| Trump's Stellar Supreme Court Pick
Jul 11th 2018, 04:10, by Joseph Klein
President Trump has nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to fill the seat vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his retirement late last month. Judge Kavanaugh, 53, who has served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for 12 years, said that he was “deeply honored” to be nominated to replace Justice Kennedy, for whom he once clerked. If confirmed by the Senate, where the Republicans hold a razor-thin majority, Judge Kavanaugh, a principled strict constructionist, will help solidify a reliably conservative Supreme Court.
The left is in full resistance mode. It believes that the judiciary should serve as an additional but unelected political branch, whose duty it is to enact the left’s progressive policy agenda. They want activist justices who will treat the Constitution as a malleable instrument that can be twisted into the image of what the left thinks society should be.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, kowtowing to his base, wasted no time in viciously attacking Judge Kavanaugh, claiming that his nomination puts abortion rights and health care protections for women “on the judicial chopping block.” Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon declared, “There can be no mistaking Trump’s Supreme Court nomination for anything but what it is: a direct attempt to overturn Roe. v. Wade.”
This is only a small taste of the demagoguery, outright lies and outrageous ad hominem attacks against Judge Kavanaugh we can expect in the weeks ahead. Those who revere the Constitution, and who believe, like Alexander Hamilton, that the “rules of legal interpretation” should apply the laws in “conformity to the source from which they are derived,” must get out in front with the truth about this eminently qualified “judge’s judge.”
Constitutional or statutory interpretation guided by a philosophy of judicial restraint begins with the actual words and structure of the text being interpreted. A judge’s task is to identify and apply the principles embedded in the text, not to invent new ones. As Judge Kavanaugh explained in his essay entitled “The Judge as Umpire: Ten Principles,“ a judge must endeavor to “follow the law and not to make or re-make the law…you have to understand your proper role in the game: to apply the rules and not to re-make the rules based on your own policy views.”
Time and again, in approximately 300 opinions, including dissents, Judge Kavanaugh has tried to adhere to his best understanding of the text and its animating principles in interpreting the Constitution or a statute, including by applying limits on undue governmental interference with religious freedom, the right to bear arms and a free market economy.
In his dissenting opinion in Priests for Life v. HHS, (2015), for example, Judge Kavanaugh balanced individuals’ obligations and liberties under two intersecting statutes. He analyzed the government’s interest in promoting free contraceptives under regulations issued to implement the Affordable Care Act against the religious liberties protected under another federal statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He concluded that regulations issued under the Affordable Care Act requiring that Catholic religious organizations provide free contraceptives or file a special form that identifies or notifies their insurers, under the threat of monetary penalty for non-compliance, went too far. The government’s interest in facilitating access to contraception, he said, could have been achieved by using less restrictive alternatives that would not have placed as much of a burden on the exercise of religious freedom.
In 2011, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a majority opinion of the D.C. Circuit that upheld a ban applied to semi-automatic rifles in the District of Columbia. Since the use of semi-automatic handguns by law-abiding citizens was already constitutionally protected under Supreme Court precedent, the use of semi-automatic rifles by law-abiding citizens should also be protected, he reasoned. Judge Kavanaugh wrote that “our task is to apply the Constitution and the precedents of the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the result is one we agree with as a matter of first principles or policy.”
Judge Kavanaugh takes “the bedrock underpinnings of our system of separation of powers” seriously, as he articulated in a dissenting opinion regarding Environmental Protection Agency regulations covering greenhouse gases that he believed “exceeded its statutory authority.” Judge Kavanaugh wrote: “The Framers of the Constitution did not grant the Executive Branch the authority to set economic and social policy as it sees fit. Rather, the Framers gave Congress, along with the President, that legislative role (subject to constitutional limits), and they assigned the Executive Branch the executive power to issue rules and enforce the law within the limits set by Congress.” Again, he made clear that his opinion was not based on policy preferences but rather on the need to “enforce the statutory boundaries” set by Congress.
For reasons also involving the principle of separation of powers, Judge Kavanaugh dissented when the D.C. Circuit upheld the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, run by a single director, in a decision last January that overturned Judge Kavanaugh’s own prior panel ruling. He compared in his dissent the independent agencies collectively to “a headless fourth branch of the US Government,” which possess “enormous power over the economic and social life of the United States.” Without adequate oversight by the elected branches, they could “pose a significant threat to individual liberty and to the constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances.” At the very least, Judge Kavanaugh said, there should be a “multi-member structure,” which would reduce “the risk of arbitrary decisionmaking and abuse of power, and helps protect individual liberty.” Contrary to the left’s caricature of what he wrote, Judge Kavanaugh was not expressing an anti-consumer sentiment. He was simply expressing a sentiment against unaccountable concentration of power in a single bureaucrat.
One of Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions likely to become a flashpoint in the fight over his confirmation involved the Trump administration’s refusal to allow a pregnant unaccompanied illegal immigrant, detained at the border, to be immediately released from detention for the purpose of receiving an abortion. The administration wanted to wait until a family member, relative or friend in the United States stepped forward as the minor’s “sponsor.” In his dissent from the full D.C. Circuit’s ruling entitling the illegal immigrant teen in custody to release for the purpose of receiving an abortion, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that the majority had wrongly created “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand, thereby barring any Government efforts to expeditiously transfer the minors to their immigration sponsors before they make that momentous life decision.” In his view the court majority did not follow “the many majority opinions of the Supreme Court, that have repeatedly upheld reasonable regulations that do not impose an undue burden on the abortion right recognized by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.”
Judge Kavanaugh showed respect for the Roe v. Wade precedent. He did not dispute that the teen had a right under Supreme Court precedents to obtain an abortion in the United States, irrespective of how she got here or if elective abortion was illegal in her home country. However, the question was when and under what circumstances. Judge Kavanagh was not comfortable extending the reach of such precedents to create a new right for an illegal immigrant to receive an immediate abortion on demand on U.S. soil. “The minor is alone and without family or friends,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote. “She is pregnant and has to make a major life decision. Is it really absurd for the United States to think that the minor should be transferred to her immigration sponsor – ordinarily a family member, relative, or friend – before she makes that decision? And keep in mind that the Government is not forcing the minor to talk to the sponsor about the decision, or to obtain consent. It is merely seeking to place the minor in a better place when deciding whether to have an abortion. I suppose people can debate as a matter of policy whether this is always a good idea. But unconstitutional? That is far-fetched. After all, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the Government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of the minor, and not facilitating abortion, so long as the Government does not impose an undue burden on the abortion decision.”
Judge Kavanaugh was applying Supreme Court precedents to the unusual circumstances before his court, not ignoring the precedents. Nevertheless, Judge Kavanaugh’s demonizers on the left will pounce on him for his supposedly “callous” disregard for an illegal minor immigrant’s “right” as a human being in U.S. custody to “choose” abortion on demand rather than remain temporarily in detention until a suitable sponsor can be found. The left will thereby merge the explosively emotional issues of detention of illegal immigrant children and the right to choose an abortion, which progressives believe incorrectly is guaranteed by Roe v. Wade in virtually all circumstances.
Ironically, there are also some pro-lifers who were upset with Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion. They did not think he went far enough in taking on Roe v. Wade itself, at least when it comes to illegal immigrants who want an abortion. The same was true with Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent in a case decided by the D.C. Circuit in 2011 upholding the constitutionality of Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Judge Kavanaugh dissented on narrow jurisdictional grounds, angering some conservatives who thought he should have challenged Obamacare’s constitutionality. Judge Kavanaugh can’t win, since the left will still tag him as being against affordable health care.
Judge Kavanaugh will have some baggage to overcome, including his association with the independent counsel investigation of former President Bill Clinton and his drafting of parts of the Ken Starr report that led to Clinton’s impeachment. He worked on George W. Bush’s legal team during the 2000 Florida recount, after which he served as former President Bush’s White House lawyer and staff secretary, no doubt producing paper in abundance that Democrats will demand to see. Bush nominated Judge Kavanaugh for the D.C. Court of Appeals in 2003, but he was not confirmed until 2006.
Judge Kavanaugh’s law review article in 2009, arguing that Congress should consider enacting a statute exempting the president from both criminal prosecution and civil suits while in office, is already providing ammunition to his opponents seeking to portray Judge Kavanaugh as a tool of President Trump. He was theorizing on what Congress might do in this regard to provide breathing space to any president dealing with life-and-death issues, noting that Congress has the constitutional impeachment power to remove a president for malfeasance. He was not expressing an opinion as to what a court had the power to do on its own, if anything. Nevertheless, Judge Kavanaugh’s opponents can be expected to throw his words back at him out of context during his confirmation hearings to try and “prove” his intent to protect President Trump against a possible subpoena from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office or against an indictment.
The left will try to destroy Judge Kavanaugh by any means possible, as they successfully did with Judge Bork and tried to do with their “high-tech lynching” of Justice Thomas. They must not be allowed to succeed. Whatever minor faults Judge Kavanaugh may have, he is a towering intellect with a keen legal mind and a heart to go with it who belongs on the Supreme Court.
| Dems’ Derangement Over Kavanaugh
Jul 11th 2018, 04:09, by Lloyd Billingsley
“Judge Kavanaugh should not be allowed anywhere near our nation’s highest bench. Let’s be clear: a vote for Kavanaugh would be a vote to rip health care from American families and deny women their constitutional right to make their own health care decisions.”
That was a statement from DNC boss Tom Perez shortly after President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court. In a sense it was ironic because as a DC native and DC Appeal Court judge, the Yale law alum is already near the nation’s highest bench. On the other hand, the statement typified the tide of reaction from leftist Democrats.
“Are you ready for the fight? Are you ready to defend Roe v. Wade?” bellowed a wide-eyed Bernie Sanders, face glowing a bright shade of pink. Many in the Monday crowd may have forgotten that the Vermont socialist would have lost to Trump in 2016 if Hillary Clinton had not rigged the process.
In June, Sanders former cadre Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that Kavanaugh’s views on the president’s eligibility for a criminal investigation constituted an “automatic disqualification” from the high court. In similar style, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, told reporters, “We have an ongoing investigation that is a bi-partisan supported investigation as we saw throughout the Senate committee and a president who is saying, ‘I now have a chance to make sure the Supreme Court gives me a get out of jail free card.’” So the Yale Law grad has already determined the president’s guilt and sentence.
According to California Senator Kamala Harris, who got her start under Willie Brown, “Judge Kavanaugh has consistently proven to be a conservative ideologue instead of a mainstream jurist.” And the Trump pick “represents a direct and fundamental threat to the promise of equality.”
Fellow California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has been comparing President Trump’s policies to “Nazi Germany,” went on record that Kavanaugh’s views “are far outside the legal mainstream when it comes to access to health care, executive power, gun safety, worker protections, women’s reproductive freedom, and the government’s ability to ensure clean air and water, to name a few.”
Hillary’s vice-presidential loser Tim Kaine told reporters “I’m focused on whether Judge Kavanaugh would safeguard the civil rights of all Americans regardless of race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation and ensure that all are protected from discrimination.” Sen. Mark Warner said Kavanaugh came from “a list put together by ultra-conservative groups” so he was “not the right pick to serve on our nation’s highest court.”
Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who claims to be Native American, told the crowds, “We didn’t get into this fight when the odds would be stacked into our favor. We got into this fight to build a country that embodies the best in America.”
Sen. Charles Schumer told CBS he would work against Kavanaugh with “everything I’ve got.”
Schumer’s former aide Christopher Hahn, opposes Kavanaugh because Mitch McConnell “stole” the court slot from POTUS 44 pick Merrick Garland.
“With Brett Kavanaugh, Trump could cement an extremist conservative Supreme Court majority hostile to working people for a generation,” tweeted Rep. Keith Ellison. “With so much at risk we must fight this pick with everything we’ve got to protect women’s rights, workers’ rights, civil rights and voting rights.”
For Sen. Dick Durbin, “replacing Justice Kennedy’s swing vote with a far-right jurist like Judge Kavanaugh could change the rules in America.” The Judiciary Committee member added, “with a subservient Republican Congress and a far-right Supreme Court, there is a real risk that the worst impulses of the Trump presidency will go unchecked.”
For Kelli Musick of the Feminist Majority Foundation, “If Trump’s nominee is confirmed, the Trump Court will set out to gut the Affordable Care Act, LGBTQ rights, affirmative action, protections for workers, access to birth control, and voting rights, among other hard won gains. This is the fight of our lives.”
For the NAACP, “Brett Kavanaugh is a dangerous ideologue whose extreme views on civil rights would solidify a far right majority on the Supreme Court.” We could see “further exclusion of communities of color from participation in our democracy. We could see racism continue to flourish within the criminal justice system.” For an unnamed “Muslim Civil Rights Group” Kavanaugh on the court “would give Trump a green light to put his bigoted agenda in place without checks and without regard to the rule of law.” And so on.
Those who find these reactionaries confusing might consult law professors John Yoo and Robert Delahunty. As they note, Kavanaugh has written no opinions on abortion, gay marriage or religion but he does take issue with the administrative state that threatens liberty and avoids democratic accountability. As Yoo and Delahunty show, “Kavanaugh has repeatedly challenged the foundations of this runaway state.” Odds are he would do the same if confirmed to the court.
At this writing, 2016 loser Hillary Clinton is keeping quiet on Kavanaugh but according to the Washington Post, “Clinton can win the presidency in 2020 thanks to a combination of demographic and electoral shifts among voters and uncertainty about their futures.”
If Hillary Clinton runs and wins, she may be able to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court. That’s the way it works in America.
| The Maxine Waters Marxist Minstrel Show
Jul 11th 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
“When you attack a Black woman for speaking out about injustice, and when you call for ‘civility’ in the face of blatant racism, you invoke a long history of white supremacist power.”
So reads a letter in defense of the call by Rep. Maxine Waters to harass Trump administration officials.
“The concept of respect is culturally mediated; there is no single, objective standard,” it concludes.
