculturalist indoctrination that has robbed generations of Americans of the ability to think for themselves. The Left has been trying to blur the lines between citizens and non-citizens for years and it’s clear their hard work has paid off.
Democrat office-holders from blue states could be found shrieking and hyper-ventilating on cable news programs about this supposedly nightmarish assault by President Trump on the rights and self-esteem of illegal aliens and on the left-wingers at groups like National Council of La Raza, ACLU, and NAACP that go to great lengths to help them vote illegally in elections.
These people don’t care about the U.S. Constitution or the rule of law. The only thing they care about is power, and anything that dilutes the power of U.S. citizens in order to privilege foreigners and illegal aliens is a good thing in their eyes.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on Twitter, “The census must count every person. Our Constitution demands it. Our democracy requires it. @realDonaldTrump is jeopardizing its accuracy by adding an unnecessary citizenship question. I stand with former Census directors from both parties in opposing this terrible decision.”
Warren was promptly corrected by Mike Gonzalez of the Heritage Foundation.
He tweeted in reply:
Jefferson first requested the question in 1800. The Census continuously and without controversy asked a question on citizenship from 1890 to 1950–years when the foreign-born population was higher than today. The ACS continues to ask this question to this day. Stop the hyperbole.
The ACS refers to the American Community Survey, which is conducted by the Census Bureau. According to the agency’s website, the survey “helps local officials, community leaders, and businesses understand the changes taking place in their communities. It is the premier source for detailed population and housing information about our nation.”
The Washington Examiner reports that the Census Bureau has been asking questions similar to the citizenship question on three of its surveys since at least the Obama administration.
What’s more, according to a new analysis, those unwilling to cooperate with the Census due to citizenship and other questions has not increased under President Trump, though they did surge under Obama.
“I cannot find a sudden decrease in the public’s willingness to take part in Census Bureau surveys that already include a citizenship question,” said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies.
Unrestrained by logic or facts, radical leftist and community organizer Tom Perez, who is now chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said his party would “fight this attempt to undermine our democracy.”
“This is a craven attack on our democracy and a transparent attempt to intimidate immigrant communities,” Perez said in a statement. “The census is a constitutionally-mandated count of all U.S. residents, not a political tool for Donald Trump to push his agenda and disempower Latinos and other people of color.”
Perez spewed post-modernist-sounding drivel, claiming that restoring the citizenship question that the Obama administration took out lets Trump and Republicans stoke “fear” so they can make immigrant communities “invisible.” In reality they are “guaranteeing an inaccurate count that lays the groundwork for sustained racial gerrymandering and jeopardizes critical resources for communities across the country.”
On MSNBC Perez offered a conspiracy theory.
“They want to change it to count the number of U.S. citizens so that they can engage in very not subtle voter suppression,” Perez said. “That is illegal and that is totally inconsistent with what the North Star of the Census in Republican and Democratic administrations have been.”
“This is just another divide-and-conquer effort. This is a first cousin of these voter ID laws sought to make sure that African Americans and Latinos can’t vote,” he said.
The crazed nonsense continued.
After California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) brought a lawsuit, New York State’s ambulance-chasing leftist attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman (D), said Tuesday he was launching multi-state litigation to prevent the reintroduction of the citizenship question, even though it had been a mainstay of the Census prior to the Obama era.
Using Orwellian double-speak, Schneiderman claimed the lawsuit was aimed at preserving a “fair and accurate Census.” He attacked the administration as “reckless” for bringing the question back, adding improbably that its inclusion would “create an environment of fear and distrust in immigrant communities that would make impossible both an accurate Census and the fair distribution of federal tax dollars.”
“This move directly targets states like New York that have large, thriving immigrant populations – threatening billions of dollars in federal funding for New York, as well as fair representation in Congress and the Electoral College,” he claimed.
California’s Becerra, who has been at the forefront of defending his state’s unconstitutional sanctuary laws that thuggishly punish people for cooperating with federal immigration enforcement officials, tweeted, “Including the question is not just a bad idea –it is illegal.”
It may be the first time a leftist has opposed an inclusionary policy.
Disgraced and nearly impeached former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (D) vowed to “litigate to stop the administration from moving forward with this irresponsible decision.”
“The addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire is a direct attack on our representative democracy,” the corrupt ex-official said. “This question will lower the response rate and undermine the accuracy of the count, leading to devastating, decade-long impacts on voting rights and the distribution of billions of dollars of federal funding.”
He added: “Make no mistake—this decision is motivated purely by politics.”
The increasingly fragile House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the move by President Trump was a “dog-whistle tactic to raise funds for his campaign committee.”
“The Census is supposed to count everyone,” whined Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D).
Proving she habitually snoozed her way through law school, Healey said, “This is a blatant and illegal attempt by the Trump administration to undermine that goal, which will result in an undercount of the population and threaten federal funding for our state and cities.”
Left-wingers have been trying to hijack the U.S. Census for partisan purposes for years.
The Obama administration tried to use what might be called the brute force approach to compel the Census to do the Democrats’ bidding. The White House wanted to arrogate to itself control over the Census, a move that no doubt would have had huge ramifications for congressional redistricting. After lawmakers such as Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) denounced the plan as a “naked political power grab,” the Obama administration backed down, assuring lawmakers the Census would remain at the Commerce Department.
Before that, when Bill Clinton was president, left-wingers tried to use statistical voodoo to inflate the count in their big-city strongholds, but they were slapped down by the courts. This kind of statistical modeling or sampling is controversial because it is flagrantly unconstitutional and because it opens the counting process to political manipulation.
The Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives (1999) that using statistical sampling methods for congressional redistricting purposes was not permissible.
The court opinion noted that Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective Numbers,” and that “the actual Enumeration” shall take place “within every subsequent Term of ten Years.”
The Fourteenth Amendment states that “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”
Despite their side’s loss in the high court, a month after President George W. Bush was inaugurated, Los Angeles, San Antonio, Stamford, Conn., and other localities filed a federal lawsuit in hopes of forcing the new administration to use sampling in the next Census. Presumably they viewed the 1999 ruling as applying only to the 2000 Census.
The new state lawsuits against the citizenship question are part of the Left’s long-running war against America’s free institutions.
No doubt more such legal proceedings are coming.
| Time to Get Tough with Turkey
Mar 29th 2018, 04:06, by Kenneth R. Timmerman
The Trump administration is trying to walk a fine line between Turkey, which it still refers to as a NATO ally, and our Kurdish allies on the ground in northern Syria, and it has become increasingly painful and disheartening to watch.
For the past two months, as Turkish troops have pounded civilians in the northern Syrian city of Afrin, Turkish President Recip Tayip Erdogan has verbally assaulted and taunted America.
After initially threatening to kill U.S. liaison officers working with the Kurds, Erdogan then warned the U.S. commander in Syria, LG Paul Funk, to beware an “Ottoman slap.”
The fact that U.S. commanders – undoubtedly under the direction of Defense Secretary Mattis – continued to avoid any direct contact with Turkish troops only emboldened Erdogan. Just before the final assault on Afrin last week, he taunted: “NATO members are not powerful enough to stand up to Turkey… [T]hey do not have the cheek.”
Once YPG fighters withdrew from Afrin on March 15, and civilians evacuated in the following days, Islamist militias backed by the Turkish army swooped into the city, destroying Kurdish cultural sites and plundering homes and businesses.
These were exactly the people the U.S. has been trying to defeat on the battlefield. And here Turkey has made them their allies and is training and equipping them.
As I argued in these pages two months ago, Turkey has long since stopped behaving like a NATO ally. It’s time that the Trump administration faced these facts and got tough on Turkey.
There can be no doubt that the appeasement policy carried out by the outgoing national security advisor, H.R. McMaster, and Rex Tillerson, has failed miserably. How deeply SecDef Jim Mattis buys into that policy could be a factor in his survival on the Trump team.
Erdogan is now threatening to unleash his Islamist allies on the remaining YPG strongholds further east, in Manbij, and even to push across the border into Mount Sinjar in Iraq to attack Iranian Kurds he considers to be allied to the PKK.
Earlier this week, General Mattis acknowledged that Erdogan’s blood-lust for the Kurds has brought coalition operations against ISIS strongholds along the Syrian-Iraqi border to a standstill, all the while he continued to call Turkey a “NATO ally” and spoke positively about “an open dialogue” with Turkey.
I’d call that surreal if it weren’t pathetic – and tragic.
The United States needs to stand by our allies. In this battle, there can be no doubt who they are: the Kurds, not Turkey. The Kurds have built a secular, pluralistic, democratic government in northern Syria, whereas Turkey has become an Islamist autocracy that compares itself increasingly to the Ottoman empire.
The Trump administration has much more leverage it can bring to bear against Turkey than the President’s generals would have us believe.
First, we can increase U.S. military support for the YPG, and draw clear red lines beyond which any advance by Turkey or its Islamist allies will mean a direct confrontation with the United States.
That is not a far-fetched proposal. After all, when a force of Russian mercenaries violated a similar red line near the Syrian-Iraq border last month, they were torn to shreds by U.S. artillery and aircraft, causing an estimated 300 Russian casualties. Since then, the Russians have kept their distance from U.S. forces.
Next, we can accelerate the disengagement from Incirlik airbase in eastern Turkey, as Germany has already done. This is the NATO airbase that Turkey refused to let us use in the first battle against Saddam Hussein in 1991, and again in 2003, and again more recently for strikes against ISIS. This is the base where Erdogan loyalists besieged U.S. Air Force personnel during the August 2016 coup, treating their NATO allies (us!) as a hostile, occupying force.
I have long argued we should withdraw from Incirlik and move those air assets to Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. Israel’s Debka.com believes such a move is already under way.
Next, the U.S. should go to NATO to seek sanctions against Turkey for violating the North Atlantic Treaty by conducting offensive operations beyond its borders without NATO approval and without having been attacked.
If Turkey does not withdraw from Syria and cease threatening Iraq within ten days, NATO should impose a series of increasingly severe sanctions against Turkey, starting with the suspension of all military cooperation and military sales to Turkey.
If Turkey still does not comply, NATO should suspend Turkey until it does.
After these NATO sanctions go into effect, and if Turkey remains defiant, the U.S. should seek United Nations sanctions against Turkey’s banking and defense sectors, nether of which is prepared for sanctions.
The U.S. can also unilaterally impose sanctions on Turkey as an ongoing money-laundering concern, based on the recent conviction of Turkish bank officials in New York for laundering money on behalf of Iran. (USA v. Zarrab et al).
Most powerful of all, however, would be for the U.S. to declassify intelligence information detailing the corruption of the Erdogan family, an investigation that proved so embarrassing to Erdogan that he launched a broad crackdown against judges and police investigators in December 2013 to shut it down.
The U.S. could also release intelligence information about the role of Erdogan’s son as a conduit for ISIS oil sales, and of Erdogan’s daughter role in setting up hospitals just inside Turkey’s border with Syria specifically to treat wounded ISIS fighters.
Put simply: ISIS would not exist, and never would have become as powerful as it became, without the active assistance of the Turkish president and his family.
Turkey is not behaving as a NATO ally, and is actively seeking to revive the Ottoman Empire and its Islamic Caliphate. With combined pressure from the U.S., NATO, Saudi Arabia and other allies, escalating pressure can be brought on Turkey to change its behavior or face the possibility of economic collapse.
| Jericho, We Have Not Forsaken You
Mar 29th 2018, 04:04, by Ari Lieberman
We departed from Kochav Yair, a quaint, affluent town in central Israel, at precisely 7 a.m. Our destination was the ancient city Jericho, one of civilization’s oldest and the first to be liberated by the Israelites when they crossed the Jordan River some 3,400 years ago. Our guide was former Deputy Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Uzi Dayan. Ironically, he also happens to be nephew to the late Moshe Dayan, who as Israel’s Minister of Defense, led the IDF to victory during the 1967 Six-Day War and returned the city of Jericho to its rightful owners.
Dayan’s manner of speaking is authoritative and deliberate, likely a product of his years of service in the military. His spiritual and nationalistic connection to the land is obvious. And his knowledge of its history and geography is impressive. This is a man who wanted to impress upon us the historical and spiritual nexus of Jericho to the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. He succeeded beyond expectation.
Jericho is located in Judea & Samaria near the strategic Jordan Valley, about 70km south of the Israeli city of Bet She’an. We approached the city from the north driving along Route 5, which cuts across part of the breathtaking Samarian landscape and then took a number of smaller roads until reaching Route 90. At Route 90, we traversed southward toward Jericho.
In 1994, The Israeli government handed the city over to the entity known as the Palestinian Authority as part of the calamitous Oslo Accords. The Accords, which were supposed to usher in an era of peace, instead resulted in an orgy of Palestinian terrorism and the dismemberment of parts of ancient Israel.
Judea & Samaria is currently divided into three distinct districts – Areas A, B and C. Area C is currently under full Israeli control and constitutes some 40% of Judea & Samaria. Area B is under PA civilian control and Israeli military control. Area A is under full Palestinian civilian and security control. Together, Area A and B constitute 60% of the landmass of Judea & Samaria.
Jericho is situated in Area A so naturally, our tour had an armed IDF escort and our vehicle’s windows were rock-resistant though I’m not certain it was bulletproof. As we entered Area A, we were greeted by a large red menacing sign which stated that entry of Israeli citizens into Area A was strictly forbidden under the law and that such entry would pose grave danger to our very lives. Anti-Israel activists have for years, and with little success, attempted to propagate the vile calumny that Israel practices Apartheid. But the reality is quite the opposite. Israel is a vibrant democracy where all persons of various religious and ethnic backgrounds are afforded the same opportunities. Yet Area A, a jurisdiction under full Palestinian control remains Judenrein – cleansed of Jews! It’s pretty obvious which side practices Apartheid.
Our first destination in Jericho was Tel Yericho; an ancient, sprawling archaeological mound just on the outskirts of the city. I was quickly struck by how rundown this important site was and how it had been completely neglected by the Palestinian Authority. Israeli antiquity sites are meticulously maintained. They are considered national treasures that connect Israelis to their heritage and are an important source of education and national pride. But the site maintained by the PA’s Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities looked like an earthen garbage dump. Signs and fencing were torn down and there was little by way of amenities. The only thing the Palestinians seemed interested in doing was giving us paid camel rides on chained, tortured animals exposed to searing temperatures. I passed.
I did not see a single Palestinian during my entire time on the Tel. It is clear that the PA and its citizens have no interest in this very important and historically significant place. Perhaps it is because they are cognizant of the fact that they maintain little if any historical nexus to Jericho. Our guide pointed out the telling fact that the only Arab city in Israel possessing an Arab root name is the city of Ramle, which is derived from the Arab word “sand.” All other Arab cities derive their names from Hebrew names or Latin, testament to the Roman conquest and its lengthy occupation of the Land of Israel.
From Tel Yericho we moved on to the Shalom Al Yisrael (Peace unto Israel) Synagogue, so named after the ancient mosaic found on its floors. The synagogue dates to the Byzantine era, a time where Jews were regulated to second class citizenship in their own land. The mosaic bears Jewish symbols such as a Menorah (lit during the holiday of Chanukah) a Shofar or ram’s horn blown during the Jewish New Year, and a Lulav, a closed frond of the date palm tree, and one of the Four Species used during the Jewish festival of Sukkot (left image).
In October 2,000, Palestinian vandals attacked the site and destroyed parts of the priceless mosaic. Under the Oslo Accords, the PA was charged with securing and protecting the holy site and was clearly derelict in carrying out this minimal function. Indeed, some speculate that they were complicit in the vandalism.
From there, we moved on to Na’aran, an ancient Jewish village dating back to the 5th century CE. A synagogue with a large and spectacular mosaic (lower right image) was discovered there as well. In 2012, Palestinian vandals defaced the site with Swastikas.
The repeated attempts by Palestinians to vandalize and destroy priceless antiquities reminds me of similar barbaric behavior carried out by ISIS at Palmyra, Nineveh, Hatra and Nimrud and by the Taliban at Bamiyan, where irreplaceable archaeological treasures were destroyed under the banner of religion.
On our way out of the city, I witnessed a surreal scene that provides me with greater appreciation for what the IDF must endure on a daily basis. A number of Palestinians approached some soldiers at a checkpoint with video cameras and began filming them at close range, sort of the way your annoying kid brother puts his finger in your face and says, “I’m not touching you so you can’t do anything to me.” The soldiers weren’t doing anything out of the ordinary to garner attention. The goal of course was to provoke a violent response which would then be captured on film and sold or given to various media outlets. The soldiers however, didn’t take the bait. They were true professionals who focused on the task at hand and regarded the Palestinians provocateurs as nothing more than nuisances who were to be ignored.
Conceding Jericho to the Palestinian Authority was a colossal blunder of the first order. Nonetheless, continued Israeli excursions to the region, in coordination with the IDF maintain a semblance of continuity and signal to the PA that Israelis and Jews worldwide will never break their bonds with this historically and spiritually significant place.
| Confronting Golden West College on its Enforcement of Sharia
Mar 29th 2018, 04:00, by Gary Fouse
[Editor’s note: To help push back against the enforcement of Islamic blasphemy laws on the American campus, support the Freedom Center’s campaign Stop University Support for Terrorists.]
Last week, I received a standard, template response from the public information office at Golden West College in response to my letter to their administration complaining about the conduct of Golden West staff in trying to silence questions about Islam from the audience at their Islam 101 event on March 14. It was an event to which campus cops were actually called in order to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws. Here is the response:
We have received your comments and appreciate your voiced concerns. As you know, Golden West College recently opened a scheduled class to the public which included a presentation and opportunity to engage in questions and answers. The event was intended to be an introductory educational overview of Islam as part of an intercultural program for students in the class. We understand that the presenters and audience members have varying views about the effectiveness of the event. We are regretful that when campus security was called to help ensure the safety of the environment, that anyone may have felt uncomfortable, singled out, or discouraged from expressing their opinions.
We work hard to ensure that faculty and staff on campus treat others with dignity and engage in respectful interaction with others. We fully support free speech and the right to express diverse thoughts. We are apologetic that the event did not serve the intended purposes for all. We remain committed to the inclusive values and mission of Golden West College. Thank you.
Not even a name was attached to this letter (email). And whoever wrote this response had the gall to state, “We fully support free speech and the right to express diverse thoughts. “
And yet, campus police were called in because they didn’t like certain questions.
Here is the response I sent to their response:
Dear Dr Bryan et al.
As you will recall, I wrote a letter to you a few days ago complaining about the treatment several audience members were given when they dared to ask uncomfortable questions of a speaker at a public event on March 14. This is the response I received from some unnamed person in your public information office:
“We have received your comments and appreciate your voiced concerns. As you know, Golden West College recently opened a scheduled class to the public which included a presentation and opportunity to engage in questions and answers. The event was intended to be an introductory educational overview of Islam as part of an intercultural program for students in the class. We understand that the presenters and audience members have varying views about the effectiveness of the event. We are regretful that when campus security was called to help ensure the safety of the environment, that anyone may have felt uncomfortable, singled out, or discouraged from expressing their opinions.
We work hard to ensure that faculty and staff on campus treat others with dignity and engage in respectful interaction with others. We fully support free speech and the right to express diverse thoughts. We are apologetic that the event did not serve the intended purposes for all. We remain committed to the inclusive values and mission of Golden West College. Thank you.”
“We fully support free speech and the right to express diverse thoughts.”
By calling in the campus police and telling us our questions were out of line?
The above letter is an insult considering what your faculty members did to those concerned. I suggest you interview the concerned police officers and ask them what they were told about the situation when they were summoned. When campus police are summoned to quell polite questions being asked in accordance with the protocol of the event, this is scary stuff indeed in what is supposed to be a country dedicated to freedom of speech and especially for an institution of higher learning supposedly dedicated to the principles mentioned in your response.
If you are indeed committed to the right to express divergent thoughts, I could suggest that you invite a speaker with a different point of view on this topic. I know of many who are responsible and speak with expertise on the topic, but without hatred. There are people like Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, John Zacarias, and Nonie Darwish. Except for Spencer and Ali, these experts are locally based, and the last four are apostates from Islam.
You may not be aware of this, but this incident has received widespread attention across the nation. The reputation of Golden West College has suffered a serious blow. In light of the flippant response we have received, it seems you have closed the page, but we have not. We are looking into other legal avenues to address this ugly incident.
Note: The below persons have added their names to this letter.
(Names of those who signed are deleted in this article for privacy reasons.)
TAKE ACTION FOR FREE SPEECH:
 The president of Golden West College is Wes Bryan. Contact him and ask why his institution is submitting to Islamic blasphemy laws:
Phone #: 714 895 8101.
 Golden West College is part of the Coast Community College District. They have a board of regents whose contact info can be found HERE.
 One of the audience members who was escorted out of this event by police and warned by them not to ask any more questions was Steve Amundson, the head of the Counter Jihad Coalition. Contact him if you want to help defend America from Jihad and Sharia:
| Video: Fight Richmond Public School Indoctrination
Mar 28th 2018, 04:34, by Frontpagemag.com
Editor’s note: YouTuber Sean Fitzgerald, aka “Actual Justice Warrior,” has just released a new video in conjunction with the David Horowitz Freedom Center exposing the abysmal state of the Richmond, VA public school system. While Richmond schools severely under-perform compared to neighboring school districts that spend less money per pupil, Richmond over-performs in lessons geared toward leftist indoctrination and in school collaboration with far-left advocacy groups. Get the full story by watching the video below.
To learn more about the Freedom Center’s Stop K-12 Indoctrination campaign, click here.
| John Paul Stevens' Anti-Second Amendment Hysteria
Mar 28th 2018, 04:10, by Joseph Klein
Former Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was a foe of any broad reading of the Second Amendment while he served on the U.S. Supreme Court. He dissented from the 2008 majority decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, which held that there was an individual right to bear arms. Mr. Stevens is now going even further in his retirement, writing an op-ed column for the New York Times entitled “John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment.”
Mr. Stevens is of the view that the Second Amendment is an artifact with no current beneficial purpose to serve. “Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states,” he wrote in his op-ed column, “led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that ‘a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’ Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”
In his op-ed column Mr. Steven sharply criticized the Heller decision, which he wrote “has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power.” Mr. Stevens added: “Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.”
Mr. Stevens provides no reasoning in his op-ed column to speak of for getting rid of the Bill of Rights amendment to the Constitution protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms that comes right after the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, free exercise of religion, the right to petition the government and the right of assembly. We need to look back at his dissenting opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, joined by liberals Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer, to get a sense of his disdain for any continuing relevance of the Second Amendment in today’s society. In his dissent, he rejected the notion that the framers of the Constitution “intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution” or had “the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.”
Mr. Stevens filled his dissenting opinion with a strained reading of the text and history of the Second Amendment to assert that its sole purpose was the preservation of state militias to protect against the excesses of a standing army or a foreign invasion. He wrote in his dissenting opinion that “it is the collective action of individuals having a duty to serve in the militia that the text directly protects and, perhaps more importantly, that the ultimate purpose of the Amendment was to protect the States’ share of the divided sovereignty created by the Constitution.” However, if that were so, the right to keep and bear arms provision could have more easily been included in the Tenth Amendment, which expressly deals with such division of sovereignty. Alternatively, it could have been omitted altogether because the Tenth Amendment already protected the States’ share of the divided sovereignty created by the Constitution with this sweeping language: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Obviously, the Founding Fathers had something more in mind.
Mr. Stevens rejected the argument in the majority opinion that the word “people” used in the Second Amendment is the same word used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights, such as the First and Fourth Amendments, and should be given a similarly broad interpretation. Rather, he argued that the term “people” in the Second Amendment was meant to be confined to a small sub-set of the population, the group of citizens serving in a state-run “Militia.” Indeed, according to then-Justice Stevens’ dissent, the preamble to the Second Amendment “identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendment’s purpose.”
Mr. Stevens should know that preambles in and of themselves are usually considered non-binding. The Second Amendment’s operative provision states without any qualification that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Mr. Stevens tried to counter this self-evident truth by pointing to “the Second Amendment’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense.” He then tried to make something of the fact that, by contrast, the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time. He emphasized that this difference “confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee ‘to keep and bear arms’ was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.”
What Mr. Stevens and other anti-Second Amendment activists overlook is that the meanings of the words “people” and “militia” were in a major sense commingled by our Founding Fathers, who believed in an overarching essential liberty — that of enabling individuals to protect themselves, their families and their property without being beholden to an oppressive government. James Madison, for example, stated in Federalist No. 46 that “Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation” the “advantage of being armed.” He added that Americans were “unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” Samuel Adams said, “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788)
The Constitution is a compact between “we the people” and the government to form a “more perfect union” that establishes a shared responsibility for our common defense. Nothing is more basic – or more sacred – than self-preservation, the right to ensure one’s own personal security. The Constitution provides assurances that our own beings and property will be protected both against arbitrary intrusion by our government and from invasions and domestic violence. To deny a law-abiding person the means to defend himself or herself and family is to deprive that person of “life, liberty and property” in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Of course, like any right, the Second Amendment is subject to reasonable regulation to protect the community from dangerous abuses. Society certainly has a vested interest in keeping guns out of the hands of hardened criminals and the mentally ill, for example. However, that’s a far cry from eviscerating an individual’s inherent right to possess arms altogether, which would happen if Mr. Stevens and his fellow anti-gun rights activists have their way.
Today, we face a determined yet amorphous enemy in the form of Islamist terrorists, who have specifically targeted American civilians for death wherever they are found. Al Qaeda attacked our homeland without any provocation, killing nearly 3,000 innocent people just going about their business on a beautiful September day. Our government was taken completely by surprise on 9/11, despite years of intelligence gathering on al Qaeda. Ever since, Federal officials have issued terrorist warnings with little specificity, warning us to be on guard at all times. Al Qaeda and now ISIS remain a continuing threat. This is a new kind of war, one that hardly qualifies as a classic military confrontation between nations with organized military forces. Civilians are a direct target. With armed fanatics entering our country hell-bent on slaughtering innocent civilians, our right to possess and use arms in our own defense has never meant so much.