There are clear objective standards. They include not harassing the people you disagree with in their private lives. The only people who think that standard is “culturally mediated” are leftist thugs.
But the lefty letter, which claims thousands of signatories, is not unique. Nor is its message.
A New York Times op-ed declares that civility is the “misguided obsession” of “white America.” According to a CNN analysis, not being harassed while you’re having dinner is a form of “privilege”.
“Civility is a tool of white supremacy,” a Samantha Bee writer tweeted.
According to Simran Jeet Singh, a Henry R. Luce Post-Doctoral Fellow at NYU’s Center for Religion and Media, civility is a “power play by those who feel that white supremacy is under threat.”
If civility and manners are racist, then rudeness must be the new civil rights movement. But no amount of citing Martin Luther King in defense of harassing Trump staffers having dinner will change his speech to, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day be rude, obnoxious and entitled snowflakes.”
Civility arguments predate the recent harassment of Trump officials. After being battle tested in online leftist forums where calls for politeness were denounced as “tone-policing,” they were deployed to college campuses where critics of racist harassment were attacked for imposing a “white -informed civility” on furious protesters.
Two sets of values were in collision. On one side were the basic norms of public behavior, and on the other was the great bigoted crusade against bigotry. It was inevitable that the norms of manners, decency and civility – like everything else that obstructed the great crusade – would be deemed racist.
White supremacy has been redefined as anything that interferes with the left. Beyond civility, the rule of law, equality, due process and freedom of speech have all been deemed the tools of white supremacy.
Racism is the new witchcraft. Just like witches, it’s everywhere and in everything.
“Milk, it has been argued of late, is the new symbol of white supremacy in America, owing to its hue,” the Los Angeles Times discourses. At the University of Michigan, wood paneling was accused of marginalizing minorities. In Oakland, racist scooters are threatening the lives of black people. “Mathematics itself operates as Whiteness,” a University of Illinois professor claimed.
Are civility, manners and decency racist? As much as milk, wood paneling, math and scooters.
When everything is racist, nothing is racist. And nothing is racist because the leftist obsession with race has nothing to do with black people. This use of racism or white supremacy exploits black people as props, but is actually only a thin pretext for the left to fight the wars that it wants to fight anyway.
And the black people who show up are taking part in a Marxist minstrel show.
Rep. Maxine Waters hoarsely urged a mob, “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
But on the video, the mob being hectored by the world’s oldest millennial is a sea of white.
Aside from Waters, there is one other black person in front of the camera. The rest appear to be mostly older white people from the upper middle class who look like they just stepped out of a mall. Their clothes run to business casual. It’s as far from a crowd of oppressed minorities as you can get.
But that’s typical for Waters whose phony #resistance shtick is sucker bait for angry white lefties who, like the political dumpster diva, are far away from her minority district. Racializing Waters’ call to white lefties to terrorize political opponents is typical of how the left uses minorities to justify its violence.
Dozens of media spin pieces tried to cite Martin Luther King to justify Waters’ rhetoric. That’s not civil rights. It’s political blackface. The issue isn’t race, it’s ideology. The left manufactures a crisis to create a sense of urgency. The norms, legal and social, cannot be allowed to get in the way of the urgent crisis. The petty preoccupations of the bourgeoisie with manners, property, legal rights or their lives can’t be allowed to interfere.
With this same tediously murderous logic, the left took millions of lives in the name of its urgent crises.
Civility and manners aren’t racist, but they are counterrevolutionary. Revolutions kill by urgency. They upend everything, declare an endless national crisis and settle down to solving it with decades of genocide. And there’s no room for civility or manners when your jackboots are full of blood.
The revolutions of the left unleash political terror against those who disagree, then those who insufficiently agree, then those who agree out of thoughtful conviction rather than mindless obedience.
Once upon a time the left used class to justify violent purges by its upper middle class leadership. In the United States, the left uses race to justify violent purges by its upper middle class white leadership.
Otherwise the rhetoric, the predatory crocodile tears for the oppressed, the violent outrage that purports to be rooted in political empathy, when it’s actually based on personal ego, the calls for violence on the behalf of the empathy props, is the same. The left pretends that its hatred is empathy, and the empathy of those who still believe in social norms is actually a form of cruelty.
If you don’t believe in terrorizing those you disagree with, where is your compassion for others?
Political blackface needs its Marxist minstrel show radicals. Auntie Maxine hoarsely bellowing at the population of a Gap store is as silly as anything from the Madea movies. It’s hard to believe that Rep. Maxine Waters (D – Anywhere But Her District) isn’t just a character that Tyler Perry invented.
Maxine Waters, who doesn’t care about anything that doesn’t involve her husband’s bank, is a pretext for white lefties to attack white conservatives in the name of civil rights. Despite winning elections by 70% margins, she’s raised $707,986. Waters doesn’t need the cash to win her inevitable elections.
Using black people as a cover for leftist violence isn’t a new tactic. But leftist violence doesn’t come from the oppressed. It’s perpetrated by the oppressors using social justice as a false flag for their violence.
When you hide your thuggery behind black people, you can denounce civility as a racist conspiracy against black people. But civility isn’t racist. White lefties wearing political blackface to claim that black people are physically incapable of having manners or conducting civil protests are as racist as it gets.
Political blackface is racist. And political violence by any race is terrorism. And a crime.
Civility isn’t racist. The left is.
| Lefty London Rages Over Trump Visit
Jul 11th 2018, 04:07, by David Paulin
Riot police are braced for the worst as President Trump makes his first visit to the United Kingdom this week. Massive street protests are expected during the four-day visit
along with nasty insults in Parliament, the news media, and hip salons. The U.S. Embassy, for its part, is warning Americans to keep a “low profile
.” Oh, and don’t forget the high-flying “baby Trump
” blimp that has gotten a green light to float near Parliament – an insult endorsed by Trump-hating Mayor Sadiq Khan, who is London’s first Muslim mayor and an apologist
for Islamic terror attacks in London.
Much to Khan’s horror, the politically incorrect Trump has dared to point out that Islamic terror attacks – grisly subway bombings, wild-eyed knifings, and rampaging attacks with motor vehicles – are now a regular feature in the land of Chaucer and Shakespeare. Trump and other clear-eyed politicians, together with ordinary Brits who voted for Brexit, nevertheless have no doubt about the root causes of these atrocities: decades of Muslim immigration; multiculturalism and political correctness; and the European Union’s feel-good open borders policies created by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. Welcome to London, one of the most storied cities in the Western tradition – yet now derisively dubbed “Londonistan
To keep Britain’s lefty mob at bay, riot police are mobilizing in record numbers, especially in London, the epicenter of Trump hatred. The unprecedented show of force is what one might expect “if London was burning down,
” observed one law-enforcement official. Some 100,000 protesters are expected in London, even though Trump will largely avoid the city after flying in on Thursday
from a NATO conference in Brussels. His schedule includes having tea with Queen Elizabeth II at Windsor Castle and holding talks with Prime Minister Theresa May, who is now under fire
for waffling on regaining full British independence from the European Union following the Brexit referendum two years ago.
As Britain rages with Trump hatred, expect lefty CNN and MSNBC to seize upon the protests to provide hand-ringing remarks about how America is no longer respected. Trump is a racist. Trump hates Muslims. Trump is a pig. That kind of talk unites the left, both in America and abroad. None of this is entirely about Trump, however. Yes, the protests may be focused on Trump, but deep down they are really animated by anti-Americanism – and unabashedly pro-American Trump stirs up anti-American animus with everything he says.
To understand this anti-American pathology and Trump hatred, consider two political leaders who got a big welcome in Britain. First, there was President Obama who visited London in 2011 on a state visit
(an honor withheld from Trump thanks to anti-Trump sentiment in Britain’s Parliament and other corridors of power). Obama, of course, got red-carpet treatment because he was an anti-American president: he believed America had many sins to answer for and was in decline. On trips abroad, he had no compunction about bad-mouthing America. Not surprisingly, he was thus regarded as a deep-thinking statesman during interviews at the BBC and when visiting other venues. Like the old saying goes: Show me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are.
But guess who got an even more delirious welcome than Obama? It was none other than Venezuelan strongman and socialist Hugo Chávez, the firebrand president who made anti-Americanism a pillar of his foreign policy
. Chávez’s visit to London in 2006 was not a state visit, but it might as well have been given the rock-star welcome
that he got in London.
Hugo’s London Visit
Chávez’s host was London Mayor Ken Livingstone, then 60, known informally as “Red Ken.” With Livingstone at his elbow, the then 51-year-old Chávez got a hero’s welcome
at one rally. Adoring leftists
swooned over his anti-American diatribes and colorful one-liners, including branding President Bush a “genocidal assassin.” At private functions, Chávez – who once called himself a “Maoist” and praised Cuba’s “sea of happiness” – hobnobbed with like-minded Parliamentarians and celebrities. The later included virulent anti-American playwright and Nobel laureate Harold Pinter and activist Bianca Jagger, former wife of Rolling Stone Mick Jagger.
Britain’s anti-American left gave Chávez the rock-star treatment that had traditionally been showered on Chávez’s aging mentor, Cuba’s president-for-life Fidel Castro. The left adored Chávez’s frequent harangues of President Bush; his vaunted “social programs” for Venezuela’s poor; and his impassioned call for a Latin America free of Washington’s influence, and united under his so-called “Bolivarian Revolution” – named after Latin America’s liberation hero, Simón Bolívar.
Chávez’s admirers loved the way he upstaged Western leaders at international summits. They snickered when he announced that he’d provide subsidized heating oil to low-income Americans and Europeans. In their minds, it was a well-aimed slap at immoral Western capitalism; no matter that Venezuela’s oil is the patrimony of Venezuelans, most of whom are poor. For Chávez and his rabid supporters, however, it was perfectly legitimate to use Venezuela’s oil wealth to buy influence and form anti-Washington alliances. So what if this meant fewer petrodollars for Venezuelans – who are now eating from garbage piles
and fleeing abroad thanks to Venezuela-style socialism.
During Chávez’s visit, “Red Ken” and fellow leftists turned a blind eye to to what was happening in Chávez’s socialist petro-state: authoritarianism, poverty, and corruption were all on the upswing – yet thanks to soaring oil prices at the time, Chávez got away with his misrule. With an oil boom underway, there was no need to diversify the economy, attract investment, and create jobs – all anathema to any self-respecting socialist.
During Trump’s visit, expect the news media to remain focused on the anti-Trump protests. Perhaps Trump and pro-Brexit leaders like Nigel Farage
will call attention to Britain’s silent majority – those who voted for Brexit and, in doing so, became ideological soulmates of President Trump.
Something else bears repeating: Show me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are.
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.
Photo: Jon Michael
| Prager U Video: So, You Think You're Tolerant?
Jul 11th 2018, 04:03, by Prager University
Are you tolerant? You probably think so. But who is tolerant in America today? Is it those on the left, or those on the right? In this video, Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report analyzes this question and shares his experience.
| The Left’s Immigration Con Game
Jul 11th 2018, 04:02, by Michael Cutler
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
With that famous quote George Orwell warned decades ago against history revisionists and that which has come to be referred to as “fake news.”
On July 4, 2018, the New York Post headline read, “Statue of Liberty Climber Identified as Immigrant Activist.”
The Post and other news outlets have identified this ”immigrant activist” as Therese Patricia Okoumou — a 44-year-old originally from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
How better to celebrate the birth of our nation than stage a dangerous illegal protest against the enforcement of America’s immigration laws at the Statue of Liberty? Okoumou’s actions threatened to severely damage a precious national landmark and endangered the lives of hundreds of tourists — who had patiently waited in line, then paid a steep admission fee to ferry to Liberty Island — only to be evacuated because of her illegal hijinks.
Officers of the NYPD were also endangered by Okoumou’s stupid trick when they had to neutralize her threat to the public and to the Statue of Liberty when they took her into custody.
According to various reports about Okoumou, she is quite comfortable with both law-breaking and initiating lawsuits against businesses for alleged “racism.”
Ludicrously, it appears she was admitted into the United States lawfully by the very same immigration authorities she is now fighting against.
While she was not alone at the protest demanding an end to ICE, of all the members of the group she reportedly belongs to, “Rise and Resist,” she was the only one to climb the iconic “Lady in the Harbor.”
There is an irresistible irony here. Last year I wrote an article, “Aliens Trespassing,” in which I discussed the proposed legislation by — none other than — New York’s Senior Senator Chuck Schumer, who sought to make trespassing on national landmarks a federal crime with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for a conviction.
Schumer’s own press release included a reference to “trespassers from overseas” — in other words, “aliens.”
Yet Schumer, eager to see the demise of ICE along with his fellow travelers of the Democratic Party, apparently could not care less about aliens who trespass on America.
For decades, immigration anarchists have exploited Ellis Island, the Statue of Liberty and Emma Lazarus’ poem, The New Colossus, falsely portraying the history of immigration and romanticizing the way that America supposedly embraced all new-comers a century ago and lamenting the demise of Ellis Island.
In so doing they have rewritten history, turning the immigration debate into a war of words where slogans based on lies are repeated as frequently as possible. This is an example of the principle of “The Big Lie” used with great effectiveness by the Third Reich.
An extraordinary film, Forgotten Ellis Island, is a must-see documentary that tells the true story about Ellis Island, and the story is not particularly pretty or romantic.
To begin with, Ellis Island was not a natural island but was constructed on rocks and debris removed during the construction of the massive New York City subway system. By situating this federal facility on this artificial island, no aliens could come ashore and abscond the way that today aliens exploit the lunacy known as “catch & release” — a policy that incidentally does not only occur along the borders of the United States but, similarly plagues the integrity of the immigration system from within the interior of the United States.
The only way for aliens to get from Ellis Island to New York City, and hence the U.S. mainland, was by a government-operated ferry.
According to the documentary, Ellis Island included a massive hospital complex that consisted of 22 buildings.