We need more justices on the Supreme Court who demonstrate both common sense and a willingness to adhere to the Constitution’s core principles, ones who set aside, with deserved contempt, the argument that gun ownership is a privilege to be denied law-abiding individuals at the whim of the government. John Paul Stevens is no longer in a position to do any mischief from the bench. However, The New York Times gave him a public platform to call for the “schoolchildren and their supporters” who demonstrated for more gun control legislation last weekend to go even further and “demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.” This was yet another sickening exploitation of a tragedy that must be strongly resisted in the court of public opinion and Congress.
| Sharia Canada: Police Investigating After Ex-Muslim Rips Qur’an
Mar 28th 2018, 04:08, by Robert Spencer
Global News reported Sunday that “Peel Regional Police say they are investigating an incident as ‘hate-motivated’ after a woman can be seen on video at a Mississauga Islamic centre appearing to tear the pages of a Qur’an and putting the pages on cars while calling the religious text ‘Satanic.’” So apparently now it’s a crime in Canada to rip the Qur’an, and even to think ill of it.
This is not the most effective way to call attention to the exhortations to violence and hatred that are within the Qur’an. It allows the Muslims at the Dar Al-Tawheed Islamic Centre, where this incident took place, to play the role of the victim, which they are doing to the hilt in the wake of this incident, and which we have seen that Muslim spokesmen are all too eager to play — victimhood, after all, is currency in today’s society.
Still, if someone hostile to Christianity had torn pages of the New Testament and left them on car windshields at a church, would he or she be charged with a “hate crime”? I doubt it. The churchgoers might see this person as obnoxious, and a nuisance, and then they’d take the paper off their windshields and drive away. I’ve witnessed supporters of the late Tony Alamo, a preacher who believed that the Catholic Church was the source of all evil, leaving anti-Catholic leaflets on the windshields of cars parked at a Catholic church. No one was charged with a “hate crime,” and the churchgoers just shrugged it off.
Is tearing up a book a crime? Is leaving paper on someone’s car a crime? The only crime here is that the woman who did this, an ex-Muslim named Sandra Solomon, is protesting against a protected victim group that is eager to seize upon anything that it can portray as a “hate crime,” so as to buttress its claims to be victims of widespread “Islamophobia,” persecution and harassment, and thus in need of special consideration and accommodation.
So — Sandra Solomon was rude and obnoxious. She called the Qur’an a “Satanic, evil book.” She said other Islamic books were “garbage.” This is all reported in this article as if it is evidence of a crime. But is thinking negatively about the Qur’an and Islam really a crime in Canada? It may be: after the passage of the “anti-Islamophobia” motion M-103, there is no certainty that Canada guarantees the freedom of speech. But disliking the Qur’an and Islam, and tearing the Qur’an, are actually only crimes under Islamic law. Is Canada now adopting Sharia blasphemy laws? We shall see, in the way Canadian authorities treat this case.
What we know now is that police “are looking into the complaints and are treating the incidents as ‘hate-motivated.’”
What if it is? The idea that “hate” is a “crime” is ridiculous. The Qur’an is full of hatred toward unbelievers, “the most vile of created beings” (98:6). But if that passage is ever recited in a mosque in Canada, will the Muslim who recited it be arrested on suspicion that the recitation was “hate-motivated”? Of course not. Look at Ayman Elkasrawy, the Toronto imam who prayed that Allah would kill the Jews. Was he arrested on suspicion of making “hate-motivated” remarks? Of course not. The Toronto Star ran a long puff piece on him, trying to explain away his remarks, and that was that. Will the Toronto Star run a long puff piece on Sandra Solomon, explaining away her actions? Of course not.
See, there’s hate and there’s hate. Good hate and bad hate. Leftists and Islamic supremacists are among the most hateful people I’ve ever encountered: in my interactions with people such as Reza Aslan, Nathan Lean, Qasim Rashid, Khaleel Mohammed and others, I’ve found them to be arrogant, rude, and hate-filled to an appalling degree — to a degree that I thought at first would interfere with their public personas as being exponents of “tolerance” and such. I was naive. Leftists and Muslim spokesmen can be as vile, vicious, insulting and threatening as they want, and nothing happens, no one cares, because their hates are approved by their colleagues among the political and media elites. Their hate is good. “Hate speech” can only be spoken by foes of the agenda of those elites. Likewise with “hate crimes” — they can only be committed by foes of jihad terror and others who are outside the bounds of acceptable discourse.
“Hate speech” and “hate crime” laws are, therefore, tools of the powerful that they use to silence the powerless, and to demonize, marginalize and destroy their critics, so that they can continue to be the powerful. They don’t really have anything to do with actual “hate” at all.
| ICNA’s Abdul Rauf Khan Targets Gays with Propaganda from Group Promoting Hizb-ut-Tahrir
Mar 28th 2018, 04:04, by Joe Kaufman
Abdul Rauf Khan is the Assistant Executive Director of the Islamic Circle of North America’s (ICNA) main humanitarian effort ICNA Relief and Secretary of both ICNA Florida and ICNA Relief Florida. Most of his social media postings are to tout ICNA projects. Still, other posts he has made showcase bigotry, bigots and Islamist movements beyond ICNA. This month, he chose to target homosexuals with a video produced by a group that promotes the internationally banned Hizb-ut-Tahrir. It is all a reflection of the extremism Khan and his outfit represent.
ICNA was founded in September 1968 as the American affiliate of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), South Asia’s largest Islamist group. JI’s militant wing, Hizbul Mujahideen (HM), owned the Pakistani compound where Osama bin Laden was living and eventually killed in. ICNA, itself, has been linked to terrorist financing and has used the internet to promote terror organizations, including Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
In November 2013, former ICNA Secretary General, Ashrafuzzaman Khan, was sentenced to death for his role in the murders of 18 people as a death squad leader during Bangladesh’s 1971 War of Independence. In July 2014, ICNA co-sponsored a pro-Hamas rally outside the Israeli Consulate, in downtown Miami, Florida, where rally goers repeatedly shouted, “We are Hamas,” “Let’s go Hamas,” and “Hamas kicked your ass.” Following the rally, the organizer of the event, Sofian Zakkout, wrote, in Arabic, above photos from the event, “Thank God, every day we conquer the American Jews like our conquests over the Jews of Israel!”
On March 8th, ICNA’s Abdul Rauf Khan posted a video on his Facebook page produced by the OnePath Network, a Muslim outreach (dawah) media outlet based in Sydney, Australia. The video was titled, “Why is it haram [forbidden] to actively be gay?” It discusses the Islamic belief regarding homosexuality, which, if what is represented on the video is taken at face value, is not unlike that stated by other religions.
However, the entity that created the video, OnePath, promotes Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT), a group that has been banned in many nations around the globe for instigating Islamic uprisings. HT Australia’s spiritual head, Ismail al-Wahwah, has called for a “jihad” against Jews and has referred to Jews as “the most evil creatures of Allah.” OnePath has showcased HT Australia events and has interviewed HT Australia leadership. HT has publicly stated that homosexuality should be criminally prosecuted.
In HT’s “A RESPONSE TO THE HUFFINGTON POST ARTICLE, ‘WHY GAY MARRIAGE MAY NOT BE CONTRARY TO ISLAM,’” the group states, “Islam views any form of illegal sexual relationship as a grave sin – and a punishable crime, if proven under an Islamic political authority/judicial system.” Deducing this, ex-HT official Maajid Nawaz stated, “[O]f course we know in fundamentalist interpretations of sharia [Islamic religious law] what the punishment for criminalized homosexuality is.” Death.
Five minutes prior to posting the OnePath video on Facebook, Khan posted a video from another highly controversial source. It was a video clip of former Pink Floyd singer Roger Waters ranting against Israel. The source was the media arm of Hamas, the Palestinian Information Center, which publishes Hamas communiques, gruesome anti-Semitic cartoons, and praise for murders of Israelis.
This was not the only time Khan has posted incendiary material onto social media. Khan has used Facebook to promote videos dedicated to Nation of Islam leader and anti-Jewish bigot Louis Farrakhan as well as Egypt’s banned Muslim Brotherhood. Khan has been photographed wearing Muslim Brotherhood garb, himself. In November 2015, Khan posted a video on his Facebook page glorifying a member of Hezbollah as a “hero.” And in July 2014, he posted a link on Facebook to an anti-Semitic video labeling comedian talk show host Bill Maher, “Zionist Jew Bill Maher.”
Both ICNA and its representative Khan exhibit huge issues of extremism. The organization sponsors events in support of terrorist groups; has helped finance terrorist groups; uses the internet to advertise terrorist groups, and is directly related to a terrorist group. Khan uses social media to promote bigots, anti-Semitism and Muslim radicals.
Because of their activities and associations – especially the bin Laden connection – ICNA and Khan must be viewed as dangers to American society. It is tough to grasp how ICNA and Khan have been allowed to operate on American soil for as long as they have.
It is time to demand change. The time to shut down their insidious operation is long overdue.
Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.
| Troubles of a Two-State Solution
Mar 28th 2018, 04:02, by Joseph Puder
Howard Kohr, AIPAC’s (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) CEO created a bit of an uproar among certain Jewish organizations when he stated at the AIPAC conference earlier this month that, “We must work toward that future: two states for two people. One Jewish with secure and defensible borders, and one Palestinian with its own flag and its own future.” It was a reiteration of last year’s call on the U.S. administration to undertake steps that “Could create a climate that encourages the Palestinians to negotiate in pursuit of the goal we desire: a Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with a demilitarized Palestinian state.”
There is no question that Howard Kohr’s motives are pure and honorable in seeking a secure Israel alongside a peaceful and demilitarized Palestinian state. Unfortunately reality dictates otherwise. At the moment we actually have a need to solve more than a two-state question. We have a third state question and that is the Hamas ruled Gaza Strip. Hamas has vowed to fight until the liberation of all of Palestine and the destruction of Israel. The Los Angeles Times reported (March 1, 2017), “In a shift, the new document (as it relates to the Hamas Covenant-JP), formally endorses the goal of establishing a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, with Jerusalem as its capital, as part of a ‘national consensus’ among Palestinians (this was during the reconciliation process with Fatah and the Palestinian Authority-JP). While that may be a tacit acknowledgment of Israel’s existence, the revision stops well short of recognizing Israel, and reasserts calls for armed resistance toward a ‘complete liberation of Palestine’ from the river to the sea.”
The attempted assassination of the Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah earlier this month in Gaza, put a stop to the reconciliation efforts between Hamas and the PA, which is dominated by Fatah. Fatah spokesperson and Revolutionary Council member, Osama al-Qawasmi said, “Hamas is fully responsible for this cowardly operation that targeted the homeland, reconciliation, and unity. This cowardly act is outside of our values and national relations, and has repercussions.” It is clear that even if PA President Mahmoud Abbas should return to the negotiating table, and that is doubtful, Hamas will continue its campaign of terror against Israel. Hamas is unwilling to give up control of its arms, its rockets, or its mortars, to the PA.
In December, 1998, President Bill Clinton responded to Arafat’s letter. He thanked Arafat for the move in January of the same year, which allegedly struck out and amended the call in the Palestinian Charter for the destruction of Israel, by the raised arms verbal vote of the Palestinian National Council (PNC). The Palestinian Charter specifies in Clause 33 as amended in 1968, that the charter can only be changed if 2/3rds of its membership met to vote on the change. This did not occur. It is abundantly clear that the PA is still committed to the destruction of Israel, albeit, without openly using the extremist verbiage that Hamas is using. The continued incitement to violence and terror by Mahmoud Abbas, and the entire educational and informational apparatus of the PA that advocates hatred for Jews and Israel, negates the idea of a peaceful Palestinian state living side by side with the Jewish state of Israel.
The idea that a future Palestinian state would adhere to being a “demilitarized state” is totally unrealistic, especially if we consider the history and nature of Arab regimes. Louis Rene Beres, Emeritus Professor of International Law, has pointed out that even “If the government of a fully sovereign Palestinian state were in fact willing to consider itself bound by some pre-state agreement to demilitarize, in these improbable circumstances, the new Palestinian Arab government could likely identify ample pretext and opportunity to invoke lawful ‘treaty’ termination.
Palestine could withdraw from any such agreement because of what it would regard as a ‘material breach,’ a purported violation by Israel, one that had allegedly undermined the object or purpose of the accord. It could also point to what international law calls Rebus sic stantibus: ‘permissible abrogation,’ known more popularly as a ‘fundamental change of circumstances.’ If Palestine should declare itself vulnerable to previously unseen dangers, perhaps even from interventionary forces, or the forces of other Arab armies or insurgencies that it could claim might be trying to occupy it, it could lawfully end its previously codified commitment to stay demilitarized.
There is another reason why any hopes for Palestinian demilitarization must remain unsupportable. After declaring independence, a Palestinian government — any Palestinian government – could point to particular pre-independence errors of fact, or to duress, as appropriate grounds for invoking selective agreement termination. In this regard, the grounds that may be invoked under domestic law to invalidate contracts could also apply under international law, whether to actual treaties, or, as in this particular case, to lesser treaty-like agreements.”
Professor Beres pointed out that according to the ‘Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties’ (1969), an authentic treaty must always be between states.” Beres argues that “any treaty or treaty-like compact is void if, at the time of its entry into force it conflicts with a ‘peremptory’ rule of international law — that is, one from which ‘no derogation is permitted.’ As the right of sovereign states to maintain military forces for self-defense is always such a rule, Palestine would be within its lawful right to abrogate any pre-independence agreement that had (impermissibly) compelled its own demilitarization.”
The “2005 Gaza experience,” of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, has taught Israel a painful lesson. Once it vacates land it will ultimately become a base for terror attacks against its cities and citizens. With Israel’s major cities within rifle fire of a Palestinian state, not to mention rockets, life inside Israel would become impossible. Palestinian terror attacks and Israel’s retaliation will serve as an excuse for the future state of Palestine to discard demilitarization. International guarantees, even by its closest allies won’t have any meaning. Israel learned this lesson following the Sinai Campaign of 1956. The Maritime powers guarantees (including the U.S.) didn’t prevent Egypt’s dictator, Abdul Nasser, from closing the Straits of Tiran and the Suez Canal to Israeli navigation. The International community did nothing.
A one-state solution in which Israel would absorb about two-million Palestinians as its citizens is not an ideal solution either. It isn’t so much the demographic threat that it once was, but rather a threat to peace within the country, where two cultures are in conflict. Perhaps the ideal solution is for the Kingdom of Jordan to federate with the West Bank Palestinians. Israel would annex area C under the Oslo Accords, where most of the 500,000 Jews live, and the Jordan River would serve as the international border between Israel and Jordan, which would insure Israel’s security. The Palestinian-Arabs will have a flag (the Jordanian and Palestinian flags are almost identical), a representation in the federated government, possibly a Palestinian Prime Minister (Jordan’s population is already 70% Palestinians), an outlet to the sea (Aqaba if not Gaza) and total religious homogeneity (Sunni-Islam).
Under normal circumstances many Israelis, much like Howard Kohr, would prefer a two-state solution. But the realities in the Middle East indicate that another authoritarian state (and most likely terrorist state) won’t contribute to stability or peace in the region. On the contrary, it would serve as a focal point of conflict. Perhaps in the next few generation things might change, but for now a Palestinian state would be a disaster for Israel and the region.
| The Snitches in Your Kids' Dental Office
Mar 28th 2018, 04:00, by Michelle Malkin
How sharper than a serpent’s tooth to have a despotic pediatric dentist.
Parents who decide, for whatever reason, that they don’t like their children’s oral care provider should be forewarned. Empowered by government “mandatory reporter” laws, dental offices are now using their authority to threaten families with child abuse charges if they don’t comply with the cavity police.
Mom Trey Hoyumpa shared a letter last week on Facebook from a dental office called Smiles 4 Keeps in Bartonsville, Pennsylvania. It informed her that if she did not make a dental appointment for “regular professional cleanings” for her child, she could be charged with “dental neglect.” Citing a law called Pennsylvania Act 31 on child abuse recognition and reporting, the dental office threatened to report the mom to state authorities if she did not schedule an appointment.
Hoyumpa wrote: “Smiles 4 Keeps bullies the parents, controls the care behind closed doors, and turns parents into villains…and I will not stand for it anymore!!!”
On social media, parents who’ve encountered the toxic alliance of snoopy medical providers and child welfare agencies shared their own experiences with government bullies who operate on a presumption of guilt.
Brett Darken wrote: “Anyone familiar with ‘family court,’ DCF, state probate and guardianship courts know well this story. In any other context, it would be considered a threat, coercion and intimidation under RICO laws. But because it’s the government, it’s legal.”
This is a menacing threat to have hanging over customers of dental practices, or any medical providers for that matter: If you leave, you better tell us where you are going or we could report you to government child welfare agencies for suspected abuse.
One Twitter commenter wondered: “Is this fake?”
Unfortunately, it’s all too real, and the dental office is championing an intrusive practice that is likely to spread.
Smiles 4 Keeps replied to parental criticism on Facebook by quoting the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry definition of “dental neglect” as the “willful failure of parent or guardian to seek and follow through with treatment necessary to ensure a level of oral health essential for adequate function and freedom from pain and infection.”
The dental office also defended its intimidation letter to the mom by explaining that physicians and dentists are “mandated reporters” who are “required to report suspected cases of abuse and neglect to social service or law enforcement agencies in order to prevent such tragedy.”
But as investigative reporter Terri LaPoint at MedicalKidnap.com points out, nowhere has Smiles 4 Keeps provided any evidence that Trey Hoyumpa was neglectful or abusive in any way. Moreover, Smiles 4 Keeps insists that parents provide the name of a new dentist if the family chooses to find a new provider. Hoyumpa was just one of 17 recipients of the threatening Smiles 4 Keeps salvos.
Dr. Ross Wezmar of Smiles 4 Keeps actually boasted to local news station WNEP about the snitch letters’ ability “to jar the parent to realize that with a child comes responsibility.” Benevolent Dr. Marcus Welby he is not. Wezmar claimed his bully notes are the first in the nation to be dispatched. With the encroachment of socialized medicine in America, they certainly won’t be the last.
Think it can’t happen to you? Last year, in Ontario, Canada, mom Melissa Lopez wanted a second opinion on getting fillings for her daughter and decided to change providers. The jilted dentist, as Lenore Skenazy reported on Reason.com, called Child Protective Services to report possible “oral neglect.” The case was dismissed, but CPS refuses to remove Lopez’s file from its books — it is part of a permanent record that keeps a permanent cloud of suspicion over her.
Skenazy drills down to the core: “The issue here is how easy it is to drag a family into an abuse investigation, and how hard it is for the family, like an impacted molar, to get itself extracted.”
Indeed, the partnership between medical providers and government child welfare services has threatened innocent families across the country under the guise of “protecting the children.” It is a short hop from cavity-shaming and misdiagnoses to ripping families apart.
Don’t forget the case of Justina Pelletier, savagely torn from her family by Boston Children’s Hospital after the prestigious medical institution wrongly accused her parents of causing her chronic illness. BCH locked Justina in a mental ward until her sister published an undercover video of Justina pleading to be reunited with her family. Public outrage forced her release and now the Pelletiers are suing BCH.
Big Nanny monitors hostile to family privacy and autonomy are everywhere — in your kids’ classrooms, cafeterias, and doctors’ and dentists’ offices. Eternal vigilance against government intrusion is the price of parenthood.
| Millionaire Poverty Pimps Fight 'Income Inequality'
Mar 27th 2018, 04:10, 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.
Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore and Elizabeth Warren, three lefty millionaires, got together to solve “income inequality” in a town hall broadcast live from the Capitol visitors center.
Washington D.C., where two out of the three parasites do business, has the worst income inequality in the country. The bottom fifth of Washington D.C. account for just 2% of the city’s income. It has one of the highest poverty rates in the country and the highest food stamp use. And under Obama, the Imperial City of the politicians and the poor was surrounded by some of the wealthiest districts in the country.
“Income Inequality in America: The Rise of Oligarchy and Collapse of the Middle Class,” the Sanders, Warren and Moore town hall, comes to progs from the most unequal and oligarchic city in America
If Bernie, Liz and Michael really want to see income inequality, they can take a walk away from the marble and glass edifices of big government to see what big government had wrought. It isn’t any of their usual villains, the corporations and banks, who made Washington D.C. so miserable.
It’s the triumph of socialism.
Washington D.C. and its bedroom communities are what the entire country would look like if the left got its way. A socialist apartheid state divided between the business of government and the poor.
But the three socialist stooges aren’t just in the business of politics. They’re millionaire poverty pimps.
Bernie Sanders made over $1 million pushing conspiracy theories about income inequality. Denouncing big business let him rent a private Delta 767 with a menu of herb crusted lamb loin, chocolate ganache and fine cheeses. The Sanders clan is up to 3 homes now and Bernie is using his clout to get two of his kids elected to political offices. Who better to lecture us on the “Rise of Oligarchy” than an oligarch?
Bernie made it from living on unemployment to the 1 percent using the government. But there’s only room for so many senators who can run for president in Washington D.C. That’s one government program you can’t replicate for everyone living in D.C. slums on government money.
Elizabeth Warren is there to show Bernie what a truly ambitious socialist poverty pimp can do.
Lizzie owns a $740K condo in D.C. a far more expensive Victorian home in Cambridge and has a net worth of over $15 million. She picked up a $625K advance for A Fighting Chance, a book attacking corporations, paid to her by a corporation. Her follow-up, This Fight is Out Right, earned her only a $200K advance last year.
Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color” also made $350,000 for teaching one class.
But there’s only so much room for a fake Cherokee asbestos lawyer slash consumer advocate who likes to tell other people they didn’t accomplish anything before going back to one of her luxurious homes.
Like Bernie, Lizzie is just fighting for the “little guy”. Here’s what that looks like.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, her own government agency, operates from a luxurious building that cost more per square foot than the Trump World Tower or the Bellagio in Vegas.
If only there were some sort of agency to protect taxpayers from the CFPB and Elizabeth Warren.
And then there’s Michael Moore.
Moore has his own fake working class story and he rode his fake anti-capitalist documentaries to a fortune in cash, much of it through alleged serial rapist Harvey Weinstein. At one point, Moore owned 9 homes. That’s more homes than Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren combined. The pudgy leftist got famous pushing gun control, but has been known to go places with nine bodyguards.
The town hall paid tribute to unions. Michael Moore busted them.
Two of his writers were warned that if they operated under union rules, one of them would be fired. And so they had to keep working without health benefits instead.
Michael Moore and Bernie Sanders inveigh against employers. But they were terrible bosses.
Bernie, the friend of the working man, was known to his staff as “abusive”, a “screamer and a table-banger.” His campaign had its own #MeToo chapter with an accused sexual harasser being covered for by the Bernie campaign. “I remember feeling physically unsafe,” his California outreach director said.
It’s hard to think of three worse choices to discuss income inequality and oligarchy than three millionaires with more than a dozen homes between them who treat their employees like garbage.
But Sanders, Warren and Moore aren’t just random rich people. They’re poverty pimps who got rich by pretending that they had something to say about the plight of working class people in America.
Washington D.C. is full of poverty pimps. They come in all shapes, sizes and colors. But the one thing that they have in common is that they get rich by keeping the poor where they are. Their only solution is to turn the working class into the welfare class where they can be milked for book deals and documentaries. And office buildings that cost more per square foot than a luxurious Vegas casino.
Much like Washington D.C., Sanders, Warren and Moore have something to tell us about income inequality and whose fault it really is.
“How do we create an economy that works for everybody?” Bernie asked.
Bernie’s answer is to turn the rest of the country into Washington D.C. with lots of government money for those on top and government subsidies for those on the bottom. There’s not much of a middle class in Washington D.C. and the Imperial City had one of the biggest middle class declines in the country.
It’s odd that Bernie and Lizzie don’t have much to say about that. But what can they say?
Take away everything except the government and its satellite industries, contractors, lobbyists, experts, non-profits and academics, and you end up with the apartheid urban template that is Washington D.C.
Moore, Warren and Sanders talk about a middle class because they know that’s where much of their audience comes from. But they ideologically loathe it. In their ideal world, there’s no middle class. None of the consumers who, as Bernie famously decried, want a “choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants.” And none of the small businessmen who, as Warren even more famously complained, think they built it.
The middle class is naturally conservative. It’s aspirational. It seeks security, not revolution. And what leftists are really peddling is a revolution that will leave them even more on top than they already are.
If you want to see income inequality in America, don’t tune in to watch three leftist millionaires put on their outrage show, look at their homes, and look at where that power and money comes from.
It doesn’t come from hard work.
It’s hard to point to anything that Bernie ever accomplished. Like Moore and Warren, he got very rich because of his politics. Income inequality made these three poverty pimps into millionaires.
They’re very rich because they’re members of the right party with the right views.
Washington D.C. and the big blue cities where income inequality is at its worst are full of those like them. Venezuela, the Soviet Union and North Korea don’t always happen overnight. The middle class is slowly hollowed out by a growing nomenklatura whose only expertise is in wealth redistribution.
And that’s how you end up with millionaire poverty pimps and no middle class.
| Minnquisition Part Deux
Mar 27th 2018, 04:09, by Lloyd Billingsley
[Read Part 1: CLICK HERE. To learn more about the Freedom Center’s fight against K-12 indoctrination, visit StopK12Indoctrination.org.]
In the Edina, Minnesota, public schools, leftist educrats have been indoctrinating eighth-grade students in racist “white privilege” dogma under the guise of a 21st century “literacy” class. As parents discovered, this class turned out far more illiterate and oppressive than they originally feared.
“They were discussing in class how Disney movies are both sexist and racist,” one parent noted on social media. “One whole class period was spent on how they were sexist, and another entire class period was spent on how they were racist.”
One student argued that argue that Beauty and the Beast character Belle read books and was not interested in a man or husband. The teacher countered that when Belle trades herself for her father as the prisoner of the Beast, she was suffering from “Stockholm Syndrome,” which may have left the 13-year-olds puzzled.
In 1973, thieves took four hostages from the Sveriges Kreditbank and held them for six days. One hostage told Swedish prime minister Olaf Palme she trusted her captors but feared that she would die in a police raid. The syndrome was also on display when newspaper heiress Patricia Hurst developed a bond with her Symbionese Liberation Army captors and helped them rob a bank.
This syndrome has nothing to do with Beauty and the Beast but the leftist Edina indoctrinators see the oppression of women everywhere. As one parent lamented, “it makes my stomach churn thinking about that class,” which also taught kids that Disney’s The Little Mermaid was sexist because Prince Eric fell in love with Ariel even though she didn’t have a voice.
The indoctrinators also forced the kids to watch Mickey Mouse Monopoly: Disney, Childhood and Corporate Power, which purports to expose how Disney disguises “race, gender and class” as innocence and fun. The film was written by Chyng Sun, a “Clinical Professor of Media Studies at NYU School of Professional Studies,” who has taught “race/ethnicity, gender, and sexuality issues.” Dr. Chyng’s Mickey Mouse Monopoly and Latinos Beyond Reel “are widely used by educators and trainers working in diversity and inclusion issues,” as Edina parents discovered. They should know that the targeting of Disney is hardly accidently.
On many campuses, it is now forbidden to say “America is a land of opportunity,” and Walt Disney confirms that it is. The genial midwesterner achieved great success making the kind of movies people wanted to see. In 1937, Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs grossed $8 million, a staggering amount for the time.
Walt Disney was also a staunch American patriot who during World War II made films for every branch of the U.S. military. Even so, American Communists did not like Disney.
The Communist Party’s People’s Daily World charged that Disney’s 1946 Song of the South “casts a golden glow over southern slave days” and “furthers the evil Jim Crow in a forum calculated to appeal to most moviegoers.” The film’s writer, Maurice Rapf, was a Communist who blamed Trotsky for wrecking the Party and maintained allegiance to Stalin long after his mass atrocities were exposed.
In 1947, Disney further enraged the Communists by testifying to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. “A Communist group was trying to take over my artists and did take them over,” Disney said. And all over the world, “Commie groups began smear campaigns against me and my pictures.” Mickey Mouse Monopoly is part of that legacy, but the Edina indoctrinators surpassed the default demonology.
One teacher told students that Legos are a sexist toy, because they are now available in pink and purple. Teachers also criticized students who said there were only two genders, ironic because all re-tooling and tuck-and-roll jobs are literally constructs. The Edina indoctrinators, on the other hand, believe the male and female genders are constructs of oppressive patriarchal-capitalist-racist society.
“There is no hope that this will change anytime soon,” one Edina parent lamented on social media. Another agreed that “it’s embedded into the entire school system and infiltrated into every class.” Therefore, “legal action is the only hope for change,” and that parent has a case on several fronts.
If targeting vulnerable 13-year-olds with racist ideology is not child abuse, it’s hard to imagine what might be. Depriving students of their right to free speech could also spur legal action, and the Minnquisition could qualify as educational malpractice. That is the larger issue in play.
Edina indoctrinators did not screen Disney’s 1982 Night Crossing, the true story of the Strelzyk family’s escape from East Germany in a hot-air balloon. Government monopoly education is a domestic East Germany, a collective farm of ignorance, mediocrity and failure.
In Edina and across the country this oppressive monopoly indoctrinates captive students with leftist junkthought and intimidates their parents. State and national leaders have no moral, legal, or educational justification for allowing this system to continue.
The Trump administration should work for full parental choice in K-12 education as a matter of basic civil rights. That would be change all parents and students could believe in, and it would help make America greater than ever.
| Woman Who Crashed Car into Broward Sheriff’s Office Frequented Radical Pompano Mosque
Mar 27th 2018, 04:05, by Joe Kaufman
What would cause 34-year-old mother Lasandra Johnson to attempt to turn her red Toyota Camry into a car bomb targeting local law enforcement? She had been in trouble with the law before. Was this a way to get back at authority? Or was it related to her newfound association with a radical mosque? Given the Islamic Center of South Florida’s ties to extremism, the latter is a very likely scenario.
Shortly before 11:30 am, on Monday, March 21st, Lasandra Lavette Johnson drove a red Toyota Camry loaded with accelerants and a full tank of gas into the Pembroke Pines, Florida district substation of the Broward Sheriff’s Office (BSO). Following impact, a fire erupted from the car. According to a worker on the scene, Johnson was “engulfed in flames.” Johnson was hospitalized with burn wounds and later charged with “arson and burglary.” News reports about the attack did not mention the fact that Johnson was a devout Muslim, thus omitting a potentially crucial aspect of the story.
In May 2017, as evidenced on her social media, Johnson had gone through a major transformation. She went from being a committed Christian, posting images of Jesus on the cross, and professing her wholehearted belief in him, to being a fundamentalist Muslim, wearing the hijab (head covering), and attending mosque. Finding religion for Johnson seemed to be a way to escape from her former life of partying and drugs. Indeed, Johnson had been arrested, in May 2012, for cocaine possession, followed by a probation violation, in November 2012.
The mosque that she chose to attend was the Islamic Center of South Florida (ICOSF), based in Pompano Beach, Florida. Not surprisingly, that mosque has significant links to terror and bigotry.
Up until the beginning of 2015, ICOSF’s Pompano address was 507 NE 6th Street. The address was, at the time, and is presently owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), a group that the US Justice Department named an (unindicted) co-conspirator in the financing of millions of dollars to Hamas.
The imam of ICOSF is Hasan Sabri. Previously, Sabri taught a weekly class on Tafsir (exegesis of the Quran) at the Islamic Center of Boca Raton (ICBR), a mosque whose founders include Syed Khawer Ahmad, a web designer for Hamas, and Bassem Alhalabi, who in June 2003, was charged by the US Commerce Department with illegally shipping a $13,000 military-grade thermal imaging device to Syria. ICBR’s founding imam, Ibrahim Dremali, who made an appearance at ICOSF in August 2017, has spent time on the federal no-fly list. While Sabri was with ICBR, ICBR promoted an article on its website, titled “Why can’t the Jews and Muslims live together in peace?” which labeled Jews “people of treachery and betrayal” and “enemies.”
The ICOSF website promotes lectures and khutbas (sermons) made by Sabri. In one sermon he gave in 2000, Sabri denounced America as an enemy and threatened Muslims who accept her assistance. He stated, “Allah tells us, in the Quran, that the kuffar [unbeliever] will continue to fight Muslims… until Islam will cease to be and until Muslims are either liquidated or they have joined the Christian or the Jewish faith… [I]t is imperative upon us as Muslims belonging to the Ummah of Islam to understand exactly what’s happening to our brothers… so that we will know what the enemies of Islam are planning, and so that we will plan ourselves… [The US] is calling its people and its army and its nation to rush to the help of Muslims, but in reality… they want to mobilize Muslims and to use the vigor and the vim that Muslims can generate – to use their money and to use their souls and to use their lives – so that they will further [America’s] plans in that part of the world… [D]o not rely on the kuffar, because if you do so, you will suffer.”
ICOSF actively partners with the Muslim American Society (MAS) for a number of functions at the mosque, including activities directed at Muslim youth. MAS has, in the past, used the internet to propagate material praising Hamas and calling for the murder of Jews and violence against the West. The National Executive Director of MAS, Mazen Mokhtar, was a US-based administrator for qoqaz.net (‘Jihad in Chechnya’), an al-Qaeda recruitment and financing site, and has been quoted as calling Hamas operations “heroic” and suicide bombings “an effective method of attacking the enemy and continuing jihad.”
In January 2018, ICOSF hosted an event featuring the imam of Masjid Jamaat Al-Mumineen (MJAM), Izhar Khan. In May 2011, Khan was arrested and spent the next 20 months in a federal detention center in Miami on charges of terrorism. According to the indictment against him, “Izhar is a Pakistani Taliban sympathizer who worked with [his father Hafiz Khan] and others to collect and deliver money for the Pakistani Taliban… Izhar… provided and attempted to provide material support and resources… knowing and intending that they be used in preparation for and in carrying out… a conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim persons in a foreign country.”
Rasheed Ali Mahamad performs conversions to Islam and helps officiate funerals for ICOSF. He is also involved in a monthly health screening that takes place at the mosque. Mahamad may very well have performed Lasandra Johnson’s conversion. If so, it speaks volumes, given Johnson’s action at the Sheriff’s office.
Apart from his association with ICOSF, Mahamad is the Vice President of the American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA). AMANA is the brainchild of anti-Semite and Hamas supporter Sofian Zakkout. Zakkout regularly refers to Jews as “monkeys and pigs.” In February 2016, he circulated on social media a report claiming “the Holocaust was faked.” In July 2014, Zakkout organized a pro-Hamas rally in downtown Miami, where rally goers repeatedly shouted, “We are Hamas” and “Let’s go Hamas.” After the rally, Zakkout wrote, above photos from the event, “Thank God, every day we conquer the American Jews like our conquests over the Jews of Israel!” In July 2010, AMANA was condemned by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
It is ironic, given Johnson’s attack on the Broward Sheriff’s Office, that both Mahamad and Zakkout have been photographed together with Broward Sheriff Scott Israel. What is not ironic, though, is the fact that Johnson took this action, after being involved with ICOSF.
ISIS has repeatedly called upon Muslims to use their cars as weapons against non-Muslims (“Run over them without mercy”) and to commit attacks on law enforcement (“Strike their police.”) The assault on the BSO was not unlike those that have taken place in Iraq and Afghanistan targeting Americans and others.
This would not be the first time a non-Muslim convert to Islam had turned to terrorism. “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla, a former gang member who was converted at a similar South Florida mosque, is but one of many examples.
Johnson’s sudden transformation from ardent Christian to fanatical Muslim did not occur in a vacuum. Johnson’s connection to ICOSF must be thoroughly investigated. Members and leaders of ICOSF need to be made prime suspects in the preparation and the carrying out of this crime, and anyone who was involved in Johnson’s conversion must be viewed as an accomplice.
If indeed the mosque is found to be implicated in this offense, it should be shuttered immediately.
Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.
| Educating America’s Adversaries
Mar 27th 2018, 04:04, by Michael Cutler
By imposing tariffs on certain Chinese imports, President Trump has followed through on a significant campaign promise to address his entirely understandable concerns about Chinese unscrupulous trade practices and in that nation’s theft of U.S. intellectual property, otherwise known as espionage.
China ceaselessly and belligerently hacks U.S. computers, including corporate computers and government computers. China constructed an artificial island in the South China Sea and has threatened military action if our vessels approach too closely.
Even as China rattles its sabers at the United States, it is arguably building up its military forces faster than any other country on earth and, unbelievably, with the assistance of none other than the United States.
As we shall shortly see, those sabers being rattled by the Chines government could likely not have been constructed without the unintended assistance of the United States.
In point of fact, you could say that where China is concerned, the United States has, all too often, acted irrationally against its own best interests in dealing with that totalitarian communist regime and continues to do so.
China’s actions and threats are certainly not befitting a nation that has been granted Most Favored Nation trade status. China is not acting as a trading partner or ally but rather as an adversary.
China was granted Most Favored Nation trade status (MFN) by President George H.W. Bush and then, reneging on a campaign promise, President Clinton continued that practice purportedly because he felt that isolating China would not help to get them to end human rights violations.
A bit of background on this issue is provided by a news report posted by MIT on its online newspaper, The Tech in 1994 is worth reviewing, It even includes a rebuke by Rep. Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress, back then, who opposed Clinton’s decision to impose minor trade restrictions instead of revoking MFN because of China’s abysmal human rights violations.
With all of the emphasis on tariffs and the possibility of an ensuing trade war with China, another important issue has utterly escaped mention by the media and apparently the attention of the Trump administration, the fact that the United States is educating huge numbers of Chinese students in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) disciplines.
This is hardly a new problem. This self-inflicted wound is one I have addressed in an earlier article, Foreign Student Visas: Educating America’s Adversaries.
According to the June 2017 report issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), at 152,002 the number of such Chinese students in the United States is second only to the 173,258 STEM students from India who are being similarly trained in the United States.
That same report noted that Saudi Arabia has 25,125 students enrolled in STEM courses of study while South Korea has 16,474 STEM students who are being educated in the U.S.
I noted in a previous article, we are Eduating ‘Engineers Of Jihad’ At US Univiersities.
On March 7, 2018 Foreign Policy Magazine published a disturbing report, China’s Long Arm Reaches Into American Campuses: Beijing is stepping up efforts to inject party ideology into student life. Some Chinese students are crying foul.
Through its embassies and consulates in the United States, the Chinese government has increasingly sought to instill Chinese patriotism among it students in the U.S. and even influence school officials to promote Chinese interests on college campuses and hence, across the United States altogether.
Indeed, we must not ignore the possibility that some of the totalitarian tactics of Antifa and other activist groups on American college campuses are inspired, aided and/or abetted by outside forces that include Chinese efforts to inject their communist and totalitarian ideology onto American campuses.
We must also consider other problems created by so many foreign students- particularly Chinese students enrolled in STEM curricula on U.S. campuses.
Foreign students who enroll in courses in the United States become eligible for Optional Practical Training, enables them to put their newly acquired education and skills to work in a real-world setting but also carries with it two serious problems.
First of all, these foreign students often replace high-tech American workers.
This is certainly not good news for those hard-working and highly experienced and skilled American middle class workers who face wage suppression or lose their jobs outright.
Wages of foreign workers, unlike the wages earned by American workers don’t contribute to the U.S. economy. Generally foreign workers send as much of their their earnings as possible back to their home countries.
Second, foreign student workers are potentially provided with opportunities to engage in intellectual property theft also known as industrial espionage.
Industrial espionage, when uncovered, generally is not punished nearly as severely as espionage committed against our government or military. Industrial espionage is often seen as a “white collar crime” and permits military technology to be stolen, without dire consequences for the spy, if the theft is carried out before the technology has been designated as pertaining to the military.
China is currently moving rapidly to crank out the most sophisticated military hardware of any nation including a fleet of nuclear submarines and highly sophisticated fighter planes.
Let us also not lose sight that China is a communist country and its president was recently provided with the option of being China’s “President for Life.”
Currently China does not have any apparent enemy nations from which it needs to defend itself, therefore why would China be so determined to become a major military power? Perhaps not as a means of defense but, offense.
Consider in that context, these recent headlines from Popular Mechanics about China’s nuclear navy:
China is building the world’s largest nuclear submarine facility
China’s new ballistic missile submarine could change its prospects in nuclear war
Chinese Navy Stars in Latest U.S. Intelligence Report
Consider also these recent Popular Science headlines about China’s stealth fighter planes:
Chinese Air-To-Air Missile Hits Targets, Spooks USAF General
China Is Building The World’s Second Stealth Air Force
The November 1, 2016 CNN news report, China to show off new J-20 stealth fighter, included this excerpt:
Once reliant on imports and reverse engineering of Russian combat aircraft and associated technologies in the early 1990s, the PLAAF has more recently transitioned to a phase where indigenously developed systems are entering service at an extraordinary rate.
Opinion: China’s military in bid for superpower status
The country’s growing air power potential has been underpinned by an ever more capable domestic aerospace industry that is gradually moving China towards self-sufficiency in terms of military aircraft research and development and production.
While it is difficult to quantify, it must be presumed that China’s “ever more capable domestic aerospace industry” consists of engineers and other such professionals who were trained in the United States.
On May 5, 2014 The New Yorker published an important and insightful report, A New Kind of Spy – How China obtains American technological secrets. This report focused on the espionage committed against the United States by a naturalized United States citizen, Greg Chung, who ultimately worked on the U.S. Space Shuttle program as an employee of the Rockwell Corporation and then Boeing, when it acquired Rockwell.
Here is an important excerpt about how Chinese loyalists can be effectively used to spy on the United States by a strategy known as a thousand grains of sand:
When possible, these (Chinese) companies acquired new products by collaborating with Western firms, by purchasing the intellectual property they wanted, or through reverse engineering. When none of those methods was possible, the government resorted to espionage. The Ministry of State Security and the military intelligence service trained spies and sent them to the U.S. and Europe. They also recruited Chinese-born scientists, engineers, and other professionals who happened to be living abroad, especially those with security clearances or access to trade secrets.
Sometimes these scientists were asked to procure specific information, but often the government employed a “thousand grains of sand” approach: they waited for disparate details to accumulate, more or less at random, until a picture emerged.
Wikipedia has posted a List of Chinese spy cases in the United States.
With all of the rancorous debates about immigration, our leaders on all levels of government have lost sight of what should be obvious- our borders and our immigration laws are vital for national security and public safety.
America’s adversaries, whether they are members of transnational gangs, international terrorist organizations or spies and saboteurs operating at the behest of their foreign governments first need to enter the United States and then, in the parlance of the 9/11 Commission, embed themselves in communities across the United States to enable them to carry out their nefarious and often deadly goals.
Chinese STEM students are being welcomed with open arms into America and onto American college campuses with little thought apparently being given to the long-term consequences of our generosity or, perhaps, stupidity, for the long-term best interests of our nation, including its very survival, are concerned.
| Surviving Boko Haram
Mar 27th 2018, 04:02, by Jack Kerwick
Unsurprisingly, Michelle Obama’s “hashtag” campaign from four years back failed abysmally to prevail upon the violent jihadist group Boko Haram to return the hundreds of Nigerian school girls who it abducted.
And while the American media gave audiences the impression that this attack by militant Muslims against young Christian girls was a one-off, the truth is that Boko Haram has been conducting a reign of terror upon Nigeria’s Christian inhabitants for years. When men are included, the total number of victims of Boko Haram is estimated to be at 20,000.
Some, like 17 year-old Esther, have managed to return home.
On a day that started like any other in October of 2015, Esther’s life would forever change. Esther’s mother had already passed away. She lived with her sick father, for whom she cared when she wasn’t in school. But the day that Boko Haram besieged her town would be the last day that she would ever see him alive.
Esther and her father heard the first gunshots. They tried to escape, but the terrorists already had their home surrounded. Open Doors shares what happened next:
“The rebel militants struck down her [Esther’s] father and left him in a heap on the ground. Esther became a Boko Haram captive. As rebel fighters carried off her and several other young women in their town to their hideout in the Sambisa Forest (where Boko Haram drove thousands of those they kidnapped), she continued to look back, her eyes fixed on her father.”
To this day, two-and-a-half years later, Esther still doesn’t know for sure whether her father is alive or dead. Yet she suspects the latter.
For the next year, Esther endured a nightmare that few people can imagine. Deep in the Sambisa Forest, Boko Haram corralled their female victims, to whom they initially promised privileges in exchange for renunciation of the girls’ Christian faith. When this tactic didn’t work, the terrorist thugs resorted to brute violence.
Esther says that several of the girls could no longer resist. However, she continued to do so. Esther tells Open Doors that she told herself: “If I perish, I perish. But I will not become a Muslim.”
Though Esther is to be commended for her courage and faith, she paid a price for her resistance. Through tears, she recalls:
“I cannot recall how many men raped me.”
Esther states that every time the men returned from an attack, they would take turns raping their captors. She adds that they would “defile us [.]”
Regaining her composure, Esther continues, relaying how with each “passing day, I hated myself more and more.” She “felt that God had forsaken me,” and “was so angry with Him [.]” Nevertheless, “I could not get myself to renounce Him” and “found myself remembering His promise to never leave or forsake me.”
During her year at the mercies of her tormentors, Esther conceived a child. Given that she was raped by countless men, she remains oblivious to the identity of her child’s father. Esther recalls her immediate thought upon learning that she was pregnant: “I had no idea how on Earth I would ever be able to love this child.”
In November of 2016, the Nigerian military liberated Esther and her fellow prisoners. Yet upon returning to their communities, where they had hoped to have found support, the girls encountered cruelty of another kind.
The residents of their villages ostracized and shamed them.
Esther and the other victims were ridiculed by their own people as “Boko Haram women.”
Salamatu Umar was only 15 when she was captured by Boko Haram in 2015. She was forced into marriage with one of her captors. Pregnant, she escaped while out collecting firewood for cooking. But when she returned home, her ordeal endured. As she told NPR: “People call me ‘Boko Haram wife’ to my face. They say I am the wife of a killer—so how can I be afraid of Boko Haram? They say my son is a Boko Haram baby.”
In 2016, UNICEF released a report on this phenomenon:
“Women and girls who have been subjected to sexual violence have been returning to their communities…Some are returning with their children who were born as a result of sexual violence. As they return, many face marginalization, discrimination and rejection by family and community members due to social and cultural norms to sexual violence.”
Supposedly, there is fear that the girls had been indoctrinated and radicalized by their Islamic captors, as well as fear that the offspring of these rapists will grow up to become like their fathers.
According to Esther, her fellow villagers “mocked me because I was pregnant.” And it wasn’t just the members of her community, but her own family who ridiculed and alienated her. “Even my grandparents despised me and called me names.”
Sobbing, she tells Open Doors: “I felt so lonely.”
Yet Esther was further pained by the way in which her daughter Rebecca was treated. “What broke my heart even more was that they refused to call my daughter Rebecca. They referred to her only as ‘Boko.’”
Esther eventually attended an Open Doors trauma care seminar. The caregiver had Esther and the other attendees who had been victimized by Boko Haram write their burdens on a piece of paper that they were then instructed to pin to a hand-carved wooden cross. “When I pinned that piece of paper to the cross, it felt like I was handing over all of my sorrow to God,” Esther recalls. “When the trainer later removed all the pieces of paper from the cross and burnt them to ashes, I felt like my sorrow and shame disappeared, never to come back again.”
Esther continues to seek trauma counseling. Today she and her daughter live with her grandparents and life has become more tolerable. She claims to have forgiven her enemies and expresses confidence that God will exact vengeance against her tormentors on His own terms.
Neither Michelle Obama nor anyone else associated with the so-called #MeToo movement in the West has uttered a syllable regarding the countless Esthers of the world, young women who have endured, not sexual harassment, but sexual brutality and its aftermath the likes of which are unimaginable to those of us who have the luxury and privilege of living in the United States of 2018.
Esther won’t be asked to speak at the Oscars or the Emmys. Nor will she be invited to speak at an American or Western university.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why.
Esther is a black African Christian and her persecutors are black African Muslims.
From the vantage of Western leftists, there’s nothing to see here.
| How Ignorant We Are
Mar 27th 2018, 04:00, by Walter Williams
Here’s a question for you: In 1950, would it have been possible for anyone to know all of the goods and services that we would have at our disposal 50 years later? For example, who would have thought that we’d have cellphones, Bluetooth technology, small powerful computers, LASIK and airplanes with 525-passenger seating capacity? This list could be extended to include thousands of goods and services that could not have been thought of in 1950. In the face of this gross human ignorance, who should be in control of precursor goods and services? Seeing as it’s impossible for anyone to predict the future, any kind of governmental regulation should be extremely light-handed, so as not to sabotage technological advancement.
Compounding our ignorance is the fact that much of what we think we know is not true. Scientometrics is the study of measuring and analyzing science, technology and innovation. It holds that many of the “facts” you know have a half-life of about 50 years. Let’s look at a few examples.
You probably learned that Pluto is a planet. But since August 2006, Pluto has been considered a dwarf planet. It’s just another object in the Kuiper belt.
Because dinosaurs were seen as members of the class Reptilia, they were thought to be coldblooded. But recent research suggests that dinosaurs were fast-metabolizing endotherms whose activities were unconstrained by temperature.
Years ago, experts argued that increased K-12 spending and lower pupil-teacher ratios would boost students’ academic performance. It turned out that some of the worst academic performance has been at schools spending the most money and having the smallest class sizes. Washington, D.C., spends more than $29,000 per student every year, and the teacher-student ratio is 1-to-13; however, its students are among the nation’s poorest-performing pupils.
At one time, astronomers considered the size limit for a star to be 150 times the mass of our sun. But recently, a star (R136a1) was discovered that is 265 times the mass of our sun and had a birth weight that was 320 times that of our sun.
If you graduated from medical school in 1950, about half of what you learned is either wrong or outdated. For an interesting story on all this, check out Reason magazine (tinyurl.com/ydalh37g).
Ignorance can be devastating. Say that you recently purchased a house. Was it the best deal you could have gotten? Was there some other house within your budget that would have needed fewer extensive repairs 10 years later and had more likable neighbors and a better and safer environment for your children? What about the person you married? Was there another person available to you who would have made for a more pleasing and compatible spouse? Though these are important questions, the most intelligent answer you can give to all of them is: “I don’t know.” If you don’t know, who should be in charge of making those decisions? Would you delegate the responsibility to Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Donald Trump, Ben Carson or some other national or state official?
You might say, “Stop it, Williams! Congressmen and other public officials are not making such monumental decisions affecting my life.” Try this. Suppose you are a 22-year-old healthy person. Rather than be forced to spend $3,000 a year for health insurance and have $7,000 deducted from your salary for Social Security, you’d prefer investing that money to buy equipment to start a landscaping business. Which would be the best use of the $10,000 you earned — purchasing health insurance and paying into Social Security or starting up a landscaping business? More importantly, who would be better able to make that decision — you or members of the United States Congress?