One hundred years ago, Public Health officials worked with immigration inspectors to process the arriving immigrants. Back then, the most significant concerns with admission decisions centered on health-related issues.
There were two reasons for this: genuine concerns about illnesses being transported into the U.S. and that antibiotics were, then, non-existent. Epidemics could be devastating.
Aside from public health, the second issue of great concern about immigration then — but one that is never discussed today by immigration anarchists — is whether the arriving immigrants were too weak, mentally ill or otherwise unable to work and support themselves.
Aliens who were ill or deemed too weak or mentally incapable of working were deported, even if it meant that they would be permanently separated from their families. Families that were determined to remain together had but one alternative: return to their native countries.
Back then, Eastern Europeans, Italians, Jews and others were openly discriminated against and frequently barred from entering the United States.
Today, under the guise of being politically correct, globalists beginning with Jimmy Carter, started modifying the language of the immigration debate to alter the public’s understanding of the issues.
The term “alien” was expunged from the vernacular of INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) employees by Carter when describing foreign nationals present in the United States who demanded that henceforth illegal aliens be referred to as “undocumented immigrants,” or simply immigrants.
This was not done to be polite or politically correct, but to remove the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens.
We must stop referring to propaganda as examples of “political correctness” and call it what it indeed is: Orwellian Newspeak.
Incredibly, the dreaded term “alien” was incorporated in the acronym DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act).
Today, the media rarely reports that the DREAM Act was an acronym; instead, they link it to the “American Dream,” where illegal aliens are “DREAMERs.” That “dream,” however, has become increasingly elusive for Americans and lawful immigrants.
As for the DREAMers, the media incessantly describes them as young “immigrants” brought to the United States illegally as children when they had no control over their circumstances. Thus, they claim, it would be unfair to punish children for the crimes of their parents and, accordingly, it is only reasonable and compassionate to provide them with permanent lawful status and, perhaps, pathways to U.S.citizenship.
Today these “young” aliens could conceivably be in their mid-thirties to qualify as DREAMERs, provided they claim to have been brought to the U.S. before their 16th birthday.
However, no record of entry is created when aliens first enter the United States without inspection. Routine interviews are impossible, as are field investigations needed to determine the legitimacy of claims because of the significant number of aliens who could jam the existing system to participate in this massive amnesty program. This boondoggle will serve as an open invitation for epic levels of immigration fraud wherein potentially millions of illegal aliens, some of whom are middle-aged, could successfully game and overwhelm our system, making a further mockery of the U.S. immigration system.
Now immigration anarchists demand the destruction of ICE.
Foreign criminals, drug cartels, and terrorists would love free access to America. Human traffickers would go un-investigated and unpunished.
Greedy employers who fire Americans and hire illegal aliens would have nothing to fear.
Illegal alien parents who endanger their children by smuggling them into the United States would face no consequences for their crimes.
Famed playwright George Bernard Shaw lamented that “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.” Learning from history requires access to unbiased and factual accounts of the news and of history. Liars and their lies must be exposed and rejected.
Photo: Jonathan McIntosh
| Trump Taps Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court
Jul 10th 2018, 04:11, by Lloyd Billingsley
President Trump on Monday named “judge’s judge” Brett Kavanaugh for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The president sought a nominee of “impeccable credentials” who would “do what the law requires” and “apply the Constitution as written.” He found such a person in Kavanaugh, 53, who has served on the D.C. Circuit court of appeals since 2006. The conservative Yale Law alum clerked for the associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who stepped down just 12 days ago.
Democrats see the Supreme Court as a robed politburo that will give them what they can’t win through the electoral process. Democrats appear to believe they own the court and even before President Trump’s announcement they were gearing up for the fight.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who doesn’t have a vote on the nominee, said she is “determined to avenge President Obama if it’s the last thing I do.” Other Democrats, led by Charles Schumer, said they would oppose any Trump pick for the high court. The battle to confirm Kavanaugh is certain to be fierce, so all age groups might review the Democrats’ grand inquisitors of the past.
Ohio Democrat Howard Metzenbaum, a veteran of the Communist Party fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild, took the lead against black conservative Clarence Thomas in 1991. Metzenbaum thought he was intellectually superior to the Bush nominee, but Thomas, a Yale man like Kavanaugh, made him look a fool. It was likely Metzenbaum who leaked Anita Hill’s fake story, and the leftist Democrat pushed hard on the sexual harassment allegations.
When black businessman John Doggett testified in favor of Thomas, Metzenbaum charged that Doggett was also guilty of sexual harassment. White liberal Joe Biden also attacked on that front.
“From my standpoint as a black American,” Thomas said, “as far as I’m concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.”
Thomas’ “high-tech lynching” charge enraged West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd, a former Ku Klucker who also voted against Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court Justice. Byrd voted against Thomas and so did Sen. Ted Kennedy who in 1969 left Mary Jo Kopechne to die at Chappaquiddick. In 1984, Kennedy colluded with KGB boss Yuri Andropov to prevent the reelection of Ronald Reagan, who in 1987 nominated Robert Bork to the high court.
“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions,” Sen. Ted Kennedy famously charged. “Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy. America is a better and freer nation than Robert Bork thinks. Yet in the current delicate balance of the Supreme Court, his rigid ideology will tip the scales of justice against the kind of country America is and ought to be.”
And so on, with high-volume accompaniment from Norman Lear’s People for the American Way, which was anything but.
Metzenbaum and Kennedy are tough acts to follow but Democrats are up to the task. Their lead inquisitor will be Dianne Feinstein, 85, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Long before Donny Deutsch charged that even Trump voters are Nazis the San Francisco Democrat, now 85, was the loudest voice for the leftist boilerplate that America is overflowing Nazis and that religious conservatives are Nazis.
In 1992 in rural Idaho, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Vicki Weaver through the head as she held her 10-month-old daughter. As husband Randy told the Senate in 1995, “She was not wanted for any crime. There were no warrants for her arrest.”
Democrats Herb Kohl and Patrick Leahy showed sympathy but as the San Francisco Examiner reported, “Feinstein dealt sternly with Weaver, asking whether his children wore Nazi arm bands and shouted Nazi slogans at neighbors.” Feinstein sought to show that the family was a pack of Nazis, implying that the killing of Vicki Weaver might have been justified.
Last September, in a confirmation hearing involving Amy Coney Barrett and Joan Larsen, both on President Trump’s original list, Feinstein said the backdrop for the hearing was the “neo-Nazis and white supremacists” in Charlottesville. “These are ideologies that people across the world died in a war fighting to defeat Nazism,” and just in case anybody wondered, “there isn’t any good in Nazism.”
Feinstein recently compared immigration policies under President Trump to “Nazi Germany.” Under her lead, Democrats will doubtless deploy the Nazi smear in the confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh, along with the usual fake accusations and sub-infantile non-arguments. In 2018, as in 1991 and 1987, bigotry, fakery and slander live loudly within them.
| The Inauthentic Flip-Flopping of Bernie Sanders
Jul 10th 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.
“Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal,” Bernie Sanders snapped. “You’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that.”
“What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy,” he continued. “You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?”
That was three years ago.
Bernie’s final surrender came after dodging a question on CNN about abolishing ICE. After the backlash, he went even further, issuing a statement urging that we “abolish the cruel, dysfunctional immigration system we have today”. Open borders had gone from a right-wing position to a Bernie position.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie’s rare successful socialist candidate, had already told Al Jazeera that, “We should grant people a safe and documented right of passage”.
“Republicans try all these scare tactics. And they go ‘Oh, open borders.’ Because they’re trying to incite fear,” she added.
Bernie’s immigration flip flop didn’t actually take three years.
After the backlash from the open borders interview, he adopted contemporary leftist positions. His platform was full of boilerplate language about Republican “anti-immigrant and xenophobic hysteria”, mass amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens and ending the “militarization” of the border.
That was the new position of the candidate who once told MSNBC, “I don’t think there is any candidate for president — none — who thinks that we should open up the borders.” The platform appears on the same Bernie site where an old article dubs open borders a “trendy libertarian idea” and calls for improving the economies of other countries so that their immigrants don’t come to America.
Even people who don’t like Bernie Sanders think that he honestly believes what he says. His views, they imagine, are so extreme that he might be wrong, but he must be authentic. But Bernie’s actual record reveals a pattern of cowardly flip-flopping in response to political pressure from the left.
Bernie 2.0, the formerly poor politician who has earned over $1 million for two years running, is a very different political animal than the crusty old socialist that Obama’s old lefty allies dug up in Vermont.
The left’s favorite Senator owes his seat to the NRA. He voted against the Brady Bill and was listed as the only non-Republican among the 25 top recipients of money from gun-rights groups. Hillary Clinton quickly zeroed in on gun control as Bernie’s weakness. And his response to her was praised by the NRA. And then, as usual, the flip-following followed the leftist backlash in the media and on social media.
After telling the New York Daily News that firearms manufacturers shouldn’t face lawsuits from victims of crimes committed with firearms, he flipped his answer completely around at the debate. It only took a few weeks for Bernie to go from, “No, I don’t” to “They have a right to sue, and I support them.”
These days Bernie is hanging out with David Hogg and blaming a “three letter word” for gun violence.
“It’s the NRA,” Sanders recently sneered. “And it’s Trump and the Republicans who don’t have the guts to stand up to these people and that’s pretty pathetic.”
But it’s Bernie who is too pathetically gutless to stand up to the bullying of his own political radicals.
In 2014, Bernie Sanders got into a shouting match at a town hall over his condemnation of Hamas. Two years later, he falsely claimed that Israel had killed 10,000 innocent people in Gaza. These days his public statements on the subject are often little better than Hamas propaganda.
Bernie 2.0 was shaped by a series of confrontations with key Democrat constituencies that sliced away whatever was authentic about him and left him one step closer to being a generic Democrat.
Black Lives Matter activists harassed Bernie Sanders until he adopted their platform. So did illegal alien activists. He sparred with the Human Rights Campaign, the leading gay rights lobby, and Planned Parenthood. Each confrontation followed a familiar pattern, a surly response from the Sanders campaign, followed by a quiet capitulation and a loud affirmation.
After running against an inauthentic politician with a wet finger in the wind, Bernie took on all her traits.
But Bernie is very different than Hillary. While Hillary Clinton was her own woman, Bernie is a puppet. Revolution Messaging plucked him out of obscurity because they couldn’t get Elizabeth Warren. Lefty consultants frozen out by the Clinton campaign and book publishers made millions off Bernie.
Bernie also cashed in. He’s up to three homes and has joined the 1 percent. His wife and stepkids have their own cozy arrangements. Officially he’s the leader of a movement. The reality is he’s a brand.
The inept Vermont socialist isn’t actually leading a movement. He’s just the face of one.
That movement, whose key figures are people like Keith Ellison and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have little in common with who Bernie was. The old socialist had tapped into traditional lefty strains in New England politics. His movement is top heavy with urban diversocrats like Ben Jealous and Stacey Abrams. It hasn’t tapped into anything except the radicalization and narrow identity politics of the Democrats.
Bernie Inc. helped mainstream the use of socialism. But despite the tingly feeling that saying, “Socialism” gave the left, its pitch isn’t all that more socialist than the Democrats already are. Buying minority votes with freebies has been the elevator pitch of the Democrats since LBJ. Free college isn’t some radical new idea. It’s a failed plan by Jerry Brown’s dad from back when Bernie was a deadbeat.
Despite the socialist moniker, Bernie hasn’t pushed anything too radical for the lefty billionaire Pelosi donors who actually run the party. His movement isn’t trying to replicate Bernie. Instead it made him over in its image and is propping him up, Weekend at Bernie’s style, as the figurehead for a movement built on trendy lefty identity politics causes that its namesake has trouble keeping up to date on.
The same candidate who dismissed identity politics has come to be defined by them. His economic message is funneled through the usual victim groups and the medium has become the message. Bernie, an old white leftist, is the awkward public face of a movement that puts forward minority leftists for political office, even as its base remains as white as Bernie’s hair.
Bernie Inc. bets on the ethnic and racial nationalism of local constituencies with the big wins coming from harnessing the Latino and African-American votes that eluded Bernie during the primaries. That’s why Bernie is now for open borders, drug dealers, Hamas and gun control. Bernie’s old socialism has been streamlined to match the safe identity politics of the Democrat multicultural coalition.
The media’s sudden love affair with Cortez is also a warning that the Bernie Sanders brand is shaky. Even Revolution Messaging, the original wizards behind the curtain, only took him because they couldn’t find anyone better. And Bernie has been careful to remain surrounded by even less charismatic figures.
Bernie Inc. is a typical leftist organization, militantly loud, internally poisonous, virtue signaling its altruism while really being motivated by conventional greed, clumsily mismanaged and yet aspiring to absolute power. Its figurehead is angry and erratic. A fraud who has sold his soul for ego and cash.
Bernie will never have his revolution. He’s flip-flopped so many times that even he can’t keep track of his compromises and betrayals. And the one thing that everyone thinks is true about him is a lie.
He’s not authentic and doesn’t stick to his beliefs. Instead he traded them for a seat in the 1 percent.
| The Future is Conservative
Jul 10th 2018, 04:09, by Mark Tapson
Referring to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Congressional election victory last month, Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez said in a radio interview last week that the 28-year-old rising star from the Democratic Socialists of America represents “the future of our party.” There is no other way to interpret this except as a direct admission that Democrats see socialism itself as the future of America, which will come as no surprise to anyone on the right.
Democrats love to dream about the future. The past is a tragic span of class oppression and the present is the workers’ revolution in progress, but the future is where it’s at. Like the proletariat heroes on Communist propaganda posters, leftists are fond of gazing off into the distance at a glorious Shangri-La on the horizon. What they tend to downplay is the genocidal totalitarianism necessary to pave the way for that new dawn – but hey, you can’t make the ideal omelet without breaking a few million eggs.