The bottom line is that ignorance is omnipresent. The worst kind of ignorance is not knowing just how ignorant we are. That leads to the devastating pretense of knowledge that’s part and parcel of the vision of intellectual elites and politicians.
| The Bolton Warning
Mar 26th 2018, 04:30, by Joseph Klein
As had been predicted for some time, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster is leaving his post as President Trump’s national security adviser. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton will replace General McMaster, effective as of April 9th.
Like President Trump himself, John Bolton is an iconoclast. He will bring a no-holds-barred attitude to his White House position as the president’s new national security adviser, taking on dictators, appeasers, globalists and bureaucrats alike.
Mr. Bolton indicated during an interview following the announcement of his appointment that, while he will not hold back from offering his candid opinions for the president’s consideration, he will also make sure that the president is presented with multiple viewpoints in helping him make key national security decisions. Moreover, he vowed to support whatever the president finally decides to do. Known as an infighter over the years against the foreign policy establishment bureaucracies, Mr. Bolton also said that part of his job will be “making sure the bureaucracies get the decision and implement it.” As reported by Foreign Policy, we can expect a “massive shake-up at the National Security Council, aiming to remove dozens of current White House officials, starting with holdovers from President Barack Obama’s administration.”
John Bolton shares the president’s America First instincts on such key foreign policy issues as North Korea, the Iranian nuclear deal, and entangling globalist institutions. Mr. Bolton will join C.I.A. Director Mike Pompeo, President Trump’s choice to succeed Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, in advocating a more assertive approach to national security. No wonder the left is so apoplectic with rage at the Bolton appointment.
The New York Times editorialized on March 24th, for example, that Mr. Bolton is a “dangerous” pick, “as alarming as any Mr. Trump has made.” The Times added that there are “few people who are more likely to lead the country into war, in more than one place.” The editorial cited a February 28th op-ed article that Mr. Bolton wrote for the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First.” In his article, Mr. Bolton presented a legal justification – not a policy recommendation – for a preemptive strike against North Korea to counter an “imminent threat” of a North Korean attack on the U.S. homeland with deliverable nuclear weapons. John Bolton is a realist, who with good reason does not trust the word of unstable dictators such as Kim Jong-un. However, he is not going out of his way to look for war. As he told Hugh Hewitt during an interview back in 2007: “Nobody should want a war on the Korean Peninsula.”
The New York Times also objected that John Bolton has “maligned the United Nations and other multilateral conventions, as Mr. Trump has done, favoring unilateral solutions.” Mr. Bolton is certainly no fan of those he called the “Globalists” (as opposed to the “Americanists” such as himself) in an essay entitled “Should We Take Global Governance Seriously?” published in 2000 by the Chicago Journal of International Law. Mr. Bolton noted quite correctly that global governance would impose “costs to the United States — reduced constitutional autonomy, impaired popular sovereignty, reduction of our international power, and limitations on our domestic and foreign policy options and solutions.”
Standing up first and foremost for America’s interests is a welcome change from decades of acquiescence to whatever other countries think, no matter what the cost. I was honored when Mr. Bolton’s office accepted a copy of my book Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom, while he was serving as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under former President George W. Bush. I started out my book noting Mr. Bolton’s remark, back in 1994, that nobody would notice the difference if we lost ten stories off the top of the United Nations headquarters building in New York. During his tenure as UN ambassador and ever since, John Bolton did not let up on his criticism of the globalist shrine adorning the East River of Manhattan and its far-reaching tentacles.
While serving as UN ambassador, for example, Mr. Bolton remarked to the Telegraph that the UN “is like a twilight zone. Things that happen here don’t reflect the reality in the rest of the world.”
In 2015, Mr. Bolton wrote an opinion column for the Boston Globe in which he said the UN is characterized “by speeches, meetings, reports, resolutions, and endless ways to spend money.” He added that “the UN’s political decision-making entities — the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the various ‘human-rights’ organizations — have largely been failures.” Mr. Bolton suggested that all U.S. financial support to the UN should be treated as voluntary rather than as mandatory assessments.
President Trump and his ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, share John Bolton’s critique of this mammoth out-of-control bureaucracy and the globalist ideology that underpins it. “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism,” Mr. Trump said as a candidate in the spring of 2016. “The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down.”
Former President Barack Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with the Iranian regime (known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA for short) was the perfect example of how America’s national interests were sacrificed to “the false song of globalism.” As a candidate and as president, Mr. Trump has criticized the deal’s fundamental flaws and indicated a desire to exit the deal altogether if it could not be fixed. Likewise, John Bolton, writing and speaking as a private citizen, has been an implacable foe of the deal from the outset.
Commenting on Obama’s pursuit of the deal back in 2015, Mr. Bolton said that “President Obama is engaging in what I believe is the greatest display of appeasement from a president in history.” Finding a sympathetic ear with President Trump, Mr. Bolton urged the president to follow his instincts and take the U.S. out of the deal.
On August 28, 2017, Mr. Bolton wrote a column for National Review, entitled “How to Get Out of the Iran Nuclear Deal,” which he hoped would reach President Trump’s desk. Explaining a decision to exit the deal, he advised, would require the Trump administration to “stress the many dangerous concessions made to reach this deal, such as allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium; allowing Iran to operate a heavy-water reactor; and allowing Iran to operate and develop advanced centrifuges while the JCPOA is in effect. Utterly inadequate verification and enforcement mechanisms and Iran’s refusal to allow inspections of military sites also provide important reasons for the Administration’s decision.” There are other reasons as well, such as the Iranian regime’s development and launching of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons in violation of the UN Security Council resolution endorsing the JCPOA. The regime also uses funds made available to it as a result of the JCPOA to finance global terrorism.
President Trump was getting very different advice from key members of his national security and foreign policy team during the first year of his presidency. Both General McMaster and Rex Tillerson, along with Defense Secretary James Mattis, cautioned the president not to exit the Iranian nuclear deal. The president reluctantly followed their advice, but he was not happy about it. In January 2018, when the president once again waived reimposition of the sanctions that had been lifted as part of the JCPOA, he warned that it would be the last such waiver unless an agreement were reached to fix the deal to his satisfaction. “In the absence of such an agreement, the United States will not again waive sanctions in order to stay in the Iran nuclear deal,” President Trump said at that time. “And if at any time I judge that such an agreement is not within reach, I will withdraw from the deal immediately. No one should doubt my word.”
The president is clearly moving in the direction that his own instincts, urged on by John Bolton, are telling him to take. President Trump will next have to decide on waiving the sanctions in May. With Tillerson and McMaster gone, replaced by realists Pompeo and Bolton, it is far more likely than not that the president will make good on his word. Defense Secretary Mattis may still try to persuade the president to stick with the deal, backed by “deep state” bureaucrats in the State Department and elsewhere in the government. It is also unclear where Gen. John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, stands on the issue. However, the fact that President Trump chose to go with Mr. Bolton, no friend of the Washington establishment, as his national security adviser in the first place speaks volumes as to what the president is likely to do about the Iran deal in May.
John Bolton has spent his career fighting the globalists in and out of the U.S. government who are willing to sacrifice America’s best interests at the altar of global governance. The title of Daniel Greenfield’s Frontpage article last Friday says it best: “Trump’s Choice of Bolton Reflects American Greatness.”
| Teenagers Make Great Progressive Shock Troops
Mar 26th 2018, 04:28, by Bruce Thornton
Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Last Saturday hundreds of thousands of high schoolers gathered across the country in a “March for Our Lives” rally. Organized and financed by anti-gun nuts and other left-wing outfits, and ornamented with Hollywood celebrities like George Clooney and Oprah Winfrey, the spectacle was filled with the emotional exhibitionism and juvenile policy recommendations one would expect from the most pampered and worst-educated cohort of young people in American history––the perfect shock troops for progressive propaganda.
Progressivism, like its totalitarian cousins, is an ideology of melodrama and moral exhibitionism. The complexity and mystery of a flawed human nature and its actions are reduced to Lenin’s simple analysis: “Who, whom.” In the fight between righteousness and evil, who will win, the oppressor or his victim? The revolutionary is strengthened by his perceived own moral superiority, his certainty that he on the side of history’s angels. After all, he is struggling for the brave new world: heaven on earth, the utopia of radical equality and social justice, and the final banishment of misery and oppression. In such a cosmic battle, who has time for critical thought or empirical evidence?
This leftist melodrama has always been attractive for the callow young, as the hinge-year 1968 showed. Teenagers are prone to grandiose self-regard, impulsive behavior, and a preference for feeling rather than thinking. They are attracted to sentimentalism and melodrama, the emotion that validates their inflated egos rather than the thought that challenges their exaggerated self-importance.
Once upon a time, experience in a hard, indifferent world, the virtues like self-reliance and impulse-control nourished by faith and tradition, and an education based on mental skills and the lessons of history taught the young that their feelings and “self-esteem” don’t amount to a hill of beans in this flawed world. They also learned that good deeds are more important than fine words, that acting on their impulses and seeking instant gratification carry a high price, and that duty and obligation and responsibility to others in the end are the foundations of our political and social order.
Starting in the postwar fifties, increasing wealth, more time spent in school rather than factories and fields, consumer capitalism’s promotion of impulse-buying, and a culture of materialism that defines the self through fashion, consumption, and popular culture rather than through education, challenges, and character––all exacerbated the flaws of youth that the larger culture once tried to correct, but now indulged. Movies, music, and soon the therapeutic curricula of schools reinforced and glorified these flaws rather than disciplining and correcting them. The “human sciences” replaced the doctrines of faith and wisdom of tradition in explaining human nature and its proper aims.
The last three generations have been marinated in these social and cultural dysfunctions that have resulted in a sense of entitlement and outlandish expectations. Adolescence has been extended far beyond the traditional beginning of adulthood, and increasingly shaped by a leftist political ideology that rationalizes and exculpates bad character and destructive choices as the fault of a corrupt political, economic, and social system. But the old-left call for the violent overthrow of such an evil establishment is now merely a rhetorical flourish. Symbolic politics like marches and demonstrations that occasionally stray into vandalism and petty thuggery are preferred, for they are relatively risk-free, and draw the attention of sympathetic media and like-minded adults who praise the youngsters’ “passion” and “commitment” to “change” and a “better world.”
We have been witnessing for some time this combination of adolescent immaturity and therapeutic leftism in the college “snowflake” and “safe-space” phenomenon, and in the intolerance of dissent and willingness to use tantrums to shut up anybody challenging the self-importance of pampered, privileged college students. We shouldn’t be surprised, then, that now high school students are being recruited by the left to “march” against the wicked NRA, which stands in the way of the longtime leftist goal of gutting the Second Amendment. The progressive goal of centralized and concentrated power, and the transfer of all authority and autonomy from the citizens and states to the federal Leviathan, is challenged by the right of citizens to own a means of self-protection that guards against the monopoly of force, historically the foundation of tyrannical power.
And what better occasion for chipping away at the citizens’ right to keep and bear arms than the telegenic sentimentalism of a school shooting? And what better cat’s paw for achieving change than innocent high school kids and their trauma––carefully selected, of course, to bring the right message? The drama and pathos of victims, particularly when they’re young, is a great vehicle for peddling incoherent and useless policies––and for camouflaging the truth that those recommendations are basically misdirection from the progressives’ political goals.
Take David Hogg, who was present during the attack last month on the high school in Parkland. The seventeen-year-old appears with four other Stoneman Douglas students on the cover of Time, and has become a darling of the anti-gun crowd for his profanity-laced tantrums that demonstrate perfectly the portrait sketched above: “The pathetic f***ers that want to keep killing our children, they could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action because they all still see those dollar signs,” he said of the NRA and other lawmakers defending the Second Amendment.
Notice how this callow youth simply regurgitates the stale clichés of the gun-control fundamentalists. He obviously has no clue that the NRA has political clout not because of the pittance it gives politicians compared to, say, public-employee unions, but because millions of Americans support its mission to defend a Constitutional right they hold dear. Nor does he realize that a young person dying in a mass school shooting by a psychopath with a rifle is a rare occurrence, compared to dying in a car accident, or being beaten to death, or being killed by a motorist while walking or biking to school. He has no clue that the demonized, perfectly legal AR-15 was already banned from 1994-2004, without lowering gun-deaths even as the number of guns increased. Like his equally addled elders, he can’t fathom that more regulations of guns do nothing to keep them out of the hands of thugs and psychopaths, but do complicate and limit the rights of law-abiding citizens.
No thought, no empirical evidence, no respect for facts, no reasoned arguments, just the potty-mouth, hysterical emotion, bathetic drama, and attention-getting antics of an immature child who thinks his feelings are the world’s highest priority.
This same juvenile thinking characterizes another high-school teen, this one interviewed by The Wall Street Journal: “I make it a point to tell my mother I love her every day, because I want that to be the last thing I say to her in case anything happens to me at school,” she said, adding that gun violence “is something I don’t want to have to think about on a daily basis.” While the young woman is obsessing over the rare deaths from school shootings, 11 teens die every day from texting while driving. But we see no mass-movement to hold cell-phone manufacturers, and their billions spent in lobbying pols, responsible for the carnage their products cause. Throw in drug overdoses and drunk-drivers, and kids and their parents have much more likely risks to worry about when a child leaves for school.
But we can’t blame the young. The progressive transformation of our culture has been directed at creating just such students, whose natural inclinations to self-drama and emotion rather than thinking make them perfect constituents for an ideology that flourishes among those who obsess over their feelings, and who demand the elimination of the sad constants of risk and suffering. The tragic wisdom that flawed humans are free to choose wickedness, and that the utopia of a world without risk or suffering is impossible, contradicts the pipe dreams of the left. So those who believe traditional wisdom must be trained from an early age to cede their freedom and autonomy to the technocratic elite that needs them to remain children.
Of course, there are millions of young people who somehow have managed to avoid this progressive siren song. They join the military, work for charities, and “march for life” and the rights of the unborn. But they are demonized and scorned by the progressive pundits and politicians who distrust anyone who challenges their narrative. This silent cohort of the young is the true resistance against an ideology that prefers them to be robotic shock troops.
| Trump Rebuilds U.S. Military
Mar 26th 2018, 04:26, by Matthew Vadum
After eight long years of Barack Obama decimating the military, President Trump is proudly beginning the process of rebuilding the nation’s armed forces and defense capabilities.
As the president signed the omnibus spending bill Friday that avoided another partial government shutdown and funded the government through the end of the fiscal year Sept. 30, Defense Secretary James Mattis, hailed the measure as “the largest military budget in history, reversing many years of decline and unpredictable funding.”
At the White House Trump explained why such a spending boost was necessary as he reflected on the serious damage that the previous president did to national security and military preparedness.
For the last eight years, deep defense cuts have undermined our national security, hallowed our — and they just — if you look at what’s taken out, they’ve hallowed our readiness as a military unit, and put America at really grave risk.
My highest duty is to keep America safe. Nothing more important. The omnibus bill reverses this dangerous defense [trend]. As crazy as it’s been, as difficult as it’s been, as much opposition to the military as we’ve had from the Democrats — and it has been tremendous. I try to explain to them, you know, the military is for Republicans and Democrats and everybody else. It’s for everybody. But we have tremendous opposition to creating, really, what will be the far — by far, the strongest military that we’ve ever had.
Trump said at the press conference that he was signing the massive pork-laden spending bill that contains “a lot of things that I’m unhappy about” because of “national security.”
But I say to Congress: I will never sign another bill like this again. I’m not going to do it again. Nobody read it. It’s only hours old. Some people don’t even know what is in — $1.3 trillion — it’s the second largest ever.
The bill contains an impressive $700 billion in military expenditures, about $3 billion of which will go to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. Trump rattled off a list of other line items, $1.8 billion for 24 FA-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft fighter jets, $1.7 billion for 10 P-8, $1.1 billion for 56 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, $1.1 billion to upgrade 85 Abrams tanks, and $705 million “for the cooperative programs that we’re working with Israel and others on various missile defense systems.”
“We’re spending a lot of money on missile defense,” Trump added. “We have a lot of offense that’s been recently installed. We’re spending tremendous money on missile defense.”
Ramping up spending after Obama’s assaults on the military is critical, defense analysts say.
Obama did lasting damage to the military, according to Thomas C. Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute who after Obama left office inventoried the damage the 44th president did.
Obama attempted to end U.S. involvement in the Middle East by unilaterally pulling out of Iraq, carrying out a fake surge in Afghanistan, and ignoring the Syrian civil war, Donnelly writes. Obama let Russia annex Crimea and China artificially create islands in the South China Sea.
Aided by the Clintons, Obama helped Russia gets its hands on huge U.S. uranium reserves. Obama told outgoing then-Russian president Dmitry Medvedev in 2012 to pass the message on to Vladimir Putin to ease up on the missile defense issue until after that year’s approaching election when Obama would “have more flexibility.”
Obama also limited any future president’s ability to use the military overseas by curtailing its resources.
Comparing the five-year defense plan Obama left Trump with, with the plan Obama was left with at the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, the Department of Defense “has lost more than $250 billion in purchasing power.”
In his first year in office, Obama ordered then–Defense Secretary Robert Gates to slice off $300 billion from Pentagon programs, “which had the effect of eliminating several of the major weapons-acquisitions projects that had survived Donald Rumsfeld’s attempt to ‘transform’ the force by ‘skipping a generation of weapons systems.’”
Gates halted the production of the F-22, limiting it to 187 planes instead of the 750 the Air Force originally wanted and scuttled another $80 billion in spending, which Obama transferred to non-defense programs, Donnelly writes.
In 2011 Obama chopped another $400 billion from the DoD budget without even telling Gates in advance, which led to the so-called sequestration or Budget Control Act (BCA) that capped defense spending for years but left entitlement spending intact. The move led to long-term spending on Pentagon programs by almost $1 trillion from fiscal 2009 to 2023, he writes.
President Obama slashed Army and Marines personnel and gutted the ships and airplanes of the Navy and Air Force. The reduced force is not as well prepared as its predecessors.
“During the Cold War, the units of the Army and Air Force were always about 90 percent ready in terms of personnel, equipment, and training,” but nowadays readiness is down to about 60 percent or less, he writes.
This also means that the military’s ability to do anything more challenging than routine operations, such as keeping sea lanes open, is severely limited. It is no coincidence that in his 2012 “defense guidance,” Obama lowered the standard by which we determine the optimal size of our forces. Since the years prior to World War II, and as befits a global power, we have maintained the capacity to conduct two large-scale campaigns at once. Obama lowered the bar to just one war at a time.
Obama’s cockamamie social engineering schemes devastated the military’s morale, something his successor aims to turn around.
Trump’s presser came after his announcement Thursday that U.S. Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster (active) would soon be replaced by former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton as national security advisor. Bolton’s appointment is an unalloyed good that will benefit U.S. national security.
McMaster replaced Mike Flynn, also a lieutenant general in the Army (retired) in February 2017 after just 24 days in the post, the briefest such tenure on record. McMaster was a disaster at the National Security Council where he spent his time protecting Obama holdovers and purging competent professionals attuned to the threat that Islamofascism, including the brutal totalitarian theocracy in Iran, poses to the United States.
With Bolton at Trump’s side and ramped up defense spending, America may well be on its way to having its greatness restored.
| The Coming Cultural Revolution
Mar 26th 2018, 04:10, by Mark Tapson
The Chinese Cultural Revolution – a terrifying decade of totalitarian purging of everyone and everything that did not conform to Maoist ideology – ended in 1976. But everything old becomes new again, so welcome to the new Cultural Revolution which is not on the rise in China but instead is eroding the freedoms of the Western world.
The architects of the Chinese Cultural Revolution employed the ruthless tactics of totalitarianism everywhere: public humiliation, capricious imprisonment, hard labor, torture and execution, the seizure of private property, and in China’s case, the forcible displacement of much of the young urban population to rural regions where they and millions of others were starved to death. And just as Muslim supremacists strive to erase any pre-Islam cultural and historical artifacts in conquered territories, the Chinese revolutionaries attempted to wipe the slate clean of pre-Communist history as well, ransacking cultural and religious sites.
Certainly such abuses are not underway in the democratic West – yet. But a similar totalitarian impulse is on the move among the radical Left. In America and England, for example, historical relics and artifacts are being destroyed as college activists radicalized by the Marxist professors who dominate Humanities departments clamor for the removal of monuments to the “slave-owning” Founding Fathers, to “colonialist” giants like Cecil Rhodes, and to “mass murderers” like Winston Churchill.
What has been the West’s response to such assaults on its cultural heritage? For the most part, it too often has been self-censorship, naval-gazing self-loathing, and apologetic compliance. The Left’s loud denunciations of so-called white privilege, colonialist imperialism, and cishetero-normativity have resulted not in pushback but increasingly in pre-emptive confessions of racial sin and gender intolerance.
National Geographic, for example, issued an embarrassing mea culpa recently titled, “For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It,” in which the editor admitted the magazine’s long history of a self-described “colonialist” perspective in articles and photo layouts featuring racial caricatures. “It hurts to share the appalling stories from the magazine’s past,” she wrote. But having confessed, the magazine had earned permission to move forward cleansed of its past transgressions.
And how did Nat Geo move past the divisive minefield of race? By devoting an entire issue to the topic: “This story is part of The Race Issue, a special issue of National Geographic that explores how race defines, separates, and unites us.” The editor continued: “Let’s examine why we continue to segregate along racial lines and how we can build inclusive communities,” And in a not-so-subtle shot at the Trump administration, she added, “Let’s confront today’s shameful use of racism as a political strategy.”
The only shameful use of racism as a political strategy is on the part of the Left, which has made race-obsessed identity politics the spearhead of its ideological offensive, and against which Donald Trump’s rise to the White House was largely a reaction. Identity politics has degraded every aspect of our politics and culture – no national conversation is free anymore of its ugly, race-mongering, gender-denying, intentional divisiveness and relentless accusations.
In another example of confessional groveling, posters went up in some British Columbia schools earlier this year which depicted Canadian school administrators and their quotes about privilege and racism. School superintendent Teresa Downs, for example, is pictured beside a quote which reads, “I have unfairly benefitted from the colour of my skin. White privilege is not acceptable.”
In another poster, Secretary Treasurer Linda Minnabarriet poses with arms folded next to her quote, “I lose an opportunity if I don’t confront racism.” More to the point, she might lose her job if she doesn’t confess to her own racism.
(By racism, of course, the Left always means white racism. Racism against whites, or even against other non-whites, does not count. That’s because cultural Marxism divides the world between the oppressor and the oppressed, and only the oppressor – white people – can be racist. The oppressed are never racist, even when the oppressed become the oppressor, as in South Africa, where white farmers are facing genocide at the hands of black gangs, with the tacit and sometimes explicit approval of the nation’s black leadership – a story the mainstream media won’t touch, because the torture/murders of white farmers and the appropriation of their land is social justice.)
This controversial Canadian campaign, which has local parents riled up, was modeled after another self-flagellating campaign on Saskatoon billboards, one of which featured the image of an older white male accompanied by the quote “I have to acknowledge my own privilege and racist attitudes.” Have to – or he will be ground up beneath the wheels of the new Cultural Revolution. “We do understand that this is a discussion about race and privilege, and it can make some people uncomfortable,” says Superintendent Downs. Actually, what makes people “uncomfortable” about this “discussion” is the blatantly racist assumption that all whites are inherently, irredeemably bigoted and benefit from privilege. That assumption means it’s not a “discussion” but an ideological imperative which Downs and similar-minded educators are inculcating in students over the objections of their parents.
For those who don’t voluntarily confess their ideological impurity – or worse, those who aggressively resist indoctrination – the punishment reveals a sadistic streak typical of totalitarianism. A male student at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, for example, was barred earlier this month from attending a religious studies class required for graduation because he challenged the feminist professor’s radical assumptions in class. According to Lake Ingle, his February 28 class was forced to watch a Ted Talk featuring a transgender woman discussing such divisive, cultural Marxist concepts as “mansplaining,” “male privilege,” and systemic sexism. Ingle wrote that after the video, the instructor “opened the floor to WOMEN ONLY. Barring men from speaking until the women in the class have had their chance to speak.”
“Not a single woman spoke,” Ingle told Campus Reform. “Thirty seconds or so passed and still no woman had spoken. So, I decided it was permissible for me to enter the conversation, especially because I felt the conversation itself was completely inappropriate in its structure,” Ingle continued. “I objected to the use of the anecdotal accounts of one woman’s experience to begin a discussion in which they were considered reality. It was during my objection that Dr. [Alison] Downie attempted to silence me because I am not a woman.”
Ingle was later accused, in a documented agreement, of
“Disrespectful objection to the professor’s class discussion structure; refusal to stop talking out of turn; angry outbursts in response to being required to listen to a trans speaker discuss the reality of white male privilege and sexism; disrespectful references to the validity of trans identity and experience; [and making a] disrespectful claim that a low score on any class work would be evidence of professor’s personal prejudice” [emphasis added].
Notice that the instructor considers “white male privilege” an indisputable “reality” and “trans identity” indisputably “valid.” The video she showed and its content were therefore for ideological purposes, not educational ones. Lake Ingle bucked the indoctrination, and so the school now expects him not merely to apologize, but to be degraded before Professor Downey and his classmates. “Lake will write an apology to the professor which specifically addresses each of the disrespectful behaviors described above,” the form reads. He is expected to “acknowledge how his behavior has significantly damaged” the classroom learning environment, and “explain how he will demonstrate respect for the professor” and his fellow students in the remaining sessions.
But most illuminatingly, “Lake will begin class with an apology to the class for his behavior and then listen in silence as the professor and/or any student who wishes to speak shares how he or she felt during Lake’s disrespectful and disruptive outbursts on 2-28” [emphasis added].
So it is not enough to correct the student’s errant thinking – he or she (or should I say “xe”?) must submit to public humiliation and bear it in silence, to provide the mob of humiliators a safe space from which to verbally degrade the offender. This is straight out of the Chinese Cultural Revolution playbook.
Such is the sado-masochistic totalitarianism at the heart of the Left. Their utopian dream of human perfectibility demands absolute conformity of thought and action, as well as absolute submission to their authority.
In the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the cruelest atrocities were carried out by the young fanatics of the Red Guard. In America today, our youth are being pushed to the forefront of radical movements, their impassioned, self-righteous, arrogant naiveté exploited and empowered. Witness, for example, the recent nationwide student walk-out to protest gun violence, an action backed by leftist agitators such as MoveOn.org, and supported and in some instances required by school administrators themselves. The protest was led by a coterie of survivors from the Valentine’s Day high school massacre in Parkland, Florida – the ones who, not coincidentally, aligned themselves with the Left’s gun confiscation agenda. Survivors who challenged that agenda, such as the courageous dissident Kyle Kashuv, found themselves largely ignored by the news media who fawned over the politically correct activists, even posing them for a TIME magazine cover article which hailed them as the generation that will finally overthrow the old-timers who are holding out against the Progressive tide. “You’re gonna be smeared in the textbooks,” promises 17-year-old media darling David Hogg, who has become the poster boy for the new Red Guard. “Your legacy is gone. If you don’t stand up with us now, you’ll be standing against us.”
And therein lies the solution to ending this burgeoning new Cultural Revolution: stand against it. The free West has lost ground against the resurgence of Communism, rebranded as Progressivism, because it has simply allowed itself to be overrun. It can turn the tide by opening its eyes and fighting back. Stand by the truth and refuse to buy into the Left’s linguistic manipulation. Do not tolerate their intolerance. Reject their demonizing labels. Push back against their violent bullying. Resist as relentlessly as they attack. Easier said than done, but the alternative is surrender to an enemy that will show no mercy.
| FBI Can’t Find Motive of Muslim Who Drove Burning Minivan Onto Travis Air Force Base
Mar 26th 2018, 04:09, by Robert Spencer
“Motive a mystery in car explosion at Travis Air Force Base” was the Los Angeles Times headline, and this one is indeed a real mystery. A Muslim named Hafiz Kazi, according to the Times, “drove a burning minivan filled with propane and gas tanks into the front gate of Travis Air Force Base in Northern California.” After scrutinizing all the evidence closely, the FBI just can’t figure out what could possibly have been Kazi’s motive. And that in a nutshell shows what’s wrong with today’s FBI.
Sean Ragan, FBI special agent in charge of the Sacramento field office, stated: “We don’t have any nexus of terrorism at this point. Now the question is, why. Why was he there? What led him there? And we don’t know answers to that, quite frankly.”
The Times noted that when emergency responders approached the burning van after it crashed, “they found five propane tanks, three plastic one-gallon gas cans, several lighters, three phones and a gym bag with personal items, Ragan said.”
Yes, what Kazi could possibly have been up to is a complete mystery.
The Times added that “the dead man’s religious beliefs and affiliation are not known at this point, said Ragan, who debunked a rumor that some sort of ‘jihad’ video was found on Kazi’s phone.”
All right. No jihad video. And no “nexus of terrorism,” according to Sean Ragan.
What is a nexus of terrorism? Ragan most likely means that investigators didn’t find an ISIS membership card in Kazi’s wallet, or lots of phone calls to Iraq or Syria, or a note from Kazi reading, “I did this for Allah and Islam. Allahu akbar.”
Of course, even if they had found those things, given the FBI’s recent track record of denial and deception, they may still be searching for Kazi’s motive. In any case, a larger point is being lost here. And that is that there is a war going on. We know that the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and other groups have called upon Muslims in the U.S. to try to kill military personnel and police, as well as civilians. We know that Kazi, with all the propane and gas tanks in his car, was clearly trying to set off a major fire that would kill more people than just himself. Even if he wasn’t on the phone to Baghdadi, the likelihood is that when a Muslim drives into a U.S. Air Force Base with a car full of incendiaries, probably this has something to do with the global jihad.
The FBI’s bafflement here is part of its deep, deep corruption. The FBI doesn’t acknowledge that there is a global jihad, or that Islam has anything to do with terrorism. It doesn’t admit that there is a war going on, and treats each act of Islamic terror as if it were a separate and discrete criminal event, unrelated to all the others. So each time something like this happens, they’re back at Square One, trying to figure out motive. It’s as if the U.S. Army stopped to interrogate every German soldier who crashed through the Ardennes Forest at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, to see if each one’s actions had anything to do with the German Army and Adolf Hitler’s war aims.
Authorities are also investigating whether or not Kazi was suffering from any mental health issues. Here again, this is just more of the general refusal to acknowledge the 800-pound gorilla sitting in the living room and screaming “Allahu akbar.” Sean Ragan might explain to us that authorities are also trying to determine whether the German invasion of Poland in September 1939 was motivated by Nazism, or by mental health issues among the German High Command.
This willful ignorance leads to a diversion and waste of resources that is astronomical and catastrophic. How long is this comic opera going to continue? If the jihadis advance even into the FBI’s Sacramento offices, will agents there be struggling to determine the jihadis’ motive even as the machete begins to slice through their necks?
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.
| March Madness
Mar 26th 2018, 04:01, by Lloyd Billingsley
“Hey hey, ho ho. The NRA has got to go!”
“What do we want? Gun control! When do we want it? Now!”
Those chants rang out on the March 14 National Walkout Day, one of many events in the wake of the massacre in Parkland, Florida. Whoopi Goldberg joined students in New York and Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, tweeted, “These kids are leading the charge against gun violence – and I’m proud to be here fighting alongside them.”
The soundtrack was similar this past weekend at the March for Our Lives rally in Washington, with an estimated 200,000 in attendance. Yolanda Renee King, the nine-year-old granddaughter of Martin Luther King, proclaimed her dream, “that this should be a gun-free world. Period.” Despite similar activism across the country, not all millennial students are marching to the same drumbeat.
As National Public Radio noted, pollsters find that those from ages 18-29 were only one percentage point more likely to want stricter gun laws than 57 percent of their peers. In similar style, the Pew Research Center found that on 50 percent of those ages 18-36 said gun laws in the U.S. should be more strict. Millennials were more inclined to oppose assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, but as Kim Parker of Pew Research told NPR, “What we’re hearing now in the immediate aftermath of Parkland might not be representative of what a whole generation feels.”
Jordan Riger, treasurer of Students for the Second Amendment at the University of Delaware, told NPR she took an NRA course on pistol shooting and regards firearms as tools for self-defense. Students for the Second Amendment president Jeremy Grunden explained, “we’re supposed to be a well-armed and well-maintained militia and all that. Quite frankly, we need that and plus more.”
In other words, “Ho ho, hey hey, the Second Amendment’s gotta stay.” As they hold their constitutional ground, millennials might research the gun-control campaigns of totalitarian states.
Democrats and their media-celebrity allies seem to believe that in National Socialist Germany anybody could walk into Klaus’s Gun Store and buy a Sturmgewehr with a 30-round magazine. As Stephen P. Halbrook showed in Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State,” Nazi Germany wasn’t like that at all.
Before the Nazis took power, the liberal Weimar Republic sought to register, regulate and prohibit firearms. A 1926 order demanded surrender of all firearms and a 1926 Bavarian law barred Gypsies from owning guns. The Nazis took power in 1933 and in their view, nobody needed a firearm for self-defense when the police protected society. Sport shooting and hunting were not a “need,” as determined by the government.
The Nazis grabbed the registration records of the Weimar Republic and denied gun ownership to all groups not in line with National Socialism. The 1938 arrest record of Albert Flatow, who won an Olympic medal for Germany in 1896, said “arms in the hands of Jews are a danger to public safety.”
A disarmed populace, Halbrook warns, “is obviously more susceptible to totalitarian rule and is less able to resist oppression.” On the other hand, “an armed populace with a political culture of allowed constitutional and natural rights that they are motivated to fight for is less likely to fall under the sway of a tyranny.” So Jeremy Grunden is not making some academic point.
Alert millennials might also monitor efforts to disarm the public under the guise of health concerns. Sen. Martin Heinrich, New Mexico Democrat, calls for repeal of the Dickey Amendment, which restricted the Centers for Disease Control from spending public funds to research what he calls “gun violence and its effect on public health.”
Heinrich finds support from Garen Wintemute of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program, whose first project was “a survey that looks at who owns guns, why they own them and how they use firearms.” Millennials should be wary and also note the selective terminology following mass shootings.
On November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, Major Nidal Hasan used privately purchased handguns to murder 13 unarmed American soldiers, including private Francheska Velez, 21, who was pregnant. For the administration of POTUS 44, this terrorist mass murder failed to qualify as “gun violence.” Instead the president called it “workplace violence.”
Students might wonder how they would respond if national leaders called the Parkland massacre an example of “school violence.” The root cause of such atrocities is not guns but the will to kill.
That was also on display in the bombing campaign of Mark Conditt, who shipped his deadly packages under the name “Kelly Killmore.” His five blasts killed two and injured four, but no campaign of anti-bomb demonstrations followed.
The left’s default response to mass shootings by criminals is to deprive law-abiding citizens of their rights under the Second Amendment. In that cause, the leftist-celebrity axis seeks to exploit and indoctrinate students.
“If we want to put an end to the ugly walkout scenes that we witnessed,” writes Daniel Greenfield, “we need to support the K-12 Code of Ethics and drain the educational swamp before it swallows up our children’s minds. The March for Our Lives should be met with a March for Our Minds.”
| Trump’s Choice of Bolton Reflects American Greatness
Mar 23rd 2018, 04:24, 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.
Fifteen years ago, North Korea banned John Bolton from the useless nuclear talks. “Such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks,” its foreign ministry declared.
North Korea had freaked out because then Undersecretary of State Bolton had called Kim Jong Il, a “tyrannical dictator” and life in the socialist hellhole, a “hellish nightmare”.
Bolton would later describe that as one of his proudest moments.
Back then, North Korea had defended the move by pointing out that Bolton’s views differed “from the recent remarks of the U.S. president”. And so it could claim that he didn’t represent the United States.
Fifteen years later the game has changed. Kim Jong Il is dead and the President of the United States has called his successor, “little rocket man”, a “madman” and “short and fat”.
John Bolton very definitely does represent the views of this president.
And to prove it, President Trump has appointed him as his new National Security Adviser.
Bolton knew then that appeasing the North Korean dictatorship would never work. Bill Clinton’s bad North Korean deal paved the way for the even worse Iran deal. It took a decade and a half for an administration to actually listen to him. And his appointment sends a clear signal to North Korea.
The media had been buzzing that McMaster would be replaced by a more conciliatory figure on North Korea. The establishment even had their man all lined up. Trump also sent them a clear message.
President Trump is tired of the failed establishment foreign policy of appeasement. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was replaced over the Iran deal. The new lineup of Pompeo heading the State Department and Bolton cleaning house at the NSC shows Trump is ready to get tough on the Mullahs and the Norks.
McMaster spent his tenure at the National Security Council ruthlessly forcing out Trump supporters while protecting Obama holdovers. His obstructionism enabled the leakers undermining the president. He refused to call out Islam, put a Hamas apologist on the Israel desk, and blocked the investigations of the eavesdropping and unmasking efforts aimed at the future president by Obama associates.
Now that’s over and done with. And the worst of the Democrats are already ranting and raving.
Rep. Keith Ellison, Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Gerry Connolly, Rep. Betty McCollum and many other lefties don’t want Bolton. Ellison called him, “dangerous”, Rep. Boyle dubbed him a “dangerous radical”, Rep. Bass accused him of “peddling hatred of Muslims”, and Rep. Don Beyer wailed, “Trump desperately needs tempered and measured voices around him, Bolton is neither of those things.”
John Bolton is actually tempered and measured. He’s been tempered by his struggles against a bureaucracy more interested in protecting careerists and their agendas than defending America. And he has been measured by the President of the United States as a voice he wants around him.
Bolton is also a voice that the Freedom Center and its supporters have wanted around them.
The new National Security Adviser was a favorite speaker at Freedom Center events from California to Texas to Florida. From the Restoration Weekend to the Wednesday Morning Club, he was always brimming with confidence in this country’s strength and outrage at the betrayals of her leaders.
At a 2014 Restoration Weekend, Bolton powerfully indicted Obama for sending a “signal of American weakness” and urged the rise of a presidential candidate who would understand that, “a strong America is the best way to protect our interests and preserve the peace”. Now that has finally come to pass.
Bolton is not the only familiar face from the Center in this administration. A Washington Post hit piece from last year bitterly complained that, “Since its formation in 1988, the Freedom Center has helped cultivate a generation of political warriors seeking to upend the Washington establishment. These warriors include some of the most powerful and influential figures in the Trump administration: Attorney General Sessions, senior policy adviser (Stephen) Miller.” And more are joining their ranks.
Larry Kudlow, the new White House economic adviser, has known David Horowitz since the founding of the Freedom Center and is a former member of the Center’s board. He joins Sessions, an Annie Taylor award recipient from the Center, Miller and now Bolton.
And they’re not alone.
Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke spoke at a Wednesday Morning Club.
Rep. Jim Bridenstine was nominated to head NASA. Senator Patty Murray attacked him for his appearances at “conferences at the David Horowitz Freedom Center”. Rep. Bridenstine was indeed a popular Restoration Weekend speaker whose 2016 speech was about why Trump won.
“What other candidate would have talked about how Hillary Clinton attempted to silence and shame the victims of Bill Clinton? What other candidate would have brought up the fact that Hillary Clinton said that they were part of a vast right-wing conspiracy?” he asked.
And which other president would have made Bolton his National Security Advisor? Which other president would have picked Sessions, Miller, Kudlow, Zinke, Bridenstine and so many others?
It takes a warrior to pick the political warriors who want to fight to win. And who understand that standing up to bullies, thugs and tyrants is less likely to lead to a fight than surrendering to them.
Bolton and Kudlow are part of a vigorous new wave of picks by President Trump. They’re part of his strategy to remake the administration to better reflect his vision, his strategy and his message.
The David Horowitz Freedom Center has spent decades waiting for a man who would lead the fight. And it’s happy to see many of the political warriors who have rallied the troops at its weekends, who lifted spirits in the years when things were hard and convinced us that victory was on the way, in his army.
The fight is what it has always been: to leave America greater, happier, more prosperous, stronger and more secure than it has been in generations. There was a time when this vision was on the decline. There was a time when malaise and appeasement ruled the day. We were told that we had to cringe before dictators, accept the impoverishment of our economy and the narrowing of our horizons.
President Trump rejected that defeatism. As President Reagan had rejected it before him. And Bolton, Kudlow and Bridenstine represent vital elements of that rejection of despair and embrace of hope.
The common qualities that they share are optimism, determination and a willingness to fight.
Those are also the defining qualities of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, of Front Page Magazine, and of you, our readers, the men and women whose comments enlighten me and whom I have met in person at countless Freedom Center events, including our annual Restoration Weekend.
We believe that America can be great again. And we are willing to fight for it.
There was a time when that was a minority view. Now it’s becoming the majority consensus. There was a time when many took it for granted that we shouldn’t upset dictators or go big on the economy.
Fifteen years ago, North Korea got its way. That time is over.
President Trump’s choice sent that message to North Korea. But it also sent it to the appeasement lobby. The era of American weakness is over. The age of American greatness has begun.
| The Bolton-for-McMaster Change
Mar 23rd 2018, 04:19, by Michael Ledeen
Michael Ledeen is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center and Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Anyone who has held as many hard jobs in Washington as has John Bolton, will have made numerous enemies, whatever his personality. John has plenty of critics, and in this dramatic Bolton-for-McMaster change, there are lots of unhappy officials, not even including the McMaster loyalists at the National Security Council who are surely slated for an early exit.
As the Los Angeles Times puts it succinctly in a headline, “Bolton’s not nice, but he’s good.”
Actually, those of us who have known him for a long time would differ on the “not nice” bit. I think he’s very nice. I met him when we were both at the American Enterprise Institute, and truth be told I was not at all enthusiastic about his arrival there. I wasn’t a fan of Jim Baker, for whom John had worked at the State Department, and I wondered why AEI wanted a “Baker person.” But I changed my mind as I read the many articles, essays, and even books that John produced. And he was willing to debate issues on which we disagreed, or seemed to disagree. Over the years, we’ve both changed our minds on several policy issues. His Cabinet colleagues will find him thoughtful, a rare quality in any bureaucracy, and even rarer when it comes to foreign policy debates in Washington.
Not that he brooks silliness. He has real convictions, as you’d want and expect. I hope and expect that he finally imposes real personnel change at the NSC. His predecessor had a baffling sympathy for NSC staffers who had faithfully served in the Obama Administration, and actually told his employees that there was no such thing as a “holdover,” only loyal staffers. John Bolton knows better, as any grownup should. We’ll see soon enough. Personnel is policy, and to date the greatest failure of the Trumpists is an ongoing failure to staff out the government with their own people. The Bolton move suggests that the president is at least beginning to recognize this, and it would be confirmed by a substantial facelift to the NSC staff. Perhaps even including the hapless head of White House personnel, Gianni di Stefano. Apparently Trump and Bolton have had many discussions about this operation, so the new national security adviser will no doubt have a very clear picture of his powers, as well as the policies the president wants articulated and executed.
I expect John will work very well with new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattiss, especially regarding Iran. All three have a long-standing animus regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. And all three have been outspoken on the Russian threat to American national security. Both Putin and Khamenei know who John Bolton is, and you can be sure they are not happy to see him moving in down the corridor from the Oval Office.
I don’t know General Kelly, but he’s a Marine and I expect he will welcome John’s discipline, candor, and first-class intellect. The chief of staff is an extremely powerful man; let’s hope he likes moustaches.
It will be interesting to see how the congressional and senatorial Left challenge Bolton. Senator Cardin has already put an intemperate and badly ill-informed gripe on Twitter, accusing John of being an extremist neoconservative. Doubly wrong! He is the very model of temperance, you can change his mind with carefully reasoned argument, and he is not remotely neoconnish. He’s tough, but he’s always rejected the key neoconservative principle of crafting foreign policy in order to advance democracy. His world is much more Kissingerian than Sharanskyite.
The firing of General McMaster and the ascension of John Bolton has been so widely expected for such a long time that I had wrongly concluded that the president wanted McMaster where he was, and/or that there was such ferocious opposition to Bolton that the move was simply impossible. Wrong on both counts, obviously. And glad of it, as you can see. I never understood the choice of Tillerson and McMaster. The new men make much more sense to me, and it won’t take long to verify it. The first year has brought us deeper into the global war our enemies—very much in cahoots with each other—are waging against us. John Bolton sees this, and our success, indeed our survival, now will benefit from a security advisor who knows that North Koreans, Chinese, Russians, Iranians, radical Muslims, Cubans, Venezuelans and others must be thwarted.
It won’t be easy. Or cheap. Or quick. But John’s up to it if anyone is. We’ll have early indicators. Faster than you think.
| Texas SJP and MSA Activists Revealed as Neo-Nazis in Poster Campaign
Mar 23rd 2018, 04:16, by Sara Dogan
Continuing its campaign to expose the campus organization Students for Justice in Palestine as neo-Nazis, the David Horowitz Freedom Center placed posters this week on the campuses of the University of Texas-San Antonio and the University of Texas-Arlington. The posters document comments that student activists affiliated with SJP have made on social media praising Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and calling for the extermination of the Jews. The posters also expose Berkeley Professor Hatem Bazian, a co-founder of SJP, as an anti-Semite and supporter of the anti-Israel terror group Hamas.
Statements shared by SJP activists on social media, which are documented on the posters include:
“How many Jews died in the Holocaust? Not enough”
“Wow White Jews are so entitled LMFAOOO Please die.”
“Had to write about a leader for DCL class. Wrote about Hitler. Cuz he’s a boss.”
Students for Justice in Palestine was co-founded in 2001 by Hamas-supporting Berkeley professor Hatem Bazian who has openly called for an intifada, or violent uprising, in America, and has shared anti-Semitic memes on social media. One of the posters placed on the campuses exposes Bazian’s recent anti-Semitic tweet which featured a caricature of an Orthodox Jew with the caption “MOM LOOK! I IS CHOSEN! I CAN NOW KILL, RAPE, SMUGGLE ORGANS & AND STEAL THE LAND OF PALESTINIANS *YAY* ASHKE-NAZI.”
SJP employs funds from the terrorist party Hamas—funneled to American campuses through an intermediary group, American Muslims for Palestine, chaired by Professor Bazian—in order to launch an all-out political assault on the Jewish state and to create a climate of hatred towards Jews and students who support Israel on campus.
As a result of this support and funding from Hamas, SJP has become the principal collegiate organization in the Hamas terror network and the campus propaganda war against Israel. It heavily promotes the Hamas-endorsed and funded Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, a form of economic terrorism which seeks to weaken, delegitimize, and ultimately destroy the Jewish state.
There has been no condemnation of Hamas by Students for Justice in Palestine or the Muslim Students Association because both are creations of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization that translated Mein Kampf into Arabic in the Thirties and whose leader, Hassan al-Banna, was an open admirer of Hitler and launched the Islamic-Palestinian movement to “push the Jews into the sea”—a sentiment that is echoed in SJP’s perpetual protest chant to liberate Palestine “From the River to the Sea”—a genocidal call to destroy the entirety of the Jewish state which lies between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
In conjunction with the posters, the Freedom Center will soon be releasing a groundbreaking pamphlet titled “SJP: Neo-Nazis on Campus,” which reveals how Hamas has funded a generation of college activists who falsely portray the Jews as “colonial-settler” occupiers of a fictional state called “Palestine” and maliciously describe Israel—the only liberal democracy in the Middle East—as an “apartheid state,” leading to an outpouring of neo-Nazi hate and open calls for another Holocaust.
The pamphlet contains profiles of SJP activists who have used social media to advocate for violence against the Jews, to spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and to exalt Nazi leader Hitler’s “final solution.” Among these profiles are several students at UTSA and UTA, the schools that were postered this week. These sections of the pamphlet are reproduced below.
The pamphlet and posters are part of a larger Freedom Center campaign titled Stop University Support for Terrorists. Images of the posters that appeared at UTA ,UTSA, and other campuses may be viewed here.
University of Texas-San Antonio: Nour Rafati
A member of both Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at the University of Texas-San Antonio, graduate student Nour Rafati utilized social media to repeatedly joke about the Holocaust and Hitler, clearly both subjects of great humor for her, and to broadcast her hatred for Jews and supporters of Israel.
Her many tweets include:
‘I’m so glad I survived the Holocaust so that I could be here with you all today.”
“I <3 my Holocaust pic.”
“We have a really mean cat in our backyard that beats up the others and my mom calls him “el ya7oodi [the jew]” lol.”
“just deleted the jew lover and anyone that has anything to do with her.”
“RT @Christeen_K: Sometimes I just wanna slap a thousand Jews.”
“@Christeen_K have a safe trip habibtii! slap a jew for me ;)”
“Favorite this if you support Israel…so I can block you.”
“My blood boils every time someone says “Israel.” Can’t help it.”
“ew just passed by the Christians United for Israel table.”
“ew just listened to a Zionist talk out of his a** for 6 minutes #Idkwhy.”
Rafati also tweeted a meme featuring Hitler, commenting, “Hitler memes are the funniest.”
University of Texas-Arlington: Tareq Abdallah, Nancy Salem, and classmates
A student at the University of Texas-Arlington, Tareq Abdallah’s twitter feed is full of vile anti-Semitic tropes, threats of violence towards Jews and Zionists and adulation for Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. Abdullah also maintains close connections with other UT-Arlington students, including members of SJP and MSA on campus, who express similar neo-Nazi views.
Abdallah’s tweets glorifying Hitler include:
“Hitler you my mf nigga ”
“Hitler is considered palestinian in my books.”
“Where tf is Hitler at.”
Hitler is the man of the match, he raised warriors .”
“If you could witness any historical moment, which one would it be? — Holocaust.”
Not content to merely praise those who slaughtered Jews, Abdallah has made numerous threats to commit violence and murder against Jews on his Twitter feed. He has also explicitly expressed his support for the anti-Israel terrorist group Hamas. These tweets include:
“I swear if I Jew gets within 5 feet from me at the protest and says a word, straight murder.”
“Gimme an AK and drop me off in gaza, I promise I’ll go on a killing spree, f**k Jews.”
“I wish some Jew would talk s**t about Palestine….then I’d have a reason to whoop his ass.”
“No fear at all #hamaswillneverdie.”
“Hamas is the true meaning of fighters who stand strong #FreePalestine.”
“Hamas all day my nigga adham.”
His tweets echoing anti-Semitic tropes including the idea that Jews are stingy include:
“@farahqadorable you just said 50k smh I smell a Jew.”
On August 13, 2014, Abdallah tweeted: “@islamisisevilny @_Kurdyy_ y’all are stingy af and Jew supporters, and y’all call yallselfs Muslims supporting Israel killing Palestinians.”
“Whoever said all Jews arnt bad people lied.”
“Cheap people <<< damn Jew.”
“#ToMyFutureSon dont be cheap its a sign ur turning into a jew.”
While a student at the University of Texas-Arlington, Nancy Salem was an activist with the Hamas front group Students for Justice in Palestine. She has used her Twitter account to repeatedly praise Hitler, share jokes about the Holocaust and killing Jews, and spread virulent anti-Semitic tropes such as insinuating that Jews are money-grubbing and selfish. She also participated in the genocidal and Hamas-funded Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and frequently interacted with other anti-Semites and neo-Nazi activists on social media.