The future as conceived by the left is always a utopian vision in which inconvenient human nature has been hammered (and sickled) into compliance and in which equality of outcome – except for the political elites at the top – is brutally enforced. It’s worth reminding ourselves here that the word “utopia,” coined in the 16th century by Sir Thomas More for his political satire of the same name, was a play on Greek words meaning “no place” – for that is where utopia is to be found. That is why the left insists on ruthlessly engineering reality and human nature in order to mold them to fit the dream – or else. And that is why the left always begins by declaring “We’re on the right side of history” and ends by blithely proclaiming, “We’ll get it right next time.” In between, the utopians leave behind a wasteland, an archipelago of gulags, and untold numbers of murdered victims and crushed spirits.
Let’s look at a few ways in which the left envisions America’s future. Consider, for example, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s slogan that “the future is female.” Writing off half the population as irrelevant seems like an odd way to win voters, and most women in America reject the label “feminist” as well, but there is a certain pussy hat-wearing element among the left which fantasizes that if women ran the world, there would be peace on earth and good will toward men overnight. As Donald Trump bluntly told Hillary in a presidential debate: “Wrong.” The future will never be just female because it can never be just female. Sorry Hillary, but men aren’t going away nor moving to the back of the bus. We’re all in this together.
And yet some on the left consider even Hillary’s vision of the future to be not radical and illogical enough. The so-called “intersectional” feminists declare, as one headline put it, that “The Future is Not Female – It is Two-Spirit, Trans and Non-Binary.” I hate to be the bearer of bad news to them, but the narcissistic, gender-blending fantasies of naïve millennials have no future at all beyond the safe spaces of academe. They will quickly learn that the real world has no patience for preferred-pronoun petulance.
Another example. The leftist site HuffPost tweeted recently about Desmond is Amazing, a 10-year-old drag queen (yes, you read that right) who calls himself an LGBT advocate. “As Pride month comes to a close, Desmond Is Amazing, the ten-year-old drag kid from New York, is proof that the future is queer,” crowed HuffPost. Sorry, but a single manipulated child is hardly evidence that the future is queer, whatever that even means. It should be clear to anyone upon a moment’s reflection that if the future is queer, then the future is a dead end in a single generation.
In response to this, clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, author of the bestselling 12 Rules for Life and certainly the most popular public intellectual since Joseph “Follow your bliss” Campbell in the 1980s, tweeted, “In what moral universe is it acceptable to encourage a 10 yr old boy to dress like an adult male mimicking a sexualized adult female, use that as a ticket to fame and then claim it as virtue?”
In what moral universe is it acceptable to encourage a 10 yr old boy to dress like an adult male mimicking a sexualized adult female, use that as a ticket to fame and then claim it as virtue? https://t.co/vmEoG9hXjt
— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) July 2, 2018
The leftist moral universe, that’s which one. It is the topsy-turvy (im)moral realm in which everything perverse and criminal is celebrated, while normal (yes, normal) traditional values are deemed evil and oppressive. Jordan Peterson is not even a conservative, or so he claims, and yet he clearly recognizes that the left’s vampiric embrace of this child is not celebration but exploitation. Sorry, HuffPost virtue-signalers, but the future is not going to be queer.
As always, the leftists are wrong: the future will belong to neither socialists, nor just females, nor any identity-politics splinter group, because that future spells division and decay and doom. Of course, the left will keep trying, keep failing, and ultimately the future will be conservative.
Why is conservatism the future? The answer is simple: conservatism works. It offers not a utopian promise but a future grounded in reality and built upon the best that humanity has expressed and achieved. It is a future that protects the independence and freedom of all equally, not one which enforces equality of outcome and keeps everyone in thrall to mediocrity and to spiritual, as well as economic, impoverishment. Conservatism as a political, economic, and social worldview works because freedom works.
As Donald Trump’s provocative presidency continues to expose the hateful radicalism at the heart of the Democrat party, it becomes undeniable what the Marxists want: the tearing down of everything. They want the abolishment of ICE and borders, of law and order, of private property, of free speech, of the Constitution, of the family unit, of traditional values, of Western civilization itself. The future they envision demands the eradication of it all. As evidenced by the #WalkAway trend on social media, more and more Democrats and Independents are being driven toward the common sense of conservatism by this lunacy.
To many, the perfect future the left promises is a lie as seductive as Satan himself. But peel away the promises and what the left really offers is hate and annihilation, without a real-world plan for building anything upon the ruins. Conservatism offers a workable future for you, every one of us individually, not the same colorless dead end for everyone in the collective. And that is why conservatism is the future, and progressivism has none.
Photo by Gage Skidmore
| Pressure To Break Up Facebook Builds
Jul 10th 2018, 04:07, by Matthew Vadum
America’s largest communications union, the 700,000-member Communications Workers of America (CWA), has joined an activist coalition called Freedom from Facebook that seeks to break up the monopolistic social media giant.
So far the groups supporting the Freedom From Facebook coalition are predominantly left-wing. Among them are MoveOn.org and Public Citizen. Facebook has about 2 billion users worldwide.
But the ideological makeup of the FFF coalition could change in a heartbeat if Facebook continues down its intolerant, authoritarian path. That’s because conservatives have long been abused by Facebook and this ill treatment has only intensified since the election of President Donald Trump. Conservatives are getting wise to being used and taken advantage of and they don’t like it.
The Left claims to have only the purest motives for wanting to take action against Facebook.
“We should all be deeply concerned by Facebook’s power over our lives and democracy,” said Brian Thorn of CWA, the newest member of the Freedom From Facebook coalition.
Facebook’s workers are not represented by CWA, but the union does represent more than 100,000 employees at AT&T Inc. Facebook’s contracted shuttle drivers and cafeteria workers reportedly belong to labor unions.
The Left views Facebook and other social media companies as cash cows. They want to recruit their employees as dues-paying labor union members. Probably no more than a handful of left-wing activists actually believe FFF’s “Facebook is a threat to democracy” rhetoric.
Facebook is now in the process of negotiating favorable regulations with Congress and regulators. As Bloomberg News reports:
Facebook disclosed July 2 that it’s cooperating with probes by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation on how political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica obtained personal information from as many as 87 million of the site’s users without their consent. The FTC, the Department of Justice and some state regulators were already probing the matter, which prompted Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg to testify before Congress in April. Facebook also faces calls for regulation from many lawmakers and the public over the privacy issue, Russian efforts to manipulate the 2016 presidential election and the spread of false information on the platform.
CWA is demanding action. For the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to leave Facebook’s monopoly intact and fail to impose stronger privacy protection rules “would be unfair to the American people, our privacy, and our democracy,” Thorn told Bloomberg News.
With algorithm changes, Facebook can – and does – destroy right-leaning media outlets and websites at will.
Early this year a Facebook algorithm change crushed engagement rates on conservative groups’ pages. The change killed off the Facebook-driven websites Rare.us and LittleThings and is strangling other sites.
Facebook killed Right Wing News, a website run by Townhall contributor John Hawkins.
“Social media IS the new public square,” Hawkins writes. “It’s the place you go when you want to reach out and find an audience,” except that “Facebook has for all intents and purposes announced that it’s killing off pages. So much for having a conservative voice there.”
A study by Western Journal found the algorithm change gave 25 left-leaning media organizations a 1.86 percent bump in Facebook traffic, while 25 right-leaning media outfits averaged a 13.71 percent drop.
These figures matter because record numbers of Americans now get their news from Facebook.
“Nearly half of all U.S. adults (45%) get news from Facebook,” a Pew Research Center study reports. “The share of U.S. adults who get news through Facebook is much higher than the share who get news through YouTube (18%), Twitter (11%), Instagram (7%), Snapchat (5%), LinkedIn (5%) and other platforms.”
Facebook only backed off of Trump boosters Diamond and Silk after its “shadow-banning”—covertly blocking or limiting the reach—of the popular page of Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson received national attention during a congressional hearing.
Diamond and Silk lamented that Facebook allows “appalling” things – “videos of people getting shot, killed, and beat up… they even show pictures of our President decapitated.”
Although all the women do is talk on camera, Facebook flagged their page as “unsafe to the community,” without elaborating. Grilled by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in that case “our team made an enforcement error and we have already gotten in touch with them to reverse it.”
Despite this encouraging reversal, Facebook continues to enable Muslim terrorists. Facebook has been named in a handful of lawsuits by survivors of recent terrorist attacks, for providing material support to groups such as Islamic State by failing to take down the pages of terrorist organizations. Facebook is also a safe place for Antifa, the self-styled “anti-fascist” terrorists who assault Trump supporters and shut down conservative and Republican events.
In 2016, former Facebook employees spilled the beans about the social media company’s censorship practices and promotion of fake news.
As summarized by Bre Payton of the Federalist:
The topics aren’t selected by an auto-generated algorithm, but by young, Ivy League-educated journalists called “news curators.” These individuals were instructed to adhere to the company’s biased guidelines and enabled to let their own agendas run amok. These individuals revealed they were instructed to blackball conservative publications like The Blaze and Breitbart.
… news curators were instructed to ignore certain news topics or events altogether, and told to place items on the list that Facebook users weren’t actually talking about enough to make the topics trend.
Whenever a conservative outlet would break a story, the news curators would wait until another “more neutral” news outlet had picked it up before placing it on the list of trending topics. News events were excluded from the list unless more traditional news outlets, such as CNN or BBC, picked it up first.
Facebook also deliberately suppressed legitimate news stories on topics such as Obama IRS official Lois Lerner’s targeting of Tea Party and conservative groups.
Now it seems anti-Americanism is built into Facebook’s algorithms: Facebook flagged the Declaration of Independence as hate speech last week apparently because the foundational document made unflattering observations about King George III. Facebook claimed the flagging was inadvertent and reversed the block.
“It looks like we made a mistake and removed something you posted on Facebook that didn’t go against our Community Standards,” Facebook wrote in an email to the media outlet that made the original post. “We want to apologize and let you know that we’ve restored your content and removed any blocks on your account related to this incorrect action.”
Those who pay attention to Facebook’s censorship know better.
The idea of America itself goes against leftist Facebook’s beloved community standards. No wonder the Declaration of Independence set off alarm bells.
Photo: Johan Larsson
| Immigration and Politically Incorrect Truths
Jul 10th 2018, 04:04, by Jonathan Leaf
There is no more contentious issue in America today than immigration.
So a thoughtful and informative book on the subject written in plain language is more than welcome. It’s vital.
And that’s what a new title from Regnery, The Politically Incorrect Guide To Immigration, offers. I freely acknowledge here that I may not be perfectly objective as I composed a previous book in the publisher’s popular series of Politically Incorrect Guides. But there are now 31 such titles, and I would note that this is the first one I felt compelled to write about.
All of the books in the series have had certain qualities in common. They are contrarian, witty, snarky, relatively brief, unabashedly conservative and highly informative. The Politically Incorrect Guide To Immigration is one of the best. Subtitled “An America First Manifesto,” its authors are emphatically in favor of limits on legal immigration and for doggedness in dealing with the problem of illegal immigration.
Both writers, John Zmirak and Al Perrotta, come from families of fairly recent immigrants. This makes many of their arguments that much more striking.
Those arguments start with the most stark facts. It’s worth pointing out that beliefs of Democratic voters about immigration tend to be based on the myths that the writers successively take apart. According to the Pew Research Center, Democrats with graduate degrees are almost five times as likely to believe that illegal immigrants are not more likely to commit crimes than the general population. But, as the authors observe, this idea is belied by a wealth of data. In particular, legal and illegal aliens make up an astonishing 27% of the federal prison population while representing only about 9% of the whole U.S. population. Quoting a recent study by the non-partisan Government Accounting Office (GAO), they note that an examination by the GAO of 55,322 illegal aliens found that they
“had been arrested 459,614 times, an average of 8.3 arrests per illegal alien, and had committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, an average of roughly 12.7 offenses per illegal alien.”
The researchers reported that these offenders were committing a wide range of crimes. Some of the law-breaking was immigration-related. But other commonly-cited criminal acts involved drugs, fraud and counterfeiting. And more than twelve percent of the sample was incarcerated for the most serious kinds of felonies, including rape and murder.
Pew researchers have also found that Democrats with graduate degrees are nearly seven times as likely to believe as to not believe that immigrants only work at jobs that Americans don’t want. One might say that most “educated” liberals apparently have skipped Economics as this implies a wholesale unfamiliarity with the idea of supply and demand. That these positions might be attractive to native-born workers if they offered better pay and working conditions and that immigration of low-skilled workers is one of the major causes of growing economic inequality is at once an unavoidable conclusion to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics and something which the liberal intelligentsia is determined not to admit to itself.
Regardless, Zmirak and Perrotta provide a mass of information on the subject. Among their most astonishing snippets: between 2008 and 2015 employment among native-born workers fell by 1.1 million while immigrants took a net of 1.9 million jobs. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, employers were collectively replacing the native-born with lower-paid and more docile foreigners. Zmirak and Perrotta also document how the labor movement in this country was strongly in favor of strict immigration enforcement until recently, and that legendary Mexican-American farmworker organizer Cesar Chavez was among the most unabashed supporters of efficient deportation of illegals.
However, the book is far from a compendium of data or simple background on the topic. While composed of fewer than two hundred pages of text, it manages to provide a lot of thoughtful intellectual analysis of why immigration policy cannot be conceived in exclusively economic terms. This conviction has several principles underlying it. One is founded in an assessment of how and why multiculturalism works in tandem with high levels of immigration to undermine a clear sense among the nation’s newcomers of what is to be an American. The authors show that this stands in stark contrast to what took place during earlier periods of immigration when Americanization was very much expected of immigrants, and immigrants were required to “renounce and abjure” all foreign influences in order to gain citizenship. By contrast, from at least as early as the 1990s, there have been classes and textbooks used in American public schools for the teaching of immigrant children that promote ideas like the “reconquista” of the American southwest by Mexico.