When one of Salem’s tweets advocating the slaughter of Jews went viral she was fired from her job of two years at an early childhood center. That tweet read: “Have a safe trip Lulu. I love you baby girl! See you in 3 weeks! Kiss the Palestine ground for me and kill some jews! <3 #IMissYouAlready.”
Other tweets of Salem’s include:
“‘@DictatorHitler: How many Jews died in the Holocaust? Not enough’ @PrincessLulllu @thearabgirl HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.”
“‘@DictatorHitler: Gassed a Jew, I’m sweating #Heil’ OMG.”
“‘How was the copper wire invented? They threw a penny between two Jews.’ LOLACHAUST.”
“‘@DictatorHitler: If Moday [Monday] was a person he’d be Jewish’ @thearabgirl @wowreallywow ”
Salem also shared her messages demonizing Israel and also America as Israel’s defender.
Her tweets include:
“I can’t wait for the day America stops being Israel’s little lap dog and wakes up. #BigDreams #Inshallah.”
“Hamas is actually defending our people unlike the Israeli army who will kill anyone.”
She also tweeted images of signs she made for an anti-Israel protest which read,
“Israel Is Real Terrorism,” and “Dear USA, your 9/11 is our 24/7.” A third sign accused Israel of being an apartheid state.
Abdallah’s and Salem’s neo-Nazi sentiments are not uncommon among their classmates at UT-Arlington, many of whom have stated similar thoughts on their social media accounts.
One such classmate is Heba Asi, an activist with SJP and MSA at UT-Arlington and a supporter of the Hamas-funded BDS movement against Israel. Asi is also related to Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terrorist Mohammed Assi, her cousin, who participated in the bombing of a Tel Aviv bus that wounded 28 civilians and was later honored by Hamas and PIJ after being killed by Israeli special forces.
Asi has made anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas comments on twitter including:
“I’m all for the destruction of the Zionist state Israel and 100% pro hamas.”
“Any one who isn’t pro hamas has either never been to Palestine, uneducated, or a Zionist.”
“I hope anyone who is for the zionist acts in palestine, burn in hell!”
“@Dino94 hahaha calling a palestinian a Jew is like calling a black person the N word!”
“I honestly dont feel that sypathetic about the holocaust..#SorryNotSorry.”
Dannah Mahmoud, an activist with SJP and MSA at UT-Arlington, also repeatedly expressed support for Hamas and hatred and disgust for the Jews on social media, including tweeting that her favorite “Arabic curse” is “Allah yikhrab beit il yahood [May Allah destroy the homes of the Jews].”
Other tweets from Mahmoud include:
“Falasteen ibladna wil yahood ichlabna [Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs].”
“Reading about palestine really depresses the f**kin hell out of me. Allah yil3an il yahood [May Allah curse the Jews].”
“@3bdElMassi7318 @CNN 100% it doesn’t. But you’ll never hear that from the yahood [Jews] who control the media.”
“Every thing Israel claims as its own is stolen from Arabs. Land, culture, food etc. thats the problem when youre scum with nothing of ur own.”
“‘@BeardoTweets: Blaming Hamas for firing rockets is like blaming a woman for punching her rapist. #FreeGaza #GazaUnderAttack’ accurate af.”
“Israel has been terrorizing Palestinians way before Hamas was even there now they just have a scapegoat.”
Other activists with SJP at UT-Arlington shared similar thoughts, denying or joking about the existence of the Holocaust. These include Ismail Said Aboukar, also a member of MSA, who tweeted “#LiesToldInSchool the holocaust” and Mariam Ghanem who tweeted “Lol let’s stuff some Jews in the oven.”
| Israeli Choreographers Banned From Oslo Festival
Mar 23rd 2018, 04:09, by Bruce Bawer
To judge by their Facebook profiles, Margrete Slettebø and Kristiane Nerdrum Bøgwald are a couple of busy young ladies. Together, they manage Feminine Tripper, an annual dance festival in Oslo, Norway, that focuses on “femininity and gender identity.” They both also work at the “Butoh-laboratorium” in Oslo, which sounds like something scientific but turns out to be a self-styled “collective” specializing in the Japanese dance style known as Butoh. A glance through the Oslo phone book shows that both women live in a couple of Oslo’s nicest neighborhoods. In addition, Bøgdwald, whose father is a noted psychiatrist and researcher, belongs to a theater company called “Grusomhetens Teater” (The Theater of Cruelty). Slettebø, for her part, is a “Dance Artist at ACTS-laboratory for performance practices” and a communications adviser to Arts Council Norway, a government agency that, its website explains, “provides grants to art and culture throughout the country” and “advises the state on cultural questions.” And, to name a couple of activities that seem especially relevant to our story, Slettebø worked for several years as office manager for the youth wing of the Socialist Left Party (an ardent supporter of Palestinians and the BDS movement) and was also an active member of the Joint Committee for Palestine (“an umbrella organization for Norwegian organizations that support the Palestinians’ cause”).
Anyway, here’s the story. On Wednesday, the Jerusalem Post reported that the Feminine Tripper festival, which this year is being held from March 19 to 25 and which professes to welcome participants from around the world, had rejected an application by six Israeli choreographers – Eden Wiseman, Roni Rotem, Nitzan Lederman, Maayan Cohen Marciano, Adi Shildan, and Maia Halter – who had received letters from Bøgwald and Slettebø stating that Israel “uses culture as a form of propaganda to whitewash or justify its regime of occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people” and that they could not, therefore, “with a clear conscience invite Israeli participants when we know that artists from the occupied Palestinian territories struggle with very restricted access to travel to international art venues and that they have little opportunity to communicate their art outside of the occupied territories.” The Israelis did not take the rejection lightly. “Would you reject a Saudi artist for Saudi restrictions on women’s rights?” they wrote back. “Would you reject an American artist for the American policies regarding the ‘Muslim ban’ regulations?”
The Norwegian pro-Israel organization MIFF also covered the story. In an article posted on Wednesday, MIFF quoted the organizers’ letter as declaring that the Israeli occupation has lasted “more than 60 years.” As MIFF’s reporter, Conrad Myrland, noted, this is either a typo, given that Israel has legally occupied the West Bank for only 50 years, or it’s an indication that “Bøgwald og Slettebø share the view that is extremely common among Palestinians: Israeli itself is occupied territory, and the occupation has thus lasted almost 70 years.” Yesterday, in a follow-up piece, MIFF added the information that ten of 117 applications for the festival had come from Israeli artists living in Israel and that all ten had been rejected because of their nationality. As of Wednesday, moreover, access to the Feminine Trippers’ Facebook page had been barred to Israeli IP addresses. Arguing that all of this mischief violates Norwegian law, MIFF reported the festival organizers to the police and to two anti-discrimination government agencies.
I reached Slettebø by phone last evening. When I explained the reason for my call, I was somewhat surprised at her apparent readiness to talk. We spoke for a couple of minutes. She seemed to find it important to let me know that the festival was enjoying a great audience response – as if this somehow validated her and Bøgwald’s decision to bar the door to Israelis. When I mentioned that MIFF considered the festival’s rejection of the Israeli artists a violation of Norwegian law, she said that she’d consulted a lawyer, who had told her that this charge was false. When I asked about her connection to Arts Council Norway, she immediately insisted that her connection to the agency is as a freelancer, not a regular employee. (After the call, I looked her up at the Arts Council’s website and found her listed as an employee, with an office phone number and Arts Council e-mail address.)
My main concern was to know whether this women’s dance festival barring participants from Israel – the only country in the Middle East (hello!) where women enjoy full equal rights – had accepted funds from the Norwegian treasury. Had I, as a Norwegian taxpayer, helped to pay for this anti-Semitic event? In Norway, where the state’s tentacles reach everyplace and where private philanthropy is relatively uncommon, the chances are very good that any given arts event has been bankrolled at least in part by the state. So my final query to Slettebø was a simple one: did the festival receive government financial support? After I posed the question, she paused for a moment – it was her first and only pause in the entire conversation – and then said, “Om det vil jeg ikke uttale meg.” Translation: “No comment.” Later, some online digging turned up the fact that the event had raised a pitiful 4,430 kroner ($572) through crowdfunding, and was otherwise funded by Krønsj treningssenter (a chain of gyms) and the Nordic Black Theatre – an outfit that, in turn, according to Wikipedia, is “operated with support from the Ministry of Culture, Arts Council Norway, and the municipality of Oslo.” In other words, taxes, taxes, and more taxes.
It will be interesting to see what comes of MIFF’s actions against these Jew-hating hoofers.
| Kate Steinle’s Killer Alleges “Collusion” Between Feds and Local Cops
Mar 23rd 2018, 04:08, by Michael Cutler
For decades politicians, from both political parties, have amped up statements that laud law violators while ridiculing hard-working Americans.
Consider the rhetoric of self-hating American politicians who frequently talk about the “jobs Americans won’t do” or how, in order to continue to lead, America must import foreign workers whom they described as the “world’s best and brightest,” thereby deprecating highly educated, highly experienced and highly successful and innovative American high-tech workers.
Now a team of criminal defense attorneys have alleged that the coordination of various law enforcement agencies to discharge their lawful duties constitutes collusion. This claim is, of itself, insane. However, the trip “over the edge” has only begun when you consider who these attorneys represent — none other than Jose Ines Garcia-Zarate, the illegal alien from Mexico who admitted to having shot and killed Kate Steinle in San Francisco as she strolled with her father.
In the parallel universe these lawyers inhabit, their client, a criminal who shot a young woman to death, is himself the victim of law enforcement officers.
Garcia-Zarate has an extensive arrest record who had been previously deported (removed) from the United States multiple times and continued to return illegally to the United States and, by his own statement, resided in San Francisco specifically because of that city’s “sanctuary” policies because he knew that local police would not inform immigration authorities about his illegal presence in their city.
On March 15, 2018 the Washington Times reported, “Illegal immigrant charged in Kate Steinle death accuses government of ‘vindictive’ prosecution.” This report included this excerpt:
In a filing this week in federal court in San Francisco, lawyers for Jose Garcia-Zarate demanded that that the federal government hand over its communications with local law enforcement agencies — the San Francisco police, district attorney’s office and sheriff’s office — to let him prove collusion and double jeopardy.
Attorney J. Tony Serra accused Mr. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions of using his client as a political punching bag and said their words suggest that Mr. Garcia-Zarate is being unjustly prosecuted.
Local, state and federal law enforcement agencies routinely work cooperatively to achieve common goals, generally to identify, investigate and, when warranted, arrest and prosecute criminals for their crimes.
However to these criminal defense attorneys, such inter-agency cooperation must, somehow, be viewed as a criminal act. It must also be presumed that they have been emboldened by statements made by political “leaders” who have formulated “sanctuary” policies to shield illegal aliens from detection.
For half of my thirty-year career with the former INS I was assigned to the Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF). That task force is comprised of a wide variety of law enforcement personnel including local and state police as well as a variety of federal agencies.
The Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) is similarly comprised of such personnel from diverse agencies working synergistically as a force multiplier to enforce our laws and safeguard America and Americans. In point of fact ICE provides the second largest contingents of law enforcement personnel to the JTTF because nearly all suspected foreign terrorists, one way or another, violate our immigration laws.
The only question is how these lawyers could have the chutzpah to make such an outrageous statement. That answer can be found in analyzing the statement of our political “leaders.”
Recently Nancy Pelosi described DACA aliens as “the best, of the best of the best.” Of course she neglected to mention that they were all illegal aliens who simply claimed to have entered the United States prior to their 16th birthdays, but could now be in their mid-thirties.
She never went on to explain how aliens who have violated America’s immigration laws were “the best, of the best, of the best.”
The one-time Speaker of the House of Representatives apparently idolizes them because they violated our immigration laws, ignoring that those laws were enacted fundamentally to protect innocent lives and the livelihoods of American workers.
Shortly after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 Pelosi delivered a speech in Mexico City equating immigration law enforcement agents with terrorists who were terrorizing immigrant communities in the U.S. Most recently she slandered valiant ICE agents by referring to them as cowards.
On March 13, 2018 Fox Business reported, “ICE director rips Pelosi over raid comments: ‘How dare you call them cowardly.’”
That report included the stinging rebuke delivered to Pelosi by acting ICE Director Thomas Homan.
In Pelosi’s inverted world, law enforcement officers who routinely go in harm’s way to protect America and Americans are the enemies and law violators are apparently heroes to be revered.
Pelosi is hardly the only politician to side with criminals, and oppose law enforcement. Several weeks ago, Libby Schaaf, the mayor of Oakland, California took to the airwaves to warn the residents of her city that she had come by information that ICE was preparing to conduct a massive field operation in Oakland.
On March 5, 2018 I was a guest on the Grant Stinchfield show on NRATV to discuss Schaaf’s potentially criminal misconduct. A link to the video of my segment has been posted.
Mayor Schaaf endangered the safety of the ICE agents who participated in the field operation conducted just hours after she conducted her beyond belief news conference. Her reckless actions likely triggered the “fight or flight” reaction among hundreds of illegal aliens and the violent felons among them. It was fortunate that apparently none decided to fight instead of flee. This could have caused a tragedy, and one that the mayor should have understood.
During a news conference Schaaf said she considered herself to be “law-abiding.” My mom, however, used to tell me that “self-praise is no recommendation.”
Some have pointed out that Schaaf could potentially be prosecuted for obstruction of justice and, indeed, she probably could. Additionally, her actions constitute a prima facia violation of federal immigration laws that are contained within 8 U.S. Code § 1324. To wit:
Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
Encouraging/Inducing — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who — encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.
Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.
Under the current laws, each and every alien who is shielded, harbored, aided, abetted or induced to enter the United States or remain illegally is viewed as a separate and distinct crime, a felony that carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
The challenge here is to determined how many hundreds or even thousands of illegal aliens were warned, therefore, potentially shielded and harbored, aided and abetted by Mayor Schaaf’s actions. It must also be noted that if charges are brought and an individual is found guilty of these crimes, sentencing is determined by stringent minimum mandatory sentencing guidelines.
As it stands, hundreds of aliens who were sought during the field operation could not be found and likely evaded ICE because of Schaaf warnings.
On March 10, 2018 the New York Daily News reported, “Cuomo urges Dems to ‘stand up and not build’ Trump’s border wall.”
This news report contained this excerpt:
“Those Democrats in Washington better stand up and not build his wall,” Cuomo said Saturday at the annual Somos el Futuro gathering in Albany.
Cuomo said Trump’s proposed border wall was a symbol of the administration’s anti-immigrant policies and he accused the President of holding so-called Dreamer immigrants hostage to obtain funding for the wall.
It is clear what Schaaf did. It is clear that Nancy Pelosi has an abject hatred for ICE agents and holds illegal aliens in high esteem. It is equally clear that New York’s governor opposes border security. The only question that only they can answer is, “Why?”
California’s Governor Brown recently signed into law policies that have turned the entire state of California into a huge “sanctuary” to protect criminal aliens from immigration law enforcement, ignoring what should be obvious, that as I noted in a previous article, Sanctuary Cities Endanger – National Security and Public Safety.
| Border Patrol Fights Back
Mar 23rd 2018, 04:08, by Matthew Vadum
The U.S. Border Patrol is reportedly fighting back against California’s openly seditious statewide sanctuary laws by refusing to hand over illegal aliens with felony warrants to police in California.
This makes perfect sense, according to the law of unintended consequences. It is an appropriate, tactically innovative way to counter California’s ridiculous laws that seek to nullify federal immigration legislation.
Rodney Scott, the chief patrol agent in the Border Patrol’s San Diego sector, previously said that the Golden State’s sanctuary laws were making normal cooperation between his agency and local law enforcement difficult.
This is because California now largely forbids cooperation with federal immigration authorities, a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. State law there now imposes draconian restrictions on communication between local police and federal immigration enforcement, including information regarding when criminal aliens are scheduled to be released from local jails.
According to the Daily Caller, Scott recently entered into evidence a declaration in support of the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit aimed at California’s reckless sanctuary state laws.
In the declaration Scott recounted several instances in which San Diego sector border agents determined that they could not hand over custody of a criminal alien to local law enforcement because local officials could not be trusted to return the alien to federal custody after processing by the courts.
According to the news report:
“In each instance, the Border Patrol Agent determined it was not appropriate, consistent with his or her federal responsibilities to ensure the enforcement of immigration law, to release a criminal alien to the state and local law enforcement,” Scott said in a court declaration. “This was because, although the alien was subject to removal, if released to California law enforcement, the alien would ultimately be released into the public.”
So now Border Patrol agents, unlike California officials, are putting the public interest first. This effort aimed at the lawlessness of sanctuary jurisdictions is something that patriotic Americans should applaud.
For years jailers in California and other liberal states have been refusing to honor detainer requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE), often with disastrous results.
Felon and serial deportee Jose Inez Garcia Zarate killed Kate Steinle, 32, on July 1, 2015, after then-San Francisco sheriff Ross Mirkarimi (D), a wife-beating, driver license-suspended, gun permit-revoked, illegal alien-loving radical leftist ignored a detainer notice and put the Mexican national back on the streets.
Since Steinle’s untimely death, others have been killed by illegal aliens freed by detention centers that refused to respect ICE detainers, according to a long list compiled by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
For example, in July 2016, Marilyn Pharis, 64, was raped, tortured, and murdered in her home in Santa Maria, Calif., allegedly by illegal alien Victor Aureliano Martinez Ramirez, a Mexican national, after a detainer was ignored and he was released from jail.
Two months later Danny Centeno-Miranda, 17, of Loudoun County, Va., was murdered by illegal alien Jose Espinosa De Dios, a citizen of Mexico, after the perpetrator was set free when a detainer was ignored.
Meanwhile, some local governments are revolting against California’s sanctuary laws.
After Los Alamitos in Orange County preliminarily approved a local ordinance defying the state law and filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit against California, officials in Orange County and other cities say they may also opt out of the sanctuary state law. Officials in Aliso Viejo and Buena Park and up to another dozen localities are also considering opting out.
“This is important for us, for our city, for our community,” Warren Kusumoto (R), the mayor pro tempore of Los Alamitos and author of the ordinance said. “We are a little city in Orange County, but we’re tired of things coming out of Sacramento that just don’t make sense, and now others are telling us they feel the same way.”
Thursday on Fox News Channel, Michelle Steel (R), an immigrant from South Korea who is now a member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, blamed Democrats for causing the problem. “Left-wing legislators” in the state capital “created this chaos,” she said.
Kusumoto said state lawmakers are “bullying” city leaders. Outside groups are having people call him at home from Washington, D.C., Wisconsin, and Florida and read from a script, he said.
Antsy Democrats have been slinging invective and abuse at Los Alamitos officials for days. California Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon (D) said the move by Los Alamitos was “a symbolic vote in favor of President Trump’s racist immigration enforcement policies.”
Kusumoto, whose grandparents came to the U.S. from Japan, ridiculed de Leon.
“The bullies on the left—they are out there trying to paint us as racist,” he said. “We’re not. Or they are trying to paint us as anti-immigrant, and we’re not. I come from immigrants—I am not anti-immigrant. That’s the sad part. Those who protest us paint a broad brush and they do it for effect.”
News of the rebellion against oppressive California laws came as the U.S. House of Representatives voted 256 to 167 yesterday to approve an omnibus spending bill that would fund the federal government through the end of the federal fiscal year on Sept. 30. The vote took place less than 24 hours after the text of the fiscal legislation was revealed. At least a brief partial shutdown seems likely because the U.S. Senate isn’t currently expected to vote on the bill until 1 a.m. on Saturday, an hour after the federal government’s legal authority to spend money runs out.
As expected, at a staggering 2,232 pages, the monster spending legislation that only became public late Wednesday forsakes conservatives in a multitude of ways. (The full text of the bill is available here.)
“A more complete betrayal of the electorate I have not witnessed. #omnibus[,]” conservative Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) tweeted soon after the vote.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) urged President Trump to veto the bill that is larded down with left-wing priorities. “Planned Parenthood, Gateway Bridge, Planned Parenthood, trillion dollar deficit, and no wall,” Jordan said.
But barring dramatic new developments, that is not going to happen. President Trump has already thrown away his bargaining power and capitulated on the Democrat-friendly omnibus bill.
“The president supports the bill, looks forward to signing it,” Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney said yesterday.
Why President Trump supports this omnibus measure is unclear. It undermines him.
Its enactment would hand Democrats a spectacular victory by failing to block the flow of federal grant monies to illegal alien-shielding sanctuary jurisdictions like San Francisco that brazenly obstruct federal immigration enforcement. The sanctuary movement gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans by, among other things, stigmatizing immigration enforcement. Sanctuary cities should be called traitor cities because they are in open rebellion against the United States every bit as much as the Confederates were when they opened fire on Fort Sumter.
The omnibus bill also provides barely any funding for the construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall that was a centerpiece of Trump’s election campaign. The bill contains $1.57 billion for limited border fencing and improved border enforcement technology, which is barely a fraction of the $25 billion the Trump administration originally sought for border security.
OMB’s Mulvaney said the omnibus bill funds 110 miles of border barriers, only 33 of which cover areas of open border that currently lack walls or fencing.
Last year the president vowed to construct the wall, which would require building on 700 to 900 miles, in his first term, but according to one calculation, at this rate it would take more than a decade to finish the job.
Even though Democrats obviously ran the table on Republicans during the omnibus negotiations, it still wasn’t enough for plenty of Democrats.
“Anyone who votes for the omnibus is voting for the deportation of Dreamers and other immigrants,” whined small-c communist congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) in a press release before the roll call vote.
“You will be voting to take money from law-abiding taxpayers – some of whom are immigrants – and give that money to privately-run prisons that will make a profit off of each and every human being our government hands over to them for detention and then deportation.”
A legislative fix allowing those who have benefitted from the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to receive legal certainty about their status in the country or perhaps an immigration amnesty was left out of the omnibus bill. There are around 700,000 DACA-eligible individuals who came as young people to the U.S. but they are a small subset of perhaps around 4 million or so so-called DREAMers, many of whom failed to apply for relief under DACA but who could conceivably qualify under the kind of amnesty Democrats want.
Although Trump ordered DACA ended back in September, an overreaching leftist judge ordered the administration to continue taking renewal applications under the program from status-holders who failed to meet an October deadline. The constitutionally dubious court order remains in effect.
| Hating for the ‘Sake of Allah’
Mar 23rd 2018, 04:05, by Raymond Ibrahim
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center
After launching a successful terror attack to free a fellow jihadi that left several slain policemen in its wake last month, the militant commander of Kashmir’s Hizb al-Mujahidin—“the Party of Jihadis”—justified the murders by saying, “We love and hate for the sake of Allah.”
In this otherwise cryptic assertion lies the root of Islam’s conflict with the rest of the world. “Loving and hating for the sake of Allah” is one of several translations of the Islamic doctrine of al-wala’ wa al-bara’ (which since 2006 I have generally translated as “Loyalty and Enmity”).
The wala’ portion—“love,” “loyalty,” etc.—requires Muslims always to aid and support fellow Muslims (including jihadis, for example through funds or zakat). As one medieval Muslim authority explained, the believer “is obligated to befriend a believer—even if he is oppressive and violent toward you — while he must be hostile to the infidel—even if he is liberal and kind to you” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 64 ). This is a clear reflection of Koran 48:29: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves.”
But it is the bara’—the “hate”—that so regularly manifests itself that even those in the West who are not necessarily acquainted with the particulars of Muslim doctrine sense it. For instance, in November 2015, after a series of deadly terror strikes in the West, then presidential candidate Donald Trump said, “I think Islam hates us. There’s something there that — there’s a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us.”
This “tremendous” and “unbelievable hatred” is not a product of grievances, political factors, or even an “extremist” interpretation of Islam; rather, it is a direct byproduct of mainstream Islamic teaching. Koran 60:4 is the cornerstone verse of this doctrine and speaks for itself. As Osama bin Laden once wrote:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in Allah alone” [60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy!… Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).
Similarly, the Islamic State confessed to the West in the context of Koran 60: 4 that “We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers.” As for any and all political “grievances,” these are “secondary” reasons for the jihad:
The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you.
Koran 58:22 goes as far as to praise Muslims who kill their own non-Muslim family members: “You shall find none who believe in Allah and the Last Day on friendly terms with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger—even if they be their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or their nearest kindred.” According to Ibn Kathir’s mainstream commentary on the Koran, this verse refers to a number of Muslims who slaughtered their own non-Muslim kin (one slew his non-Muslim father, another his non-Muslim brother, a third—Abu Bakr, the first revered caliph of Islamic history—tried to slay his non-Muslim son, and Omar, the second righteous caliph, slaughtered his relatives). Ibn Kathir adds that Allah was immensely pleased by their unwavering zeal for his cause and rewarded them with paradise. (The Al Qaeda Reader, 75-76).
In fact, verses that support the divisive doctrine of al-wala’ wa al-bara’ permeate the Koran (see also 4:89, 4:144, 5:51, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 60:1). There is one caveat, captured by Koran 3:28: when Muslims are in a position of weakness, they may pretend to befriend non-Muslims, as long as the hate carries on in their hearts (such is taqiyya; see here, here, and here for examples; for other Islamic sanctioned forms of deception, read about tawriya, and taysir).
Little wonder, then, that America’s supposed best Muslim friends and allies—such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar—are on record calling on all Muslims to hate us. According to a Saudi governmental run website, Muslims must “oppose and hate whomever Allah commands us to oppose and hate, including the Jews, the Christians, and other mushrikin [non-Muslims], until they believe in Allah alone and abide by his laws, which he sent down to his Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him.”
Indeed, because enmity for non-Muslims is so ironclad in the Koran, mainstream Islamic teaching holds that Muslim men must even hate—and show that they hate—their non-Muslim wives, for no other reason than that they are “infidels.”
If Muslims must hate those closest to them—including fathers, sons, brothers, and wives—simply because they are non-Muslims, is there any surprise that so many Muslims hate foreign “infidels” who live oceans away—such as Americans, who are further portrayed throughout the Islamic world as trying to undermine Islam?
In short, jihad—or terrorism, war on non-Muslims for no less a reason than that they are non-Muslims—is but the physical realization of a metaphysical concept that precedes it: Islam’s command for all Muslims to hate all infidels.
| Thoughts on Parents Whose Children Have Died
Mar 23rd 2018, 04:03, by Dennis Prager
In decades of writing columns, I have taken risks but perhaps never one as big this: writing a column to and about parents who have lost a child. I can well imagine that the first reaction of any parent who has lost a child will be: Why does this guy, who hasn’t gone through what I have, think he has something to say about the death of a child? What does he know about the unspeakable pain I live with?
Nevertheless, having talked to many parents who have lost children over the course of 40 years — on my radio show and in private consultations (largely because of my religious writings and talks) — and given the possibility that I might be able to say something that will help some parents, I feel it is a risk worth taking.
So, here are some thoughts in light of the latest massacre of students.
1. Most deaths of young people are what we normally label “senseless.” When an old person dies, no one deems the death senseless. When a policeman, fireman or soldier dies, we don’t label their deaths senseless. But when most young people die, it is obviously not because of old age, and it is relatively rarely a result of them having risked their lives for society. Rather, it is usually an accident — a car crash, a drunk driver, a drug overdose, a disease, a murder. All of those are indeed senseless, which adds to a parent’s already immeasurable pain. The parent whose child died fighting the Taliban at least has some consolation.
2. As a believer in a just and good God, I am thoroughly convinced that parents will indeed meet their child again. As I explain in a PragerU video on the afterlife (https://www.prageru.com/videos/there-life-after-life), while the existence of an afterlife is not provable, it is axiomatic that if there is a good God, there is an afterlife. A good God would not make this life — with all its unjust suffering — the only realm of existence. Moreover, there is a large body of convincing evidence for the existence of an afterlife.
3. Happiness is usually a choice, even for parents who have lost a child. Abraham Lincoln, who had a very difficult life — including the death of two of his sons, a psychologically troubled wife and the management of a horrific civil war — famously said, “Folks are usually about as happy as they make their minds up to be.”
Parents who have lost a child must still try to choose to be happy, or at least allow themselves moments of happiness. As much as this seems impossible within a year or two or five of a child’s death (a close friend who lost his 11-year-old son told me he “wept at least once a day for five years; after that, it quite abruptly seemed to get better”), and even though the hole left by a child’s death is never filled, happiness is possible — if the parents give themselves permission to experience it.
If you do not, it is not only your child who has died but you as well. And if your child was murdered, the murderer has claimed yet another victim.
4. People who have lost a child find some comfort in myriad ways. For some it is through their other children — if they have any — their marriage or their religion; having a community or a life of service; immersion in a passion, friends or therapy; or some combination of these things. But I would be remiss if I did not relate what the father of a 21-year-old who died in a car accident told me. He said that nothing lessened his intense pain over losing his beloved son — not one of the aforementioned ways, for example — until he discovered support groups for parents who lost a child. Because they were the only ones who could empathize with his pain, he found listening and talking to them truly therapeutic. Two organizations that might help are The Compassionate Friends and the Forever Family Foundation
5. There is something that can be almost as painful as losing a child: losing a child who has not died. This is rarely addressed, yet I am convinced the phenomenon of adult children who have chosen to never speak to their parent has reached epidemic proportions. Whenever I raise this subject on my radio show, men (and, less frequently, women) call in and weep when they tell me that their child has not spoken to them in 10, 20 or more years. It is frequently, though certainly not always, the result of parental alienation brought about by an angry ex-spouse during and after a divorce.
It is true there is always hope that the child will return to the parent. But after a decade or two, and after the parents having been deprived of knowing their grandchildren, often there is no realistic hope. Their pain is permanent, and they do not have the loving memories that most parents whose child has died have.
6. Finally, don’t blame God. God didn’t kill your child. If anything, He grieves along with you. No one, whether a parent or anyone else, should stop believing in God because of such terrible incidents. God made a world in which people die at all ages and in many ways, a world in which people are free to do evil. The alternative would be a world consisting of humanlike robots who could never commit evil. But such a world would be meaningless and as devoid of joy as it is suffering. If you want to get angry at God, definitely do so. But that is not the same as not believing in Him.
I hope some of this helped.
| The Mad Bomber of Austin Meets his End
Mar 22nd 2018, 04:55, 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.
Five blasts. Four injuries. Two deaths. And then one final blast that killed the mad bomber.
The killing began with a bomb on the front porch of a tree-lined street in Austin, Texas. It ended off I-35 at a Red Roof Inn in Round Rock, Texas, when the bomber set off his final bomb and ended his own life.
Haverford Drive, with its clean narrow suburban streets and cookie cutter homes, was an unlikely place for a killer to leave a bomb disguised as a package. Unlike the Unabomber, the Austin bomber offered no manifestos. His victims were white, black and Hispanic. Some were chosen deliberately and others by chance. They ranged in age from 17 to 75. There was no common denominator except their vulnerability.
We have heard much in recent weeks about the killing power of firearms.
Mark Anthony Conditt, a college dropout, assembled increasingly sophisticated explosive devices. He didn’t use an AR-15, but he still spread fear and death around Austin. His tools of death were both exotic and ordinary, supplies from a local Home Depot and exotic batteries ordered online from Asia. The nails that tore through the bodies of his victims were obtained locally and the batteries were bought globally.
He bought a “Caution, Children at Play” sign at Home Depot and added a bomb and a tripwire. That’s also where he obtained the odd pink gloves that he could be seen wearing in the FedEx video.
Law enforcement was able to trace these items and many more to his Home Depot shopping expedition. The surveillance footage of Conditt kept multiplying as law enforcement tracked him back in time.
But while law enforcement could examine his habits, they knew very little about his mind.
They know a great deal about how he built the bombs, where he obtained the components, the nails, the galvanized pipe and batteries, and how he planted them, but his motives are another matter.
Conditt outwardly appears to fit the profile of a number of recent mass shooters like Adam Lanza and Elliot Rodgers. His obsession appeared to be killing for the sake of killing. Even at the end, he took more pride in the bombs he had built than in any political message. Facing capture or death, the video he recorded on his cell phone delved painstakingly into his bomb-making techniques.
Like many serial killers, Mark Anthony Conditt wanted the police to know how clever he had been.
The 25 minute confession that he recorded left law enforcement with few answers. It reportedly dealt with Conditt’s bomb-making techniques and his personal grievances. But not with anything political.
“He does not at all mention anything about terrorism nor does he mention anything about hate,” Austin’s Chief Manley said. “What was the motive? What was the reason? Sometimes we can’t assign reason to irrational acts.”
There are few answers at the Conditt home with its picket fence porch and drooping American flag. The one truth we have comes from the name that he used to ship his FedEx bombs: “Kelly Killmore”.
Conditt wanted to kill as many people as he could. And while we may never understand the dark motives that led him to his acts of terror, we do know the motives of the officers who stopped him.
While Conditt hunted for fresh victims, dedicated law enforcement personnel hunted him. They studied his bombs, analyzed his tactics and fed his ego. When he decided to show off by mailing bombs in person from a FedEx facility in Sunset Valley, Texas, wearing a blonde wig and pink gloves while going under the name Kelly Killmore, it was the beginning of the end.
One of the bombs went off on a conveyor belt. The other one was recovered intact. Law enforcement was able to reconstruct his bomb-making methods and equipment. And surveillance video from the Sunset Valley FedEx not only gave law enforcement a good view of the suspect, but also of his license plate.
Conditt may have worked with computers in the past, but he made elementary mistakes. He left his own cell phone on when he planted the bombs. And FBI agents spotted the pattern. One man with one phone had been near the site of all those bombings. And the bomber wasn’t as clever as he thought.
The story may have begun in Austin, but it ended at a motel in Round Rock.
When the police closed in on the Red Roof Inn where Conditt’s car had been parked, he knew it was over. But he still tried to escape. His red SUV went into a ditch. Conditt’s car, like his phone, had been his undoing. It was red, not the most common color, and an old car. He had parked it close enough to the FedEx office on his bomb drop for it to show up on the surveillance video.
Now the red Ford SUV would also be the scene of his last stand in a ditch off the I-35.
Two SWAT officers, members of the team that the other officers had been waiting for, came after him. And the bomber detonated his last bomb. A SWAT team officer was wounded, and another opened fire, but Conditt had claimed his last fatality.
The mad bomber of Austin was dead.
There were plenty of bomb-making materials found Inside the Pflugerville, Texas home that Conditt shared with his roommates. Enough so that much of the neighborhood had to be evacuated while law enforcement sorted through the stash.
With Conditt dead, many will wonder why. Neighbors recall a polite young man. Family members will remember a promising young boy. But the question of evil is a timeless one. And there are often no answers. But the answer to evil is not found by trying to understand it. That is the fallacy which so often leads to appeasement, to empathy and to Stockholm Syndrome.
The true answer to evil has never been to understand it, but to defeat it.
The answer to Mark Anthony Conditt ‘s evil won’t be found in his emails, his blogs or his confession. The answer to it came in a ditch off I-35 when law enforcement risked their lives to stop his reign of terror.
We don’t stop evil by understanding it. Instead we stop it by making sure it can never hurt anyone again.
| Dems Go after Gina Haspel with the “Torture” Smear
Mar 22nd 2018, 04:09, by Bruce Thornton
Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Gina Haspel, Trump’s pick to succeed Mike Pompeo as head of the CIA, is a thirty-year veteran of the agency, one well respected by intelligence professionals from both parties. If confirmed, she will be the first woman to run our most important security agency. But despite this feminist victory, the Dems are likely to muddy the waters at her confirmation hearings by smearing her with allegations she oversaw “torture” at a black site in Thailand in 2002. Typical of what we can expect is the New York Times editorial titled, “Having a Torturer Lead the CIA,” even as the charge about the black site was shown to be untrue.
Once again, the party bereft of ideas and principle resorts to emotional obfuscation and accusation to advance their ideological prejudices. So, once again, it is necessary to lay out the facts and partisan hypocrisy behind the “torture” charge that has damaged our ability to gather the intelligence necessary to defend our safety and security.
Start with the imprecise or even willfully distorted language that always perfumes unsavory ideologies. In everyday use, “torture” can mean anything from a visit to the dentist to the sadistic mayhem of brutal regimes like Iran or North Korea. As a result, indiscriminate, lurid connotations and emotions attend the use of a word like “torture,” which of course is what makes it so useful for partisan smears.
Laws, however, have to be more precise. The statute concerning torture in U.S. law defines it as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” The law further clarifies “severe mental pain or suffering” as “the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from . . . the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering.”
The key words are “intended,” “severe,” and “prolonged.” As John Yoo, who was a deputy assistant to the AG during the Bush administration, wrote in his book on the subject, in passing this legislation “Congress unquestionably intended its prohibition on torture to be narrow, much narrower than many popular understandings of the word. The alleged torturer must have acted with ‘specific intent,’ the highest level of criminal intent known to the law . . . If severe physical or mental pain or suffering results, but was unintentional, or unanticipated, it would not be torture.”
However, the law left vague what “severe” means. That is why, in 2002, the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration’s Department of Justice prepared what the left tendentiously calls the “torture memos.” To clarify the law, the OLC looked to other uses of similar language in U.S. law. “The only other place” Yoo writes, “where similar words appear is in a law defining health benefits for emergency medical conditions, which are defined as severe symptoms, including ‘severe pain’ where an individual’s health is placed ‘in serious jeopardy,’ ‘serious impairment to bodily functions,’ or ‘serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.’” So too with “prolonged” regarding “mental harm.” By including this language, “Congress prohibited the causing of posttraumatic stress disorder or chronic depression,” but not the “temporary strain” of a tough interrogation.
This analysis led to the definition of torture in the 2002 legal opinion: “physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture (under U.S. law), it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years.” By this analysis of the law, the enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, are neither “torture” nor “illegal.”
But once the Democrats turned against the Iraq War and began exploiting it for partisan advantage during the 2003 primaries, “waterboarding” became the dog-whistle for those eager to condemn the Bush administration’s use of “torture.” Pandering to their blame-America-first base, the same Democrats who had demanded everything be done to prevent another 9/11 tossed their previous support down the memory hole. When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, one of his first actions as president––and first fulfilled campaign promise––was to issue Executive Order 13491 that rejected waterboarding and other EIT, and stripped our intelligence agents of an invaluable tool.
And an effective one. Despite the lies about the ineffectiveness of waterboarding, former CIA directors Michael Hayden, George Tenet, and Leon Panetta, along with the CIA Inspector General’s report on enhanced interrogation techniques, have said that waterboarding and other now forbidden techniques produced actionable information. In his memoirs George Tenet wrote about the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed––the mastermind of 9/11 who personally decapitated Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. According to Tenet, “From our interrogation of KSM and other senior al-Qa’ida members and our examination of documents found on them, we learned many things––not just tactical information leading to the next capture. For example, more than twenty plots had been put in motion by al-Qa’ida against U.S. infrastructure targets . . . All these plots were in various stages of planning when we captured or killed the pre-9/11 al-Qa’ida leaders behind them.” As ex-CIA chief Hayden said, the charge that EIT yielded no useful intelligence “is so untrue” that it “actually defies human comprehension. We detained about 100 people, we had a Home Depot-like warehouse of information from those people.”
More important, in 2009 the Obama administration’s own AG, Eric Holder, confirmed the legality of waterboarding. Since tens of thousands of American service members were waterboarded during their SERE (Survive, Evade, Resist, Extract) training, Holder was asked why this training wasn’t torture and hence illegal. Holder correctly replied, “It’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally.” This same logic perforce applies to the CIA interrogators, whose intent was to gather intelligence in order to defend us from terrorist attacks. The lack of intent to harm permanently on the part of the interrogators is confirmed by the carefully calibrated limitations imposed on the techniques, as well as the presence of physicians and psychologists to monitor the proceedings and insure that the subject didn’t suffer permanent physical or mental damage.
In sum, as national security analyst Marc Thiessen wrote in Courting Disaster, “none of the techniques used by the CIA meet the standard of torture in U.S. law. This is for two reasons: first, because the CIA’s interrogators did not specifically intend to inflict severe pain and suffering; and second because they did not in fact inflict severe pain and suffering.”
But despite their earlier recognition that waterboarding was legal and effective, the Democrats continued to peddle the torture lie over the following decade. In late 2014, Senator Dianne Feinstein and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Democrat members released their “Torture Report.” This sensationalized and duplicitous document allegedly detailed the “brutal interrogation techniques in violation of U.S. law, treaty obligations, and our values,” a crime Feinstein said was “a stain on our values and on our history.”
Conveniently left out was the Dems earlier support of EIT. Despite their later claims they were shocked, shocked by the use of EIT. Jose Rodriguez, a 31-year veteran of the CIA who ran the interrogation program, detailed the hypocrisy and untruths of the report. He reminds us that in the aftermath of 9/11, lawmakers demanded that the intelligence agencies do everything possible to stop another attack. Indeed, Feinstein in May 2002 told the New York Times that “we have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.” In her comments on the Report’s release, however, Feinstein referred to the Geneva Conventions and said, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, (including what I just read) whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” No matter that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to terrorists, or that the EIT are not legally torture. Twelve years later, the political advantages of moral preening had trumped the recognition that hard choices have to be made sometimes to fulfill the federal government’s highest duty––to keep its citizens safe.
Rodriguez also explodes the report’s canard that the enhanced interrogation techniques were not legally sanctioned. They were in fact reviewed in 2002 and 2005 by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, and in 2009 were also investigated by Eric Holder’s DOJ, which did not file charges against those accused of being illegal torturers. Rodriguez also debunks the claim that the CIA withheld information concerning their use from government officials. Rodriguez should know, since he was there when the CIA briefed Senator Feinstein, House member Nancy Pelosi, and other Congressmen on the techniques.
Indeed, Feinstein tacitly admitted her duplicity when she said that EIT “amount to torture.” But government policy should follow the law as written and established by Congress, not what “amounts” to the law in someone’s subjective estimation. The EIT cited in the report––threats, sleep deprivation, “physical assault,” stripping detainees naked, putting them in “stress positions” ––are all obviously frightening and painful. But they are not “torture” under U.S. law. Nor is waterboarding, Exhibit A in the left’s indictment of U.S. heinous behavior. That’s why Feinstein slyly said that EIT “amount” to torture rather than explicitly calling them torture, and why she cited international conventions on torture rather than the U.S. law.
Gina Haspel is an excellent choice to be the Director of the CIA. Democrats who attack her during confirmation hearings because of the stale “torture” canard will confirm yet again that they are rank partisans of a party that for two decades has put its own political interests ahead of the safety and security of the American people.
Mar 22nd 2018, 04:08, by Lloyd Billingsley
[To learn more about the Freedom Center’s fight against K-12 indoctrination, visit StopK12Indoctrination.org.]
Last fall in Thinking Minnesota magazine, Katherine Kersten authored, “Whose values? Educational Excellence Threatened by Ideology in Edina Schools.” As she learned, district bosses were more occupied with “white racism,” dressed up as a concern for “equity” but in reality “an oppressive ideology with authoritarian undercurrents that steamrolls students and intimidates parents.”
Some Edina parents had never heard of the “white privilege” concept until it turned up in an eighth-grade class on “21st Century Literacy Skills.” On social media, one parent noted, “this is a mandatory class!” and part of the official curriculum. It also featured tests, and if students failed to answer in politically correct fashion, teachers took points away.
A teacher also quashed the “speaking privileges” of a contrarian student, and another was reportedly sent to the principal’s office. If that had happened to her kids, one parent wrote, “I would be marching into the principal’s office with steam coming out my ears!” One parent wanted to protest at the state capital but another warned that liberal teachers will call the protestors “racists.”
For most parents, this had been their first brush with “white privilege,” and they wondered where it came from. Several traced the concept to the Pacific Education Group, founded in 1992 by “diversity expert” Glenn Singleton. He cited the “systemic racism” of “white culture” as the major cause of the schools’ “failure to educate and engage black, brown, and Native American Indian students.” Major school districts across the country have deployed PEG personnel and materials but the racist ideology traces back to White Privilege and Male Privilege, a 1988 paper by Peggy McIntosh of Wellesley College.
“White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps, guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks,” wrote McIntosh. “I can, if I wish, arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time,” was her first example of white privilege. The 45 others were equally bogus.
“Obliviousness about white advantage is kept strongly inculturated, so as to maintain the myth of meritocracy,” wrote McIntosh, profiled in the May 1992 Heterodoxy, forerunner to Frontpage, as one of the “10 Wackiest Feminists on Campus.” At the time, McIntosh was persuading schools in Brookline, Massachusetts, to deemphasize “excellence” and “disciplined thinking,” which are part of the conceptual hegemony imposed by a “white blond male elite.” McIntosh said her paper was “not a scholarly analysis” but she was far too kind to herself.
White Privilege is the brand of sub-junkthought now oppressing students and parents in Edina. Any protest brings charges of racism, the left’s default incantation to ward off criticism. Parents should understand that the charge best applies in the other direction.
Leftist educrats tell students that skin shade, something beyond their control, is responsible for some “unearned” privilege for which they must somehow atone. By extension, any of the student’s academic achievements are also due to this privilege. Edina parents would be right to call this racism, and fully justified in throwing it back at district bosses.
As Thomas Sowell has often noted, statistical disparities between people and groups are the rule, not the exception, and disparities do not indicate discrimination. This is due to factors such as personal differences, effort, and choice. Leftist racial theorists tell the allegedly non-privileged students that disparities and difficulties have nothing to do with themselves but only with the moral lapses of those enjoying “white privilege.” As with racism, the privilege is all on the other side.
This racist inquisition is exploiting a government monopoly school system. Those who work in this system enjoy generous salaries and pensions, lockstep raises, tenure and other benefits, none of it related to actual classroom performance and student achievement. So when it comes to unearned benefits, this gang is as privileged as it gets.
One Edina parent mentioned an independent academy where there would be “no thought policing” and the students would “learn the things that matter.” Full choice in education, with the dollars following the scholars as in the G.I. Bill, would indeed empower parents and students alike. That is why leftist politicians, educrats and teacher unions deploy their power against choice. They like intimidating parents and steamrolling captive students with oppressive orthodoxies like “white privilege.”
“It is lucky for the Chicano kids in Jaime Escalante’s classes that he did not stand and deliver such nonsense,” Heterodoxy contended in 1992. “If he had, they never would have learned the vertical discipline of calculus and seen their way out of the Los Angeles ghetto.” And McIntosh’s politically correct dogma was “a manifesto for mediocrity.”
In 2013, Edina schools adopted the “All for All,” plan, based on the premise that white racism is the primary cause of the achievement gap. Four years later, as Katherine Kersten noted, one in five Edina high-school students can’t read at grade level and one-third can’t do grade-level math. In the district as a whole, 30 percent of students are not on track for success in reading and math.
On the other hand, as a parent observed, students are being taught that “Disney movies are both sexist and racist.” A story on the cinematic Minnquisition will appear in due course.
| Deep-Freezing the Truth at Penn
Mar 22nd 2018, 04:05, by Heather Mac Donald
Reprinted from City Journal.
The diversity imperative demands dissimulation and evasion. The academic-achievement gap, the behavioral differences that produce socioeconomic disparities, and the ubiquity of racial preferences must all be suppressed in public discourse, since they undercut the narrative that white racism is the driving force in American society. This dissimulation was on display last week at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, when Dean Ted Ruger announced that law professor Amy Wax would no longer teach mandatory first-year law courses at the school. In a memo announcing his decision, Ruger accused Wax of “conscious indifference” to truth. It is Ruger, however, who has distorted facts.
Ousting Wax from her first-year civil-procedure class has been a desideratum of the academic Left since she published an op-ed last August celebrating bourgeois virtues like the work ethic, respect for authority, and sexual temperance. Wax was deemed a “white supremacist” for suggesting that not all cultures were equal in preparing people for participation in a modern economy.
In December, Dean Ruger asked her to desist from teaching first-year students and to take a leave of absence, in the hope that the controversy spurred by her op-ed would die down. As a “pluralistic dean,” he said, he needed to accommodate all factions in the school. Wax declined the request and reported the details of the conversation immediately thereafter to friends. (I was one of the people to whom she spoke.) Wax later described the conversation in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Ruger denied her account through a spokesman, claiming that he had merely engaged in a pro forma discussion of her sabbatical schedule, such as he would have done with any other professor. Ruger’s version is not credible, though: in an informal survey, no law professor polled reports ever having a dean drop by his office to discuss a routine sabbatical. This alleged bureaucratic convention does not exist, unless Dean Ruger has only recently introduced it.
Ruger’s request that Wax stop teaching first-year students became non-negotiable, however, after a video dialogue Wax had recorded in September came to the attention of her opponents. On the video, Wax and Brown University economist Glenn Loury discuss affirmative action. Wax talks about how racial preferences hinder the ability of their alleged beneficiaries to succeed academically, by catapulting them into schools for which they are significantly less prepared than their peers; this negative consequence of affirmative action is known as the “mismatch effect.” At Penn’s law school, Wax said, she didn’t think that she had ever seen a black law student graduate in the top quarter of his class, and “rarely” in the top half. Loury asked Wax if the University of Pennsylvania Law Review had a “racial diversity mandate.” Wax answered “yes.” In his memo to the school, Ruger denied this point: “the Law Review does not have a diversity mandate,” he wrote. “Rather, its editors are selected based on a competitive process.”
By any common understanding of a “diversity mandate,” the Penn law review most certainly has one. In the summer of 2003, it created a new pathway for membership to solve the perennial lack of racial diversity among its editors. According to a contemporaneous Chronicle of Higher Education article, until then, students were selected based either on their grades or on a writing competition that assessed analytic and editing skills. Now, however, a third criterion would be added—a “personal statement,” in which an applicant might address the “challenges” he has faced, the “familial, cultural, or personal experiences that have contributed” to his worldview, and the “unique contribution” he would make to the review. The editorial guidelines explain that the personal statement allows the law review to find editors who bring “diverse perspectives” to legal scholarship.
Anyone familiar with “holistic admissions” will recognize this language, even had the architects of the personal-statement requirement not already explained that its goal was to increase racial diversity. Somehow, “challenges” and “cultural experiences” always pertain exclusively to underrepresented minorities. The percentage of editors selected via the personal statement, which is factored into a new composite score that includes first-year grades and the writing competition, may vary from year to year.
The 2003 Chronicle article was a rare public peek into law reviews’ diversity efforts, not just at Penn but across the country. Since then, the Penn guidelines have been closely guarded; any editor who discusses them with an outsider risks getting kicked off the review. But they remained in place as recently as 2015, according to a former member. There is zero chance that the review has since reverted to a purely meritocratic selection process, especially in the era of Black Lives Matter campus protests.
If challenged, Ruger might argue that the Penn law review’s diversity policy is not a “mandate,” since it was not imposed by the administration. But most such diversity policies are similarly self-imposed. Ruger might also insist that the process remains “competitive.” But the question is: would the candidates who compete via the personal-statement route have gotten on the review through grades or writing skills alone? If they could not have, then the competition is not universal but race-specific.
Ruger also accused Wax of saying during her interview with Loury that Penn’s black law students should not “even go to college” (whatever that would mean, since they have already gone to college). That, too, is a distortion, presumably intended to inflame the sentiments against her. Wax at that point in the discussion was speaking about college generally. She said in passing that while no critic of racial preferences is saying that black students should not go to college, some students should not. Wax was speaking generally, not referring to Penn law students in particular.