The authors go from this to a larger point: it is not only a matter of whether immigrants are arriving with skills and knowledge but where they come from. If they are from societies with little knowledge of the basic ideas underlying American democratic pluralism and with a conscious or unconscious animus towards the predominant American traditions and beliefs, they may prove to be exceedingly difficult to assimilate.
In presenting this analysis, the authors provide a considerable amount of intellectual history, and while one of the pair is Catholic, they are frank in stating the obvious: the American traditions of secular authority and limited government have expressly Protestant and British origins. From this, they argue that some degree of cultural continuity is essential as shared traditions and beliefs play a role in welding together any political community.
The Politically Incorrect Guide To Immigration is a smart and very important book that’s well-worth picking up.
Jonathan Leaf is a playwright and journalist living in New York. He writes frequently about issues of popular concern.
| France’s Latest Surrender to Jihad
Jul 10th 2018, 04:03, by Stephen Brown
It is being called “the biggest aquarium in the world.”
Perhaps the best known symbol of France to the world, the Eiffel Tower, will open this month with a new look that leaves some native French very disgruntled.
New walls of “extra clear”, bullet-proof glass, standing 10 ft. high and 2.5 inches thick, will now enclose Paris’s affectionately named ‘Lady of Iron’ on its north and south sides. Metallic walls of curved prongs of equivalent height will encase the other two sides, through which one will have to pass to access the Tower after submitting to security controls.
In addition, 420 blocks are being placed around the Tower to prevent jihadist vehicular attacks like those that occurred in Nice, Barcelona and Berlin. All of which has caused observers to complain the Tower will lose its aesthetic look, resembling now a “fortress.”
Under construction since last fall at a cost of about 40 million dollars, many French believe these latest security measures not only disfigure the venerable ‘Lady’, but represent, above all, the French political class’s impotence in face of the jihadist threat.
“It’s a loss of sovereignty when we are forced to build walls to guard against enemies that we do not know how to contain outside our frontiers,” commented one indignant reader in a French newspaper.
Another called the security measure “a degradation of the public space,” saying Gustave Eiffel, whose famous tower opened at the 1889 World’s Fair, “…would never have thought what the socialists have dared…”
Some have noted this “disfigurement” also does not include future unsightliness from graffiti and posters expected to soon cover the glass, making extra, expensive cleaning costs inevitable.
Paris’s socialist mayor, Anne Hildago, announced the decision to build the wall, a permanent structure, in February, 2017, six days after a jihadist attacked a military patrol at Paris’s Louvre. Paris’s police leadership then requested “more effective” security measures for the city’s heritage sites.
There was also a financial inducement to improve security. After the horrific jihadist 2015 attacks, the number of visitors to the tower had dropped below six million from its usual seven million for the first time in 15 years, a fall described as “unprecedented.” As a result, businesses suffered. Paris hotels, for example, had to lower their room rates.
Bernard Gaudilleres, president of Societe d’Exploitation de la Tour, the entity which operates the tower, said the new measures were meant to “reinforce security, modernize the welcoming area and improve the comfort of the visit.” He described the new glass structures as rock-solid for absolute security,” adding they are “infinitely nicer and more romantic” than the temporary metal barriers, erected for the 2016 Euro soccer championships, they are replacing.
(Who would ever have thought, least of all in Paris, that bullet-proof glass and anti-terrorist truck barriers could ever be romantic?)
Security measures for the Eiffel Tower and other Parisian tourist sites were first increased after the Charlies Hebdo jihadist attack in early 2015. They were increased again later that year in November after jihadists killed 130 people, 89 in the Bataclan nightclub massacre. Soldiers have also been patrolling the tower around the clock since 2016.
Prior to 2015, the tower’s square, containing its beautiful gardens, was still freely accessible. Now, they will be permanently inside the walls, a fact that displeases many French residents who will have to pass through controls every time they wish to walk there. As if in consolation, Gaudilleres states visiting the gardens is still free.
Tower security was reinforced further in May last year before the French presidential election not because of jihadists, but to an illegal intrusion by Greenpeace. Like the recent violation of the Statue of Liberty by an anti-Trump protester, Greenpeace also wanted to make a political statement, deploying a 30 meter by ten meter the anti-National Front banner from the tower’s second floor.
But despite all the new security measures, critics are still doubtful that jihadist attacks can be prevented at tower. In fact, some believe the measures may actually act as a “provocation,” or even a challenge.
Critics reasonably ask whether the new glass wall can withstand a rocket-propelled grenade attack. And what’s to stop jihadists from throwing explosive devices, such as grenades, over the wall into packed crowds? Kalshnikov-armed jihadists, after breaching the wall, could also cause another Bataclan where people, trapped by the new enclosure, will have no place to run.
Others believe the money would be better spent at the borders, stopping jihadists from entering France, especially those returning from Syria. Or in expelling or eliminating the ones already inside the country.
“One knows only how to submit rather than treat the causes,” states one critic of the tower’s new look, deploring where political weakness has led France and the resulting evolution of French society. Besides an admission of political failure, the wall also definitely proves the country is at war and is living in fear.
After the Eiffel Tower, critics also ask what monument is next to be encased in glass? The Arc de Triomphe, Notre Dame, the Louvre? Where will this loss of liberty and identity end, they ask? And even if you build walls around all the monuments in France, will that stop the Islamic terrorists? The Bataclan nightclub, after all, was no heritage monument.
Critics also reproach France’s socialist politicians who criticized President Trump for intending to build a border wall with Mexico, while they build walls inside of France. These disgraceful internal walls, they say, are exactly the result of not building such border walls. One states French socialists are “simply copying Trump on a smaller scale.”
Nevertheless, the French are developing a dark humor to match the times. Some examples: Mexico should pay for the Eiffel Tower’s new wall, or at least Saudi Arabia; instead of bullet-proof walls, one should just issue tourists with bullet-proof vests upon arrival in France; construct a wall around the mayor’s building; Paris’s medieval city wall, erected by King Philip II, parts of which still stand, should also be rebuilt as an anti-jihad measure.
Whether the Eiffel Tower’s new wall is an effective security measure remains debatable. What is certain, however, is its adverse psychological effect on French patriots, one of whom perhaps summed it up best:
“It’s against the dignity of man. It’s an absolute ugliness. One is leaving an ugly Paris to our children…”
| Former BLM Activist Exposes Left’s Exploitation of the Movement
Jul 9th 2018, 04:55, by Matthew Vadum
The Left is using blacks and the compromised Black Lives Matter movement to launch a violent civil war in the United States, according to a popular viral video by a former Black Lives Matter activist.
The video has been receiving a great deal of attention from conservatives because it gives voice to concerns and anxieties expressed by Trump supporters in this time of escalating hostility and physical violence against those who support the Trump administration.
The speaker in the video dated Oct. 4 gives his name as Chaziel (pronounced Cha-zee-ell) Sunz and says he is “not a big Trump fan.” It is unclear if that is his real name or what his current connection to BLM is. What Sunz says should be taken with a grain of salt. At times in his video, he ventures off into vague conspiracy-theorizing about the Rothschilds and the Las Vegas massacre last Oct. 1.
But just because Sunz isn’t eloquent, that doesn’t mean he is wrong. In his remarkable video, he is speaking truth to power. He needs to be listened to.
Well-informed conservatives won’t learn much they didn’t already know by watching the video, but Sunz still performs a valuable service by reminding us how the Left uses blacks as cannon fodder in their unending quest for so-called social justice.
Whatever his misgivings about conservatives, Sunz warns fellow blacks that trusting leftists could get them killed.
“However you feel about the Right, they are straightforward. The people on the Left are lying to you and trying to get you to do their dirty work and get slaughtered.”
Black Lives Matter was infiltrated and compromised almost three years ago, Sunz explains.
Probably the end of 2015, somewhere in there going into 2016, I began to notice infiltrators coming in to the movement, which is already, it’s been like this for a long time, but I actually started to see it, all online, making fake pages, and basically these fake people part of the black movement or whatever you want to call it, were basically feeding off our emotions, trying to get us involved in things that we’re not involved in, trying to believe in things that we weren’t familiar with and basically pushing us to be more left and Democratic.
Black leaders don’t have the best interests of black Americans at heart, Sunz says.
A lot of the black leaders are straight leading us to our demise. They have us working and doing their dirty work, I mean the far left’s dirty work. They got us working basically for them because how they’re getting us is, they’re playing us emotionally and they’re basically saying how racist and messed up guys on the far Right and the neo-Nazis are because they need all the help that they can get.
The Left is recruiting anybody they can find to wage war against the Trump administration and its supporters, Sunz says. What is left of the Black Lives Matter movement is a joke, he adds.
They’re getting gays, they’re getting black people, anybody who doesn’t like Donald Trump, they’re basically trying to get you to fight for a war that is being started on American turf very, very soon and they want us to be a part of their side. What I’m trying to get the black population to understand and over-stand [sic] and this is critical: The movement has been compromised. Everybody needs to know that. The RBG movement has been compromised. The BLM is not even a real black organization, it never was.
(For those unfamiliar with the initialism, RBG refers to the Pan-Africanism movement associated with the Afro-American Flag which is red, black, and green.)
If you have any kind of brain you know that BLM has been endorsed by the Soros and the Clinton family. If you have any kind of brain you know that those same people don’t give a damn about you, don’t give a damn about black people. They are exploiting the black plight to make money off of you.
They’re using your emotions and based off what has happened to you they’re using that against you so you can join these evil demonic people to help fight people on the far Right, or not even the far Right. I want to make this simple. The Left is going against the Right. It’s a huge civil war that is being planned out. I want to make this simple. It’s happening right now and what they want is for everybody to choose a side, consciously or subconsciously.
Sunz is correct about the Democrats’ embrace of the violent, racist BLM movement. In fact, Black Lives Matter and all its horrors were officially endorsed by resolution of the Democratic National Committee in 2015.
Hundreds of delegates at the DNC meeting in Minneapolis approved a statement accusing American police of “extrajudicial killings of unarmed African American men, women and children.”
In other words, since 2015 it has been Democratic Party policy that there are roving death squads manned by police officers who specifically stalk and execute without trial black men, women, and children across America. Police in the United States today, according to the DNC, are no better than the Sturmabteilung and Einsatzgruppen of Nazi Germany, the Soviet-era Cheka and NKVD, and the (Democrat-led) Ku Klux Klan, all of which used extrajudicial killings for political repression.
Meanwhile, leftist violence against Trump supporters is becoming an everyday occurrence.
Cheered on by unhinged GOP traitors like Jennifer Rubin and her media allies, leftists have been stepping up their attacks on Trump supporters.
On July 7 leftists shouted threats at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as they chased him out of a restaurant in Louisville, Ky. The same day, Steve Bannon was harassed at a bookstore in his home town of Richmond, Va.
Thirty-year-old leftist Kino Ahuitzotl Jimenez assaulted 16-year-old Hunter Richard on the evening of July 4-5 and stole his “Make America Great Again” hat at a Whataburger in San Antonio, Texas. Jimenez was subsequently taken into custody and charged with felony assault. The man was fired from his job at a bar and expelled from the Green Party.
On July 2, U.S. Capitol Police arrested a man who threatened to kill Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and his family with an ax. Paul was badly beaten by his Democrat neighbor Rene Albert Boucher last Nov. 3.
On June 23, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) was assaulted and menaced by left-wingers at a movie theater.
On June 22 deranged restaurant co-owner Stephanie Wilkinson threw White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family out of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Va., and chased them around town because Sanders works for President Trump.
Leftists harassed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen into abandoning her dinner June 19.
This is not an exhaustive list. At Breitbart News, John Nolte has assembled a more comprehensive collection of recent assaults on Trump supporters.
When not calling Trump supporters “Nazis” as a means to dehumanize us, the establishment media like to whine about the lack of civility in American politics, even as they cover up, ignore, downplay, or straight-up approve of the wave of violence and public harassment we are seeing against supporters of President Trump.
It is open season on Trump supporters, and the media is only fomenting, encouraging, excusing, and hoping for more… The media are now openly calling Trump supporters “Nazis” and are blaming Trump for a mass murder he had nothing to do with. This, of course, is a form of harassment because it incites and justifies mob violence.
Which is exactly what Chaziel Sunz warned Americans about last October.
| More Democrats Believe in UFOs Than America
Jul 9th 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
58% of Democrats believe in UFOs, but only 32% are proud to be American. Only 37% of Republicans believe in flying saucers, but a full 80% are proud of their country.
Almost twice as many Democrats are willing to believe in being abducted by space aliens than in their country. Hillary Clinton had promised that if elected, she would find out the truth about the little green men and suggested that the planet had already been visited by aliens.
“Maybe we could have, like, a task force to go to Area 51,” she suggested.
The chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, John Podesta, an obsessive UFO buff, appeared on an episode of Ancient Aliens which claimed that Hillary Clinton was defeated to suppress the truth about space aliens.
Like Podesta, the Democrat (space rather than illegal) alien obsession dates back to Bill’s era. When Bill Clinton appointed Webster Hubbell as his Associate Attorney General, he gave him two priorities.
“If I put you over at Justice I want you to find the answers to two questions for me,” Hubbell recalled. “One, who killed JFK. And two, are there UFOs.”
Hubbell didn’t find any UFOs, but he had to resign after only serving a year and was sent to jail for fraud.
The Clintons may have picked up their flying saucer obsession from Laurance S. Rockefeller, a environmentalist UFO obsessive and major Clinton donor who got them involved in his UFO Initiative. Hillary may have just been grifting an old man who contributed to their legal defense fund, but there’s no reason to think a woman who responded to the Republican midterm victories of ’94 with a séance that consulted Gandhi and Eleanor Roosevelt doesn’t believe what most of her fellow Democrats do.
Laurance S. Rockefeller was a founding trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund which recently underwrote the push for a nuclear Iran while insisting that its nuclear weapons program didn’t exist.