As for the low number of black Penn law students graduating in the top of their class, Wax’s observations about the mismatch effect accord with all available data. The Law School Admissions Council collected 27,000 law student records in the early 1990s, representing nearly 90 percent of accredited schools. After the first year, 51 percent of black law students ranked in the bottom tenth of their class, compared with 5 percent of white students. Two-thirds of black students were in the bottom fifth of their class. Only 10 percent of blacks were in the top half of their class. As mismatch theory predicts, bar-examination failure rates were also skewed, since students put into classrooms above their preparation levels will learn less than when teaching is pitched to their current academic skills. Twenty-two percent of black test-takers in the LSAC database never passed the bar exam after five attempts, compared with 3 percent of white test-takers.
Unfortunately, Wax overlooked the precautionary rule for criticizing affirmative action: avoid any generalizations that can be rebutted with an even vaguer generalization. “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class and rarely, rarely in the top half,” she said, clearly speaking informally and from a subjective perspective. Ruger responded in his memo: “It is imperative for me as dean to state that these claims are false: black students have graduated in the top of the class at Penn Law.” Ruger’s statement leaves unspecified what the “top of the class” is and how many black students over what period of time have graduated in it. But his assertion, as so broadly defined, is undoubtedly true. It is also not inconsistent with Wax’s claim that black students have graduated in the top half of the class, but “rarely.”
Ruger’s stated reasons for demoting Wax were that she had violated the confidentiality of students’ academic records and had put her impartiality regarding black students into doubt. The confidentiality charge is the only facially plausible one. Though Wax mentioned no students by name, and was speaking generally, to state even a provisional recollection that no black student has graduated in the top quarter of his class does allow an inference about the grades of all black law students. But if making such a statement is a punishable offense, then there will be a serious chilling effect on any discussion of the negative consequences of affirmative action.
Ruger says that black students may now “legitimately question whether the inaccurate and belittling statements she has made may adversely affect their learning environment and career prospects.” That is a calumny. Wax has won teaching awards from students and from faculty. There is no evidence that she has ever treated her students unfairly. And even if she were inclined to partiality, which she most decidedly is not, grading in first-year courses is blind.
If Wax’s statements about the mismatch effect are “belittling,” that is not her fault. She has simply dared utter the facts about black academic underpreparedness that the diversity charade works overtime to conceal. It is the perverse consequence of affirmative action that the people who pull back the veil on that charade are the ones accused of doing damage to minorities.
| Prager U Video: UC Berkeley Students on Free Speech
Mar 22nd 2018, 04:02, by Prager University
Will Witt takes to UC Berkeley to discover the state of free speech on campus today. Don’t miss it!
| No-Drama Obama Versus Trump 'Chaos'
Mar 22nd 2018, 04:00, by Larry Elder
Conservative watchdog organization Media Research Center examined the nightly news coverage of President Donald Trump on ABC, NBC and CBS in January and February and concluded that the stories were 91 percent negative. One consistent narrative, particularly given the recent firing of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, is that “chaos” reigns in the Trump White House.
Never mind that President Barack Obama went through four secretaries of defense and five chiefs of staff. Obama, goes the narrative, calmly navigated the country during his eight-year tenure. Trump, on the other hand, is reckless, dangerous, undisciplined and out of control.
Never mind that the U.S. consumers’ confidence is at a level not seen since the early 2000s. Forget the increased value in the stock market, and the appreciation in average home value since the beginning of the Trump presidency. ISIS fighters have been killed or surrendered in the thousands. North Korea’s Kim Jong Un has agreed to resume talks about “denuclearization.” The Middle East did not set itself on fire when Trump agreed to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After nearly 14 months, even many Democrats admit they still, after a year of investigations, see no evidence of “collusion” between Russia and the Trump campaign.
But things just look … chaotic.
President “No-Drama Obama” did indeed successfully push Obamacare through Congress and signed it into law. When the House Democrats first revealed what eventually became Obamacare, the Wall Street Journal called it “the worst bill ever.” The Journal wrote: “With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.” The law did not, as Obama routinely promised, save every family $2,500 a year. Obamacare did not, as the President insisted, “bend the cost curve” down. PolitiFact gave Obama their 2013 “Lie of the Year” award for telling the American people, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” a guarantee that Obama made even when he knew it was not true.
As commander in chief, the no-drama President signed the Iran deal that critics argue puts the world’s No. 1 sponsor of terror on a path toward getting a nuclear bomb. Obama’s first secretary of defense, Robert Gates, said Obama based the deal on a “hope that over a 10-year period with the sanctions being lifted that … they will abandon their ideology, their theology, their revolutionary principles, their meddling in various parts of the region.” Gates called this hope “unrealistic.”
Obama, over the objection of his entire national security team, pulled out all the troops from Iraq. Retired Army Gen. Ray Odierno, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, later said he believed ISIS could have been dealt with had we left a stay-behind force.
On the economy, Obama signed a $787 billion so-called stimulus package, averaged $100 billion in new regulations every single year of his presidency, and promoted the silly, wasteful “cash for clunkers” and the equally silly and wasteful “cash for caulkers.” Obama defenders argue that the recession Obama dealt with was particularly severe. Yet historically, the deeper the recession, the higher the bounce back. Not so under Obama. The recession President Ronald Reagan dealt with was worse, at least by the metrics the Democrats and the media once used until those very metrics made Democrats look bad.
Unemployment, for example, under Obama reached 10 percent. Under Reagan, it reached 10.8 percent. Inflation was 3.8 percent the year before Obama took office, but dropped to 1.3 percent his last year. Under Reagan, it was 13.5 percent the year before he took office, but dropped to 4.1 his last year. Prime interest rates under Obama, again, were 3.25 percent when he entered office, and remained low at 3.75 when he left. Under Reagan, prime interest rates climbed as high as 20.5 percent and dipped as low as 7.5 percent.
It was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who, in running against President Gerald Ford in 1976, use the “misery index.” It was simple. Just add up unemployment, plus inflation. The bigger the number, the worse the economy. Carter pointed out that under Ford, the misery index had gone up. Unfortunately for Carter, when he ran for reelection in 1980, Reagan pointed out that the misery index under Carter had grown even larger. Under Obama, at its worst point, the misery index reached 12.97 in 2011. During Reagan’s administration, the misery index was at its worst point when he entered office, at 19.33.
Obama, who supposedly governed without drama, delivered the worst recovery since 1949. On the economy and on foreign policy, he signed costly legislation and pushed counterproductive policies. Do Americans want a president who ultimately does the right thing or a president who racks up style points while making one blunder after another?
| Bernie Sides with Iran's Mullahs
Mar 21st 2018, 04:33, by Kenneth R. Timmerman
The Senate debated on Tuesday a resolution introduced by Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders that would require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Yemen.
The surprising support the resolution won from 44 U.S. Senators handed a big win to Iran, which is engaged in a hot war with Saudi Arabia on the Arabian Peninsula. And it was a huge slap in the face to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, who was meeting with President Trump in the White House as the Senate debated the motion on the floor.
It also showed the extreme damage recent scandals involving NSA snooping and political bias at the FBI have done to the credibility of the United States government, which lobbied heavily against the resolution.
Let there be no doubt: the only reason the United States has any interest in the civil war that has been raging in Yemen since 2012 is because of the Iranian regime support for the Houthi rebels.
The Houthis have fired Iranian-supplied missiles at the Saudi capital, Riyadh. They have targeted civilian airports, as well as royal palaces. As I wrote earlier this year, imagine for an instant if a hostile regional power were to stir up a civil war in Mexico or Canada, with the ultimate aim of destabilizing the U.S.?
For that is the unabashed goal of the Iranian regime: destabilize Saudi Arabia, which Tehran sees as the main check on its effort to dominate the Persian Gulf, control the free flow of oil, and establish its land bridge through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to Israel’s borders.
Sometimes you wonder at the intelligence of members of Congress. Seriously.
What part about a nuclear-armed Iran in control of the Middle East and threatening Israel do the backers of this resolution not get?
The Sanders resolution, backed initially by predictably left-wing members of the Democrat caucus, also won the fulsome support of Utah Republican Mike Lee, who joined Sanders in a mutual love-fest on the Senate floor last week to blast the Trump administration for “the unauthorized Middle East war that your United States government is supporting.”
The two Senators invoked the Vietnam-era War Powers Resolution, which Lee said “was designed to stop secret, unauthorized military activities such as these.”
Sanders boasted that their resolution was aimed to “force the first-ever vote in the Senate to withdraw U.S. Armed Forces from an unauthorized war.”
The War Powers Resolution gives the administration a 60-day window to withdraw troops engaged in overseas combat operations, unless it seeks explicit Congressional approval through a declaration of war.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, however, the United States has repeatedly deployed U.S. forces overseas under a broad authority granted by Congress known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.
The AUMF, which became law on September 14, 2001, gave the President the authority to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against anyone who “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the 9/11 attacks, or those who harbored them – a very broad definition. Indeed, U.S. troops are today deployed to over 100 countries around the world where they act, for the most part, as trainers and advisors.
But sometimes those trainers can get ambushed, as happened in October when four U.S. soldiers on a routine training exercise were killed by ISIS fighters in Niger.
The Niger attack is largely responsible for reigniting the debate over the AUMF. During a second ISIS attack in December in the Lake Chad basis, 11 ISIS fighters were killed – this time without U.S. or Nigerien casualties.
The Sanders-Lee resolution sought essentially to revoke the AUMF and return to the more narrow authorization defined under the pre-war-on-terrorism statute. This would put the dysfunctional U.S. Senate in charge of U.S. foreign and military policy.
Mike Lee argued that this is what the Constitution requires. But Congress settled that argument in 2001 when it passed the AUMF. Lee, who wasn’t a Senator then, wants to reopen the case, and has no problem teaming up with Senate Democrats who couldn’t care a whit about the Constitution and whose only goal in life is to impeach President Trump.
Debate on the Sanders-Lee measure heated up last week when Secretary of Defense James Mattis weighed in, vigorously opposing the bill in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Mattis noted that the U.S. began providing limited support to the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen in 2015. “Neither President Obama nor President Trump authorized the use of U.S. military force against the Houthis,” he wrote. “Our support takes the form of intelligence sharing, military advice, and logistical support, including air-to-air refueling. This non-combat support is focused on… reducing the risk of civilian casualties.”
Indeed, the United Nations recently called the Yemen proxy war “the worst man-made humanitarian crisis of our time.” While that might surprise many Americans, given the lack of media coverage of Yemen and the glut of coverage of Syria, what Matthis has tried to do is to help the Saudis become more precise in their targeting, to avoid mass civilian casualties.
But first and foremost, this is all about checking Iran.
Sanders argued in a “fact sheet” accompanying the resolution that “claims of Iran’s influence over the Houthis have been overblown.”
I guess he wasn’t around when U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley stood in front of an Iranian-built missile at Andrews Air Force base that had been intercepted by the Saudis en route to the Riyadh international airport.
Senator Sanders has become a predictable ally of the thugs of Tehran, a “useful idiot” for the mullahs and their IRGC enablers.
He supports the Iran nuclear deal, that enshrines Tehran’s capabilities to make nuclear weapons, and opposes new sanctions on the Iranian regime.
In the new Middle East according to Bernie, a nuclear-capable Shiite Empire will rule from Afghanistan to Lebanon, and control the overwhelming majority of OPEC’s oil exports and the oil export routes through the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea.
Israel will be surrounded by that Shite Empire from the North, the East, and the South. And the United States will become Belgium—with nuclear weapons.
Welcome to Bernie-World. It’s not one I’d like to live in.
Lamentably, Bernie convinced four Republicans in addition to Mike Lee to buy into his vision: Susan Collins of Maine, Steve Daines of Montana, Jerry Moran of Kansas, and Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Shame on them.
| The Media's Facebook Hysteria and Double Standards
Mar 21st 2018, 04:10, by Joseph Klein
Facebook is grappling with the fallout from its alleged role in permitting the London-based data firm Cambridge Analytica to gain access to data from profiles of more than 50 million Facebook users for political purposes. The Facebook data reportedly was mined for data by an app called “thisisyourdigitallife,” presumably for an academic research project. The app was created by Aleksandr Kogan, a Russian-American academic at Cambridge University, and his company Global Science Research. The data was then transferred by the researcher to Cambridge Analytica, which worked for the Trump presidential campaign and was backed by Steve Bannon and the conservative billionaire Robert Mercer. Cambridge Analytica claims that the Facebook data it gathered from the app was not used for the 2016 Trump presidential election campaign. Facebook claims that its user profile data was provided to Cambridge Analytica without its knowledge. Facebook also claims that it shut the app down in 2015.
There are reports the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is investigating whether Facebook violated terms of a 2011 consent decree in connection with the transfer of user data to Cambridge Analytica. A spokesperson for the FTC would neither confirm nor deny whether it was launching such an investigation.
Members of Congress and United Kingdom lawmakers have called on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to explain Facebook’s actions and his company’s connections with Cambridge Analytica. The hit to Facebook’s reputation and the potential for increased government regulation on both sides of the Atlantic are taking its toll. Facebook’s stock value has taken a nosedive as a result.
On the political front, President Trump’s enemies are busy exploiting the connection between Cambridge Analytica and the Trump campaign, and by implication the purported misuse of Facebook sourced data for improper partisan purposes. As the Russian-Trump campaign collusion narrative begins to fade due to lack of evidence, the Trump-hating media has latched on to a new Deus ex Machina behind Donald Trump’s improbable victory in a continuing effort to delegitimize his presidency.
The New York Times, for example, ran an article last Saturday under the headline “How Trump Consultants Exploited the Facebook Data of Millions,” in which it described what it characterized as “one of the largest data leaks in the social network’s history” and “a potentially powerful new weapon” put to use by “wealthy conservative investors seeking to reshape politics.” The Trump-hating media’s hysteria over the latest developments displays both their double standard and reckless disregard of the actual facts.
The so-called “powerful new weapon” is not new at all. In fact, as reported by Time Magazine in December 2012, Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign pioneered “a Facebook app that will transform the way campaigns are conducted in the future…That’s because the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists. In an instant, the campaign had a way to see the hidden young voters. Roughly 85% of those without a listed phone number could be found in the uploaded friend lists. What’s more, Facebook offered an ideal way to reach them.”
The Obama re-election campaign was collecting current data through the app it had developed to mine information on Facebook. The Obama campaign mined Facebook data provided by Obama backers that included the identities of their “friends,” in all likelihood without their consent or knowledge. Many of the “friends” who were outed to the Obama campaign had chosen to guard their privacy by not even having a listed phone number. Nevertheless, the Obama-loving media hailed his re-election campaign’s use of cutting edge technology. In June 2013, for example, an article appeared in the New York Times Magazine headlined “Data You Can Believe In – The Obama Campaign’s Digital Masterminds Cash In.”
By contrast, the Facebook data that the Trump bashers accuse, without hard evidence, the Trump campaign of exploiting during the 2016 presidential contest was already outdated. Facebook had cut off the “friends” functionality for app developers back in 2015.
Facebook, at the time of Obama’s re-election campaign, was said to be on Obama’s side, according to Carol Davidsen, director of data integration and media analytics for Obama for America. She admitted on Twitter a few days ago that “Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing. They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”
When Obama re-election campaign data experts exploited current Facebook user data with Facebook’s tacit support, they were considered “digital masterminds.” When conservatives make use of Facebook data in a presidential election, the Trump-hating media cry foul. One columnist went so far as to write an article for the Philadelphia Daily News entitled “How your Facebook ‘likes’ Helped Trump Steal the 2016 Election.” This is the media double standard in action.
In any case, the Trump campaign did not need the outdated Facebook data Cambridge Analytica had gathered through the discontinued app created by Aleksandr Kogan, to the extent it had retained such data at all in violation of Facebook’s direction. Facebook was all too willing to make available to the Trump campaign for a price its own apps and targeted advertising to reach friends of people who might have “liked” a page considered favorable to Donald Trump.
The false accusations against the Trump campaign are a complete distraction from the more fundamental concern that Facebook user data can be marketed for political or commercial purposes without the user’s knowledge or consent. Social media and interactive Internet technology have opened up unprecedented opportunities for global communications and e-commerce. However, surveillance concerns are raised when social media platforms such as Facebook manipulate and market vast repositories of user data collected on their sites without the users even knowing about it, much less giving their consent. Sophisticated apps capable of tracking users from one website to another, profiling their searches and interactions, and marketing the results without the users’ knowledge or consent raise similar surveillance concerns. There is no privacy to speak of for users of the Internet. This is the real lesson of the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook episode.
| Who’s Really Behind March for Our Lives?
Mar 21st 2018, 04:09, by Daniel Greenfield
[To learn more about the Freedom Center’s fight against K-12 indoctrination, visit StopK12Indoctrination.org.]
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.
Follow the money.
It’s a strange political fact, but nearly every major anti-gun group has been a front group. The NRA is maligned 24/7 and yet it’s completely obvious whom it represents. Despite the efforts to tie it to everyone from firearms manufacturers to the Russians (if you can’t tie any random Republican thing to the Russians these days, you won’t be working at the Washington Post or CNN for very long), it represents its five million members. Anti-gun groups tend to represent shadowy networks.
Take Everytown, the noisiest and most dishonest anti-gun group on the scene. The one consistent thing about anti-gun groups is that that they are usually the opposite of what their name says they are.
Everytown for Gun Safety was formed out of two other groups: Moms Demand Action and Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Both are actually front groups for Michael Bloomberg, the lefty billionaire and former boss of the Big Apple, who used New York City resources to host at least one of its websites.
So Everytown is really New York City.
March for Our Lives is on every cable channel, but who runs it? The photogenic teen fronts are out front. But it’s obvious to everyone that a bunch of teens don’t have the resources and skills to coordinate a nationwide movement. Instead it’s the experienced activists who are actually running things.
The March for Our Lives Fund is incorporated as a 501(c)(4). Donations to 501(c)(4) groups are not tax- deductible. And they don’t have to disclose donors. That’s why they’re a great dark money conduit.
But the March for Our Lives website suggests that donors who want to make a tax-deductible donation should write a check to the “March For Our Lives—Everytown Support Fund”. How will Bloomberg’s organization provide support for the supposed student group?
Why have two March for Our Lives Fund, one dark and one light? And why is one being routed through the godfather of the gun control lobby?
When it comes to March for Our Lives, the questions never end.
The March for Our Lives permit application was filed by Deena Katz, a co-executive director of the Women’s March Los Angeles Foundation. This wasn’t just a little bit of professional activist assistance.
The application lists Katz as the “Person in Charge of Event”.
Katz is a former Dancing With the Stars and current Bill Maher producer. She’s also the former owner of Talent Central, a Los Angeles talent agency, The leaked application lists her as the president of the March for Our Lives Fund.
Media contacts for March for Our Lives are being handled by 42 West. The agency is a full service PR firm operating out of New York and Los Angeles that represents major celebrities. 42 West was supposedly recommended by George Clooney who was one of a number of major celebrity donors.
Where did all those millions of dollars go? Good question.
“They’re being directed by people with knowledge of how to responsibly spend this money and it’s going to be very transparent. Every penny is going to be accounted for,” Jeff Kasky, the father of one of the students, claimed.
Who are those people? A leaked document reveals that the March for Our Lives Action Fund is actually overseen by six directors and is incorporated in Delaware.
So far we have Los Angeles, New York and Delaware, but not Florida.
Donations are being directed to, “March For Our Lives Fund, 16130 Ventura Blvd Ste 320, Encino, CA 91435.” That matches the listed office address on the application for the Wishnow Ross Warsavsky & Company. The tax firm appears to have no website.
The six directors learn toward Los Angeles.
There’s Aileen Adams, the head of Do Good LA, who had served as the Deputy Mayor for the Office of Strategic Partnerships for Los Angeles. Adams was also UCLA’s Vice Provost for Strategic Alliances.
Nor is she the only UCLA person on the list.
There’s also George Kieffer, chair of UCLA’s Board of Regents, who was named one of the most influential lawyers in California. He also held a variety of other political positions and headed the California State Protocol Foundation which funds expenses for Governor Jerry Brown.
Then there’s Nina Vinik who serves as the Program Director for the Gun Violence Prevention Program at the Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation has been notable for its gun control efforts and it’s not surprising to find it here. The Joyce Foundation also set up the anti-gun Fund for a Safer Future.
One story claims that, “Several members of the Fund for a Safer Future are organizing internally to explore new ways of engagement in the wake of Parkland.” Another states that the Joyce Foundation, “funds research to help grantees understand how different audiences think about the issue. It’s up to grantees to come up with tactics.” After Parkland, Nina wrote a militant editorial using some very familiar talking points, like, “Maybe it’s time to ask the Supreme Court about the rights of the Parkland parents to see their kids grow up.” The Joyce Foundation and Nina are based out of Chicago.
Over in Washington D.C., there’s Vernetta Walker of BoardSource acting as the fund’s Secretary and Jeri Rhodes of the Friends Committee on National Legislation acting as its Treasurer.
And then out of Madison, Wisconsin, comes Melissa Scholz.
Florida is notably absent from the roll call. Instead the organization, one of a number of seeming incarnations of the March for Our Lives brand, draws on established activist talent from the usual places, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington D.C. There’s nothing particularly local about it.
March for Our Lives is funded by Hollywood celebs, it’s led by a Hollywood producer and its finances are routed through an obscure tax firm in the Valley. Its treasurer and secretary are Washington D.C. pros. And a top funder of gun control agendas is also one of its directors.
None of this has much to do with Parkland. The mass shooting by a mentally ill man who should have been committed and arrested long before he carried out his massacre was a political opportunity.
Now that opportunity is being exploited to the hilt by a professional class of political activists.
Gun control activists wring their hands over the NRA. They claim that a special interest lobby is illegitimately thwarting the “will of the people”. Yet it’s the anti-gun groups that are invariably false fronts. It’s very clear who runs the NRA. But the latest fake anti-NRA group is a nebulous shadow. Out front are the high school students and out back are the professional activists.
And who is really behind the whole thing? Hollywood celebs, Bloomberg, a network of organizations?
We know who supports the NRA. You can see NRA stickers on car windows even in the bluest cities in the country. But who really supports the anti-gun political network? You’ll need to spend hours sorting through paperwork, following the trail, comparing addresses and researching names, to even get a hint.
That’s what an illegitimate lobby thwarting the will of the people really looks like.
Instead of March for Our Lives, maybe it’s time to March for the Truth?
| Virginia Delegate Supports Code of Ethics to Rein In Teachers’ Political Activism
Mar 21st 2018, 04:05, by Penny Starr
[To learn more about the Freedom Center’s fight against K-12 indoctrination, visit StopK12Indoctrination.org.]
Reprinted from Breitbart.com.
Before thousands of school children poured out of schools across the country last week to demand “gun control,” the resolution introduced by Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates Dave LaRock might not have gained a lot of attention.
The National School Walkout on Wednesday was organized by left-wing groups, including the Women’s March and Planned Parenthood, and was meant to “honor” the 17 people who died last month after a former student with mental health issues went on a shooting spree at a Florida high school.
In many places, including Washington, DC, the walkout turned into protests where young students threatened lawmakers and demanded the gun control agenda of those left-wing groups who organized them.
But now the resolution LaRock introduced in January seems like an idea that is desperately needed to protect American school children from being indoctrinated instead of educated.
LaRock explained in an interview on Breitbart News Saturday with Washington Deputy Political Editor Amanda House on SiriusXM Patriot 125 that his resolution asks the Board of Education to come up with a code of ethics for teachers in grades K-12.
Like the federal Hatch Act, LaRock’s resolution — inspired by conservative pundit David Horowitz — would prevent individuals from using their position to promote their political views or support a specific candidate.
“That’s exactly what is happening in schools,” LaRock said. “I think many teachers are using their position as a role model and an educator.”
Teachers are “imposing their own personal views — very often their pretty extremely liberal views — on kids through lessons and comments and sometimes even bullying kids that don’t agree with their liberal viewpoint,” LaRock said.
“It’s just very, very inappropriate and wrong,” LaRock said, citing an example of a local school teacher who signed up to be a coordinator for the walkout on a website using her school e-mail address.
And while the desire to keep kids safe in school is not a partisan issue, using children as “political tools” is not the way to achieve that goal, LaRock said.
“We all share the goal of making schools safer,” LaRock said.
“But to have these kids — put them out in the spotlight — I think in many cases ill-informed — and using them as political tools is right out of the Alinsky school of political activism,” LaRock said, referring to Saul Alinsky, the so-called founder of “community organizing.”
“So this K-12 Code of Ethics for teachers simply proposes setting some boundaries — reasonable boundaries — that respects teachers’ right to free speech maybe in their off time, but also recognizes that when they have kids there in the classroom that’s not a time for the teacher to be promoting their own personal viewpoints or policies or candidates,” La Rock said.
LaRock said parents were caught off guard by the walkout, but now many are angry about it.
“There are a lot of people that are pretty furious about this,” LaRock said. “I think it took a while to sink in because we do think of schools as places where kids go to be taught in reading, writing, and arithmetic and a bunch of other good things but not to be trained into being little activists,” LaRock said.
LaRock said students should be taught to be critical thinker, not recipients of political rhetoric.
He said parents need to get involved in their children’s education.
“Parents need to be driving the discussion, whether it’s with the schools themselves or with their own kids so that we’re not just this angry mob reacting on emotion,” LaRock said.
Follow Penny Starr on Twitter.
| Paul Joseph Watson Video: The Truth About Broken Britain
Mar 21st 2018, 04:02, by Frontpagemag.com
In this new video, Paul Joseph Watson unveils The Truth About Broken Britain. Don’t miss it!