According to the party that “believes” in science, Iranian nukes don’t exist, but flying saucers do.
All this helps explain why the Democrats were so quick to retreat into conspiracy theories after losing the 2016 election. Just as they did after the JFK assassination and the 2000 election. It’s natural for them to believe the worst of a country they already distrust. The left’s core beliefs are a series of conspiracy theories about class, race and gender. These conspiracy theories explain everything from crime rates to poverty to social problems. Most leftist programs are geared toward fighting a conspiracy by white people, by men, by the wealthy and the middle class that doesn’t exist except in the minds of the left.
America has been shattered by generations of social policies that completely bypass the problems they’re trying to solve from the inner city to the campus because they’re too busy getting revenge against the evil white male conspirators by making it harder for them to get into college or get a job.
That’s what happens when you turn over the country to Marxists watching the sky for lights and watching social statistics for any discrepancy that they can blame on the white male conspiracy. The inability to understand the difference between correlation and causation that trips up so many conspiracy theorists is also the disparate impact claim underlying the left’s allegations of discrimination.
And disparate impact simply means that all correlation must imply racist causation.
If a job requires a high school diploma, if there are laws against littering or if a standardized test is demanding, and more black people are disadvantaged by that, that is disparate impact. And disparate impact proves a racist conspiracy that requires state intervention. No matter how dubiously legal.
Adding new conspiracy theories to the central leftist conspiracy theory is easy. UFOs, Russians rigging elections and CIA Cubans killing JFK are small potatoes compared to the conviction, expressed in so many leftist texts from Marx’s Das Kapital to Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, that all the beliefs you grew up with are a lie and everything around you is the end result of a vast conspiracy.
Democrats are the party least likely to know that the earth revolves around the sun once a year. Only between 48% to 27% of the enlightened supporters of the Party of Science actually knew this.
45% of liberals believe in astrology. Only 23% are proud of America.
Three-quarters of Democrats believe that thoughts can influence the physical world. Over half believe in ghosts.
Almost a third of Democrats, twice as many as Republicans, believe in “spiritual energy”. 35% of liberals compared to 18% of conservatives are believers.
A fifth of Democrats fear the “evil eye”.
If you can name a superstition, knocking on wood, walking under ladders or stepping on a crack, polls show that Democrats are more likely to believe in it.
Democrats are 60% more likely to fear black cats than Republicans (so much for the anti-racist party) and 33% more likely to fear the number 13.
The rational and enlightened elite who want to make all our decisions are also 54% more likely to think that opening an umbrella indoors is bad luck.
A fifth of Democrats believe it’s unlucky to walk under a ladder. Nearly a fifth believe in fortune telling.
The left liked to think that dispensing with the old truths of G-d and country would make them smarter and more rational. Instead it reverted them to the paranoid superstitions of paganism.
Instead of moving forward to the fabled “right side of history”, they’re retreating into pre-history.
They haven’t replaced G-d with reason, but with flying saucers, storefront psychics, black cats, bad luck ladders and umbrellas, the wrath of Mother Earth, safe spaces, and the magical powers of dolphins.
They haven’t replaced nationalism with the enlightened embrace of the entire human race, but with a paranoid racial and political tribalism which is eager to believe the very worst of outsiders. Instead of transcending the nation for the world, they’ve become hostile toward most of the country. They haven’t become broadminded. Instead they’ve lost even the broadmindedness that Americans used to have.
Their policies not only haven’t made the world better, but they haven’t made them better people.
50 years after HUAC vanished into the mists of time, they’re finding Russians under every tree. 70 years after Brown v. Board of Education, they’re frantically defending racial preferences in education. Their vaunted journalism has been reduced to an outrage machine feeding them insane conspiracy theories. One week, Trump is a Russian spy. The other, his family is in league with China. One week, he’s about to destroy us by going to war with North Korea. The next week, he’s selling us out to North Korea.
The Democrats have learned to love xenophobic nationalism in the service of tribal ideologism. The Party of Peace fears the rest of the world as much as the Party of Science believes in spooks and UFOs.
Democrats inhabit a demon-haunted world of superstitions and conspiracies. Instead of being enlightened, they were robbed of the confidence in the Creator and America that resounds from every patriotic Fourth of July anthem and song. They sold their birthright for the pottage of fear and hate.
They cower in safe spaces, fear the other and live their lives in the shadow of irrational terrors.
Unable to function as citizens of a society, they retreat into conspiracy theories and plot to bring down their country while replacing it with a utopia based on magical thinking and its sordid orgy of blood.
Having lost faith in G-d and country, it is easier for them to believe in flying saucers than in America.
| Germany: Muslim Migrant Beheads Baby
Jul 9th 2018, 04:09, by Robert Spencer
It happened back in April, although it was reported only in the German media; apparently the English-language media didn’t find it newsworthy that a Muslim migrant beheaded his one-year-old daughter on a Hamburg train platform. But the sheer horror of this incident has been compounded now by Angela Merkel’s government, which has reportedly banned further reporting on the incident. Anything to keep as many Germans as possible ignorant and complacent regarding just how devastating the Muslim migrant influx into Germany really is.
“According to eyewitnesses,” says one news report on this incident, “the 33-year-old suspect, Mourtala Madou, beheaded his one-year-old daughter in front of a horrified crowd of commuters at Jungfernstieg station on Thursday April 12, and then stabbed his German girlfriend, the mother of the child. The suspect allegedly stabbed the infant from behind, while she was sitting in her stroller, and then severed her neck. He then allegedly stabbed his girlfriend in the chest before fleeing the scene, dumping the murder weapon in a train station trash can. He was later arrested…. Eyewitnesses can be heard saying that the suspect cut the babies [sic] head off.”
Police spokesman Timo Zill said the murders were “very targeted”; eyewitnesses described them as an “honor killing.” In beheading the baby, Madou also utilized a form of killing especially favored by Islamic jihadis, heeding the Qur’anic injunction, “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks” (47:4).
In response, the Merkel government did not open an investigation of honor killing, or of Muslim migrant crime. It did not commission a study of Islamic theology and culture, and the effects of importing a large number of people from a culture of violence into Germany. Instead, “German media has been allowed by the government to report on the murder of the mother, but Angela Merkel’s pro-migrant government banned German media outlets from reporting on the decapitated baby. Germany’s largest newspaper, Bild, report on the death of the mother of four, without mentioning the details regarding the barbaric murder of her child.”
Why the gag order? Clearly the Merkel government, facing a strong challenge from the Alliance for Germany, which opposes its suicidal policies regarding the mass Muslim migrant influx, wants to tamp down dissent. The fewer Germans know just how devastating this influx has been, the better.
How has it come to this, that the German government has to resort to silencing the press in order to prevent the full magnitude of its failure from being known? At this point, there are only two choices: either Angela Merkel is a socialist internationalist who is hell-bent on destroying the very concept of the nation state, as well as that of ethnicity itself, by flooding her nation and the rest of Europe with Muslim migrants, many of whom are violent and some of whom are jihadis, or she is irremediably stupid, stupid to the point of requiring institutionalization, and really believes all the fluff and nonsense about “diversity” and “multiculturalism” that the international Left has regaled us with for so many years now.
Either way, the result is disaster for Germany, Europe, and the world as a whole. If the only way Merkel can stay in power now is to keep the German people ignorant of the actual effect of the policies she has so indefatigably pursued, and that ignorance is enforced by a media blackout, she is risking bringing Germany’s short life as a free society to an end, and bringing back the authoritarianism so favored by some of her predecessors, such as Adolf Hitler. If Germany ceases to exist as a free society, and Britain (which is also teetering on the brink) follows suit, the effect will be catastrophic for other free nations around the world.
Merkel is flirting with doing nothing less than plunging the world into a new Dark Ages. If she had even a modicum of regard for the German people she has sworn to protect and defend, she would acknowledge that her migrant program has been an appalling mistake, and resign. But that is not going to happen. Instead, what lies ahead for Germany is more incidents such as the one that happened in April on that train platform in Hamburg, along with increased civil strife, more jihad terror attacks, more bloodshed, more societal instability, and worse.
Future generations of free Germans will curse the name of Angela Merkel. But if she gets her way, there won’t be any.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is 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 The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
| Another Day, Another Blow to Freedom
Jul 9th 2018, 04:08, by Bruce Bawer
This is a story about the appeasement of Islam. To be specific, it’s about appeasement on the part of book publishers. To be even more specific, it’s about a little mom-and-pop operation known as Random House, and a German author named Thilo Sarrazin.
I’m not unfamiliar with Random House. In 2006, Doubleday, a division of that storied firm, published my book While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within. Although it sold briskly from the git-go, it was (like many other honest books on the subject) delicately ignored by most of the mainstream media. Nonetheless, it made the New York Times bestseller list and was translated into several languages – and the paperback edition, published by Broadway Books, another Random House subsidiary, continues to sell. In 2009, Doubleday put out my follow-up book, Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom. Whereas While Europe Slept had warned of the dangers attendant upon Islam’s rise in the West, Surrender addressed the growing Western tendency to assuage alleged Muslim sensitivities, largely through censorship and self-censorship: museums were putting away art works that might offend the Prophet’s followers; universities were installing propaganda factories disguised as centers of Middle Eastern Studies; Hollywood, which during World War II had specialized in patriotic cheerleading, was responding to the “War on Terror” with films in which Americans were bad guys and Muslims were victims; and while cops and prosecutors were doing all they could to avoid bringing Muslim malefactors to justice, they were hauling critics of Islam into court for “hate speech.”
As for book publishers – well, let’s not forget that the first big modern example of cultural jihad in the West was the Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie, whose novel The Satanic Verses, he thundered, had insulted “Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and the Qur’an.” At the time, that debacle seemed a one-off, and publishers, to their credit, continued to put out books that criticized Islam. The record, however, was not spotless. When Yale University Press, in 2009, released an account of the Danish cartoon crisis, it decided not to include the actual cartoons – a ludicrously cowardly move. Yale wasn’t alone. Over time, it became clear that major presses were becoming more timid on this front: while happy to churn out agitprop by the likes of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, they were growing increasingly uneasy with blunt truth-telling. Hence more and more writers in this genre have had to put out their books themselves. (In Norway, where I live, one of the top bestsellers of 2015, Hege Storhaug’s Islam: Den 11. landeplage – which will appear in English later this year as Islam: Europe Invaded, America Warned – was self-published.)
In November 2016, however, Random House bucked this trend, signing a contract for a new book on Islam by the aforementioned Thilo Sarrazin, author of the massive 2010 bestseller Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany Is Abolishing Itself). That book, which savaged his country’s insane immigration policy, has been described as “having helped pave the way for the anti-Islam Alternative for Germany party which entered parliament last year with nearly 100 deputies.” Sarrazin handed in the typescript of his Random House follow-up, entitled Hostile Takeover: How Islam Hampers Progress and Threatens Society, this past February, and it was scheduled to come out next month. Last Friday, alas, brought bad news: Random House had, ahem, changed its mind. According to the German newspaper Bild, the reason for the volte-face was a concern that Sarrazin’s philippic would stir up Islamophobia. (As a friend in the business told me on Friday, “My only surprise is that they signed this book up in the first place.”) In a statement, Random House said Sarrazin was free to submit his work elsewhere. Sarrazin, for his part, has taken legal action; today, a Munich court will begin hearing the case.
It appears, then, that the same house that published my books on Islam – including the one, Surrender, in which I took social, cultural, and political institutions to task for placating the adherents of that faith – has now chosen to step back from issuing a critical book about the Religion of Peace that, given the author’s track record, would almost certainly have proved a massive success. Although this is only the beginning of what may turn out to be a long and complicated story, it certainly looks, at present, as if Random House is engaged in precisely the sort of baleful censorship and propitiation that I outlined in Surrender. If that’s the case, it’s lamentable, but scarcely astonishing: Random House is far from the only publisher that’s no longer prepared to put out the kind of books on this topic that it was willing to issue, say, a decade ago. At this juncture, at least, its action in the Sarrazin matter would seem to confirm the main argument of Surrender: that as Islam advances apace, the fear of it, the tendency to bow to it, and the compulsion to silence its critics are intensifying.
There you have it. Today, as noted, the Bavarian judiciary will have it say. Given that Western systems of justice have, like book publishers, been increasingly inclined to tilt the scales in favor of Muhammed’s minions (cf. Tommy Robinson), it will be enlightening indeed to see what happens when Thilo Sarrazin gets his day in court.
| Criminals Win Big in California Sanctuary Ruling
Jul 9th 2018, 04:06, by Lloyd Billingsley
“California beats Trump in sanctuary state battle’s first round,” read the page-one Sacramento Bee headline last Friday. As readers discovered, it was actually a split decision and Trump scored a big hit.
U.S. District Court Judge John Mendez, an appointee of George W. Bush, ruled that the state could not prevent private employers from denying federal immigration authorities from worksites. Mendez found that AB 450 “which imposes monetary penalties on an employer solely because that employer voluntarily consents to federal immigration enforcement’s entry into nonpublic areas of their place of business or access to their employment records impermissibly discriminates against those who choose to deal with the federal government.”
On the other hand, Mendez upheld the law’s requirement that companies inform workers within 72 hours of any federal request to examine employment records. So in the style of Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf, employers can still provide lookout services for false-documented illegals.
Mendez denied the federal request against SB 54, the state’s sanctuary law. As author Kevin de Leon told reporters, “today, a federal judge made clear what I’ve known all along, that SB 54, the California Values Act is constitutional and does not conflict with federal law. California is under no obligation to assist Trump tear apart families. We cannot stop his mean-spirited immigration policies, but we don’t have to help him, and we won’t.”
As Mendez ruled, “refusing to help is not the same as impeding.” The federal judge also upheld AB 103, allowing the state attorney general to inspect detention facilities. Current attorney general Xavier Becerra, once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate and a key player in the Democrats’ IT scandal, proclaimed, “The Constitution gives the people of California, not the Trump Administration, the power to decide how we will provide for our public safety and general welfare.”
Californians had a right to wonder about the “safety” part. In this 2-1 split decision the biggest winners are criminal illegals.
Senate Bill 54, the Bee report noted, “has eliminated much of the discretionary power that local law enforcement previously had to privately share information with federal immigration agents about people who have been arrested and put in county jails.” So despite the protestations of hereditary, recurring governor Jerry Brown, California is protecting criminal illegals. With that in mind, legitimate citizens might look ahead to the November election.
Brown, a three-time presidential loser, recently signed off on a budget that spends tens of millions of dollars to help illegals fight efforts to deport them. This includes some $45 million in legal services steered to state colleges, and $10 million to help younger illegals, including “undocumented migrants.” This outlandish spending is hardly the state’s only way to privilege false-document illegals.
A 2015 law, “streamlines” the process of voter registration and kicks in when someone gets a driver’s license at the DMV. As of March, 2018, more than one million illegals have received licenses. Secretary of state Alex Padilla touts “firewall” protections against ineligible voters. This is the same official who refused to cooperate with a federal probe of voter fraud, so legal residents and taxpayers have good reason to wonder what he is hiding.
Senate boss Kevin de Leon, author of SB 54, is on record that half his family would be eligible for deportation under Trump’s executive order because they used false Social Security cards and other bogus identification. In his own case, as Christopher Cadelago of the Sacramento Bee explains, “The name on his birth certificate isn’t Kevin de León.”
On his birth certificate and voter rolls, “the 50-year-old politician is Kevin Alexander Leon,” born on December 10, 1966 at California Hospital on South Hope Street in Los Angeles. The birth certificate “describes his father, Andres Leon, as a 40-year-old cook whose race was Chinese and whose birthplace was Guatemala. De León’s mother, Carmen Osorio, was also born in Guatemala, the document states.” As a child, “de León spent time on both sides of the border,” but he “identifies strongly with Mexican culture.”
Around Sacramento many found the story incredible but it now takes on new significance. Senate boss de Leon spearheaded the smackdown of Sen. Janet Nguyen’s free-speech rights and ordered the Republican, a refugee from Communist Vietnam, carted off the senate floor. The senate boss also appointed a false-documented Mexican national to a state position, a violation of Proposition 209, a voter-approved law that forbids racial and ethnic preferences in state employment, education and contracting.
The public never voted on de Leon’s sanctuary bill, but the author is now on the November ballot contending with fellow Democrat Dianne Feinstein for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Republicans are again shut out of the senate race because in California primaries the top two vote-getters advance regardless of party.
As a State Department investigation confirms, false-documented illegals have been voting in local, state and federal elections for decades. Legitimate citizens and legal immigrants now have a stronger case for ID checks on voters and candidates alike. Under the Mendez ruling many more illegals, including criminals, will be seeking protected, privileged status in California.
| Trump Blamed for Death of Reporters: Did Media Blame Obama for Cop Killers?
Jul 9th 2018, 04:02, by Larry Elder
A man with a long-standing beef against the Annapolis, Maryland, newspaper Capital Gazette entered the paper’s headquarters with a shotgun and murdered five staffers. It represents the deadliest attack on U.S. reporters in modern history.
Before learning about the suspect’s mental issues and his long-standing feud with the newspaper, some in the media blamed President Donald Trump. After all, critics said, Trump routinely denounces “fake news” as an existential threat to our republic. Connect the dots, they said. Blame Trump! CNN aired a montage of Trump’s attacks on the media. Rob Cox, a Reuters editor, tweeted: “This is what happens when @RealDonaldTrump calls journalists the enemy of the people. Blood is on your hands, Mr. President.” Another reporter, who later resigned, even falsely tweeted that the shooter was wearing a MAGA cap. How do you get that wrong?
How dare the President call out the anti-Republican media for its decades of biased reporting? Pew Research, in 2013, found that only 7 percent of reporters called themselves Republican. How dare Trump attack The New York Times, which has not endorsed a Republican presidential candidate since 1956? How dare Trump go after The Washington Post, which has never endorsed a Republican presidential candidate. And how dare Trump refer to CNN — one of whose “news” anchors, Don Lemon, has called Trump “a racist” — as fake news.
Did the media hold President Barack Obama responsible for the murders of 10 cops in Dallas, Baton Rouge and New York City, all at the hands of black men apparently incited by their belief that cops murder blacks without consequence? After all, Obama frequently criticized the police and bemoaned America’s racism as “part of our DNA.”
President Obama’s anti-cop rhetoric started right after he took office. Obama’s friend, a black Harvard professor, was arrested in his home. Professor Henry Louis Gates, back from a trip, couldn’t open his front door and reportedly asked his driver to help. A neighbor, observing two people trying to force open the front door of Gates’ home, called 911. But when the cops arrived and asked Gates to exit the home so he could determine its ownership, Gates mouthed off and was briefly arrested. Obama said, “The Cambridge police acted stupidly.” The Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association and the Cambridge Police commissioner insisted the officer followed protocol. Obama’s statement infuriated officers all across the country and set up a template for the Obama administration: Cops engage in unlawful anti-black racial profiling.
Obama and his attorney general also offered verbal support to the so-called Black Lives Matter movement that argues, without facts, that blacks are regularly and illegally profiled by an institutionally, systemically and structurally “racist” criminal justice system. It did not help that during the first six years of the Obama administration, the anti-police incendiary Rev. Al Sharpton, according to The Washington Post, visited the White House 72 times. What kind of message did that send to the police?
When a Sanford, Florida, neighborhood watch captain, George Zimmerman, shot and killed a black 17-year-old named Trayvon Martin, President Obama promptly sided with the deceased teen, saying, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” A jury found Zimmerman not guilty, and one juror later said that during the deliberations, race never came up.
Then there’s Ferguson. A grim President Obama, at an address before the United Nations, said: “In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri — where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. So yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions.”
But the Ferguson grand jury did not indict the officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, and a Department of Justice report exonerated the cop. Contrary to the lies told by his friend who witnessed the shooting, Michael Brown did not have his hands up when the officer shot and killed him. Brown, did not say, “Hands up. Don’t shoot.” Yet before the investigation even began, Obama’s BFF, Sharpton, took to the streets of Ferguson yelling, “No justice, no peace.”
The DOJ’s investigation of Ferguson’s nearly all-white police department criticized its alleged “institutional racism.” But its actual findings do not support that conclusion. Ferguson, the investigation noted, is 67 percent black, but 85 percent of its traffic stops involve black drivers. To the DOJ, this 18-point statistical imbalance equals systemic racism. But in New York City, where the department consists mostly officers of color, 55 percent of traffic stops involve a black driver in a city with a 25 percent black population. This is a 30-point statistical imbalance. Wouldn’t this make the NYPD even more “institutionally racist” than the Ferguson PD?
Trump, say the media, has created an atmosphere that puts reporters in danger. Obama often unfairly criticized the police. But the media did not blame Obama for the murder of officers by angry black men consumed with the wrongheaded belief that blacks are victimized by the “institutional racism” of the criminal justice system.
| Readin', Writin', and Jihadin'
Jul 6th 2018, 13:50, by Frontpage Editors
“The commitment to ‘multiculturalism’ that has now taken over K-12 education in America has been a godsend for Muslims anxious to use schools and textbooks to proselytize for Islam.” So begins the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s new pamphlet, Readin’, Writin’, and Jihadin’: The Islamization of American Public Schools, by the prolific Robert Spencer, Director of the Center’s Jihad Watch website.
This sixty-page work is a quick read but a startling and crucial warning about the degree to which Islamic proselytization has already taken hold in our educational system and is accelerating.
Spencer is the author of many Freedom Center pamphlets as well as eighteen bestselling books, the latest of which is The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS (to be released August 8 from Bombardier Books). In his new pamphlet, he details jaw-dropping examples in recent years of a whitewashed version of Islam being presented in classrooms, textbooks, and special school events. He notes that the presentation of Islam goes far beyond educating the students about it to actively promoting it. No similar favorable attention is given in the classroom to Christianity or any other religion. Indeed, the anti-Christian bias accompanying the teaching of Islam is one of the most egregiously misleading aspects of this not-so-subtle proselytizing. Spencer notes that one textbook council reported, “While seventh-grade textbooks describe Islam in glowing language, they portray Christianity in a harsh light. … Islam is featured as a model of interfaith tolerance; Christians wage wars of aggression and kill Jews. Islam provides models of harmony and civilization. Anti-Semitism, the Inquisition, and wars of religion bespot the Christian record.”
Concepts central to Islamic history and theology, such as jihad, sharia, and dhimmitude, are downplayed in educational materials (when they are covered at all), and Islam is depicted as far more tolerant, inclusive, and peaceful than actual history suggests.
Spencer states that this serves a dangerous political agenda by dissociating Islamic ideology from terrorist acts carried out in its name. Some sources of this misinformation in schools go so far as to suggest that Islamic terrorism is justified, that Western exploitation, oppression, and aggression are to blame for such atrocities as the 9/11 attacks. The result is that young Western minds are indoctrinated into viewing their own values and culture with suspicion, while being dissuaded from understanding how fundamentalist Islam is a threat.
Spencer concludes that the “self-hatred mandated by multiculturalism in American public school students for decades now has created a vacuum, which Muslims have shown themselves to be all too eager to fill.”
Don’t miss this important addition to the Horowitz Freedom Center’s array of must-read pamphlets. Order your copy of Readin’, Writin’, and Jihadin’: The Islamization of American Public Schools here.
| Mueller Expands The Witch Hunt
Jul 6th 2018, 04:11, by Joseph Klein
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is planning to expand his witch hunt. According to a Bloomberg News report, he is “tapping additional Justice Department resources for help with new legal battles as his year-old investigation of Russian interference with the 2016 election continues to expand.” He already has 17 prosecutors on his staff, many of whom have clear anti-Trump biases. From the investigation’s start in May 2017 through March of this year, Mr. Mueller’s own office has spent $7.7 million, on top of the $9 million spent by permanent Department of Justice units involved in the investigation. Mr. Mueller evidently wants to absorb some of the career prosecutors from the offices of U.S. attorneys and from Justice Department headquarters into his own operation or to outsource some of his work to them. Either way, instead of finishing his investigation “the hell up because this country is being torn apart,” as Republican Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina told Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein during a June 28 hearing, Mr. Mueller is busy growing his empire. The Justice Department has “reportedly budgeted $10 million for Mueller’s team to spend in the next fiscal year, which begins in October,” Time Magazine reported.
The Mueller probe is over a year old. The Special Counsel’s office has shown nothing to the taxpayers funding its operation that it has made any real progress in fulfilling its original mandate to uncover evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. The most significant indictment to date, the one against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is a ridiculous sideshow involving accusations that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign. While Judge T.S. Ellis III, of the Eastern District of Virginia, denied Mr. Manafort’s motion to dismiss an indictment against him on the grounds that Special Counsel Mueller had exceeded his authority, the judge questioned the objectivity of the whole Mueller enterprise. Judge Ellis expressed concern about “the danger unleashed when political disagreements are transformed into partisan prosecutions.” The judge further warned, “To provide a special counsel with a large budget and to tell him or her to find crimes allows a special counsel to pursue his or her targets without the usual time and budget constraints facing ordinary prosecutors, encouraging substantial elements of the public to conclude that the special counsel is being deployed as a political weapon.”
Mr. Mueller and his merry band of Trump-haters are preparing the groundwork for, at minimum, a highly critical report that will be used as “a political weapon” by Democrats and the anti-Trump media to try and bring the president down. They are salivating at the prospect of impeachment proceedings, particularly if Democrats regain the majority in the House of Representatives. It is a distinct possibility that the Mueller team is planning an “October surprise” shortly before the November midterm elections by issuing a highly critical report that could provide enough additional impetus for tipping the balance of power in the House, and possibly even the Senate, in the Democrats’ favor. If so, Mr. Mueller would be following in the footsteps of Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh. After investigating the Iran-Contra scandal for several years, Mr. Walsh waited until October 30, 1992, just days before the presidential election, to indict former Reagan defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger on one count of making false statements. Bob Dole called the indictment “the straw that broke the camel’s back” of George H.W. Bush’s re-election hopes against Bill Clinton. Bob Dole added that Mr. Walsh’s operation consisted of a “hotbed of Democratic activist lawyers.” Sounds just like the Mueller team today.
Indeed, the Mueller investigation has been contaminated from the start by political bias that took root even before Mr. Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel. Department of Justice Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz’s 500 plus-page report, released last month, criticized the conduct of Special FBI agent Peter Stzrok and Lisa Page, an attorney who has since left the FBI. They had exchanged text messages sharply critical of Mr. Trump before and after the election. Strzok played a major role in the FBI investigation and exoneration of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server for government e-mails while she served as Secretary of State, as well as in the initiation of the FBI investigation of allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The smoking gun uncovered by Inspector General Horowitz was the following text message on August 8, 2016, in which Strzok reassured Page that she need not worry about Donald Trump becoming president. Trump is “not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok. “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded. Mr. Horowitz wrote that this exchange was “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.
Strzok operationalized his anti-Trump animus by prioritizing the Russia collusion investigation while helping to deep-six the Hillary Clinton investigation. Moreover, we know that leaders near the top of the Department of Justice and FBI hierarchies misused their authority for political reasons to obtain a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court order to spy on at least one former Trump campaign official, Carter Page. They failed to disclose to the FISA court that the unsubstantiated dossier compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, used as a justification for the warrant order, had been paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The Mueller team is feeding off the fruits of a poisoned tree.
The Mueller team, largely consisting of Democratic partisans, also appears to have engaged in some shady practices of its own. For example, it withheld potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense related to former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s case in which he pleaded guilty, until ordered to do so by a federal judge.
In sum, Robert Mueller is seeking to perpetuate his tainted investigation in search of crime – any crime, whether or not having any relationship to the allegation of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia – that would justify its expanding budget and staffing. For the sake of the country, it is time for Mr. Mueller to either put up or shut up and move to shut down his operation immediately.
| Will Our Current Political Conflicts Turn Violent?
Jul 6th 2018, 04:10, by Bruce Thornton
Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
President Trump’s recent string of wins ––especially the victories in the Supreme Court decisions and the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy–– has incited the Democrat “resistance” to even loonier excesses of rhetoric and rudeness. Celebrities indulging juvenile vulgarities, boorish protestors harassing cabinet members in public spaces, the twitterverse smoldering with calls for violence and a “summer of rage,” and the buffoonish Representative from California Maxine Waters calling for even more public harassment: all have some people worrying that we are on the track of escalating violence that will turn the “cold civil war” hot.
Count me as skeptical for now. As bad as today’s political discord may seem, American history from its beginnings has been filled with worse political conflict and violence, from Shays’ Rebellion to Bleeding Kansas, from the Wall Street bombing to the Haymarket Riot. And having spent more than forty years in the university, the nursery of leftism and today’s parlor pinks, I see few people with the gumption to actually back their blustering threats with risky action.
Any claims that we are living on the brink of civil conflict inflamed by violent political rhetoric must answer the question, compared to when? The Sixties and Seventies saw urban riots that killed hundreds, wounded thousands, and caused millions of dollars in damages. Politically motivated kidnappings and shootouts were endemic. The 1968 protests at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago featured televised vicious battles between the police on one side, and antiwar protestors and left-wing groups like the Yippies and Students for a Democratic Society on the other. A jumpy national guard contingent killed four student protestors at Kent State. During this same period, thousands of bombings from a plethora of radical groups took place ––according to a 1970 Senate investigation, more than 4,300 just between January 1969 and April 1970, killing 43 and inflicting $22 billion in damage. And presidential primary candidate Robert Kennedy and civil rights icon Martin Luther King were assassinated.
And what are we fretting over? Vulgar insults on late-night television, a rhetoric of violence used by people who have never fired a weapon, public rudeness to politicians, anonymous threats and virtual stalking, and other forms of bullying perpetrated mostly by well-fed people of leisure who have no intention of risking their lives and possessions for their zombie leftism. Of course, these sorts of attacks can be disturbing to the victims, and any credible threat of violence should be taken seriously by the authorities and investigated. But the worst of what we’re seeing is still light-years from the assassinations and bombings of 50 years ago. And don’t forget, that leftist violence of the Sixties and Seventies created a backlash that helped elect Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
Our dearth of that sort of genuine violence may be why we try to elevate murders by psychopaths––like the ones who fired on the Republican congressional baseball team last year, or more recently a Baltimore newsroom––into acts of political violence stoked by ideological conflicts. In reality they’re no more political than was the paranoid loser Travis Bickle’s rampage in the movie Taxi Driver. In contrast, the violence of the Sixties was perpetrated by self-styled revolutionaries whose acts were the consequence of their conscious beliefs in revolutionary violence as the justified means to an ideological end. They were psychopaths with seemingly rational and respected arguments, infinitely more dangerous than your typical school-shooter egged on by his private demons and paranoid hallucinations.
Compared to the Weathermen, the Symbionese Liberation Army, or the SDS of the Sixties and Seventies, our violent “resistance” comprises mostly posers and day-trippers like Antifa. The level of their violence, mostly against property, does not reach that of soccer hooligans, let alone the daily mayhem in inner-city hell-holes. And unlike the ’68 protestors in Chicago, who faced beat-downs from the police, these days protestors know the police don’t want to risk their jobs by using the force necessary to deter such antics. They also know that most of those arrested don’t face serious legal consequences. Their “resistance” is more like theater for iPhone and news cameras, rather than the serious violence that radicals in the Sixties committed.
Today’s “activists,” then, are performing in a revolutionary operetta that isn’t really about radical change, but about making a fashion statement and preening morally. Of course, they may seem “passionate” about their beliefs, and even believe they really are, but the true test of commitment is not attending a demonstration to provide selfies for your Facebook page, nor blustering comments and threats on an online site, nor browbeating your MAGA-hatted aunt at Thanksgiving, nor verbally bullying a cabinet member out for a meal. This is not Yeats’ “passionate intensity” that he saw in the political religions and their violence in the Thirties, but a cheap knock-off that substitutes a “revolutionary” pose and attitude for the real deal. It’s revolution in the virtual world, where flourish the images and rhetoric that make us think a violent civil war is looming. Meaningful commitment is the willingness to get blood on your hands.
Typical of this symbolic and gestural “radicalism” is the latest mascot of the “woke” resistance, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who beat the fourth ranking Democrat in the House in a New York district primary. This daughter of an architect, denizen of tony Westchester County, and Boston University grad styles herself as a “working class girl from the Bronx” and a committed socialist. But she’s really what the Mexican kids I grew up with called a gringada, a Latina culturally indistinguishable from a white girl. Her ethnicity is a costume she uses to make herself attractive to her half-Latino district. As Daniel Greenfield writes, she’s “an upscale lefty hipster drifting after college from one activist gig to another, developing the contacts that put her in the right place at the right time. These are the bios of ten thousand professional lefties who infest the non-profit sector. They’re all angry, self-righteous and interchangeable.”
In other words, an aspiring race-tribune like the ancient Roman variety, the aristocrats on the make who professed to champion the cause of the plebs in order to advance up the cursus honorum of political power. The difference is, many a Roman tribune fought and died in the Forum in pursuit of their revolutionary reforms. Our race tribunes can look forward to dying in their comfortable beds with a fat 401K or state pension, all funded by the wealth free-market capitalism has created. Just ask Bernie Sanders, today’s “socialist” Pied Piper whose “activism” has made him a millionaire.
Careerist hipster “activists” like Ocasio-Cortez are not the sort of leaders who can galvanize the masses for violent revolution, no more than are geriatric plutocrats like Nancy Pelosi or George Soros, or political ventriloquist’s dummies like Bill Maher or Joe Scarborough. And their “woke” ersatz-socialist fans are just like them: well-fed court jesters for the rich and powerful of the Acela corridor, lap-dogs who will snarl and nip but know exactly where to sit in order to snatch the scraps dropped from the tables of the bipartisan power elite. They know better than to risk biting the hands that feed them by actually fighting with bombs and guns rather than safely blogging and protesting while the police stand down, and the fellow-traveling media advertise their “commitment” and “passion.”
Nor are today’s “woke” millennials the budding shock-troops of the revolution. Snowflakes of uncertain “gender” and vulnerable to verbal “microagressions” are not promising recruits for class warfare. Guys who’ve never been punched in the face and fret over their “toxic masculinity” won’t make it through Marxist boot-camp. The kind of people needed for violent change these days are living in off-the-grid rural compounds, or the “gangster paradise” where the businesses of drugs, guns, and prostitution are much more lucrative than “transforming” America along Cuban lines.
So let’s calm down a bit with the rhetoric of impending violence. When we discover that sizable battalions of organized, disciplined “resistance” outfits are stockpiling guns and ammo, importing illegal armaments, spending time at the range learning which end of the gun to point, and figuring out how to build bombs by studying jihadist websites, then we’ll need to take them more seriously. And do something about.
This doesn’t mean civil violence is impossible. But if political violence returns to the streets of America, it’s unlikely to come from aging hippies and entitled millennials who treat politics like performance art, which is the luxury of well-fed consumers with ample leisure time and discretionary wealth. It will more likely come on the heels of economic dislocation and dwindling wealth to redistribute. And while today we are fighting the rhetoric wars over trivial “scandals” and lurid predictions of democracy’s demise, we are creating the conditions for such economic disorder by our feckless policies of unsustainable entitlement spending, rising deficits, and metastasizing debt. Those fiscal chickens may be coming home to roost in just a couple of decades.
Moreover, the social disorder of a serious economic downturn may be more extreme for us. The greater affluence that we take for granted will make the decline in living standards even more intolerable than in the past. Then we may painfully learn the wisdom in Thucydides’ timeless warning about how people in times of wealth and comfort––such as we are enjoying now with the economy booming and full employment–– find it easier to indulge revolutionary words and gestures, rather than take lethal revolutionary action. But when they “fall under the dominion of imperious necessities,” whether because of war or, what is more likely in our case, economic deprivation, the ensuing breakdown in order can “take away the comfortable provision of daily life.” War or want becomes a “hard master and tends to assimilate men’s characters to their conditions.” That is, in the lean years we may find ourselves capable of brutal actions we’d never consider during the fat years. Right now, the antics of the “resistance” are affordable luxuries for the richest cohort of young people in human history. Let that affluence disappear, and rhetoric indulged in times of comfort can turn to lethal violence and the temptation of collectivist solutions that have paved the road to tyranny in the past.
If we’re really worried about civil violence coming to our streets, let’s do something about the economic dysfunctions that are insidiously making possible the conditions for such violence. That’s a more credible threat than are the social media tantrums and potty-talk of spoiled brats.
| Italy Is Not Headed For Authoritarianism
Jul 6th 2018, 04:09, by Michael Ledeen
Michael Ledeen is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Barbara and I are finishing up three weeks in Italy, and it’s not a happy place. But, for a long time, it hasn’t been nearly as happy as most Americans believed. It’s a deceptive place, where suffering is usually hidden by tough language, considerable charm, and extraordinary music. Italians are very dramatic, and those who spend time there (I’ve been at it for more than fifty years) often wonder if they are on stage or in the audience. Don’t forget that, just beneath the apparently cheerful exterior, there has long lurked one of the oldest traditions of political assassination in the world, from Caesar to the mafia.
It’s always been a tough place, remember that Italy invented fascism. And Hitler’s hero and inspiration was Mussolini. There are those who think that there is a fascist revival under way, but I don’t see it. I see chaos, populism, and all manner of social and economic programs, the outcome of which is unknowable. As usual, Italy is testing the political waters, as it always has. It’s Europe’s political laboratory.
There’s a new government, composed of big-talking leaders whose programs call for guaranteed minimum incomes,flat taxes, and much tougher border controls along the country’s ocean borders. The latter is highly contentious, and has produced a series of nasty meetings with EU leaders, notably the French. The Italians want other governments, from elsewhere in Europe to North Africa, to shoulder a greater share of the burden. So far, as you can well imagine, the various countries are far from agreement, although apparently on the 4th, a bilateral agreement with Libya to create a migrant center in that unhappy land was announced.
Populist sentiment is intense. Italians don’t want to fund refugees when their most talented and best educated kids are headed for countries where their skills are rewarded. You can’t begin to imagine how many well-to-do Italians have children in places like Canada and Australia. It’s a whole jet-lagged generation. As throughout Europe, one hears daily calls for greater regional independence, and the country’s most dynamic political force at present is the League, formerly the Northern League. Oddly, this movement is now flourishing in the south, which for a long time was the target of most of the League’s calls for big change. Today, the major target is Europe itself.
Italy has long excelled at finding niches in the export market, but right now that isn’t working well. Not that the country’s on the verge of depression, but the road to economic growth is sharply uphill, the birth rate is way down, and it’s very hot. The country needs immigrants but Italians don’t want the ones they’re getting by the boatload.
The new government came in with promises of dramatic reform, but most of them have been postponed. The latest move is to authorize the use of tasers by state police and the (military) carabinieri, with an experimental period to start right away. This was done personally by Matteo Salvini, the Interior Minister, who heads the League and serves as interior minister. It is the sort of colorful action he favors, and if Italy is headed for a more authoritarian style, this sort of thing is likely to become more common. It shows Italy is prepared to act on its own, without waiting for Europe to take the lead.
Which brings us to the European question. There is little doubt by now that the European scheme was bungled from the outset. It should have started with political union, but the Germans insisted that the creation of the euro come first. We can see the results: failed unity. We can say the same about Italy herself: failed unification. Italy needs greater federalism, a weaker national parliament, and stronger mayors and governors. If that happens, there might be hope for the place.
Don’t count on it.
| Leftist Malice
Jul 6th 2018, 04:04, by Rabbi Aryeh Spero
There is a never ending blitzkrieg from the media to topple President Trump. Based on what we’ve observed during the last two years, there’s no doubt that the “Separation of Families” barrage that began a couple of weeks ago was an effort orchestrated by the media. It brought together the Four Horsemen for a Trump Apocalypse: the Democrat Party; the Deep State; the Never-Trumpers; and leftwing organizations, especially those purporting to speak in the name of religion.
One: Nancy Pelosi, the face of the Democrat party, accused Jeff Sessions and other conservatives of being “religious hypocrites” for not allowing open borders and easy and swift entry for all families and children wishing to reside in America. I have no doubt that Mr. Sessions and Mr. Trump do care about families. Indeed, as conservatives they are far less inclined than liberals to take children from parents and place them in the custody of the “enlightened” state, as those on the Left often propose.
What about families? Even Nancy Pelosi should know that government’s first duty is to protect and defend America’s existing families. And today that means seriously checking, at the borders, all who may possibly be a member of MS-13, a jihadi terrorist, a criminal or drug dealer, or carrier of infectious diseases, all of which have already threatened American families. We rely on the government to do this for us. Mr. Trump and Sessions are not “religious hypocrites”, but men living up to their oath and doing their duty of keeping Americans safe. They are acting as those who take their responsibility seriously.
In contrast to the prevailing liberal ideology, American families indeed count. That’s all part of what we mean when we proclaim: America First. Compassion is not only for those outside but those within, for those regular, law abiding millions not part of any momentary preference group.
Last week, Maxine Waters, the new face of the Democrat Party, claimed God was on her side as she encouraged Americans to close-face harass, verbally assault, and forbid conservatives from participating in routine American public activities .Waters wants conservatives who disagree with her to sit in the back of the bus, be evicted from the lunch counters, and refused service. Civil rights are for her, not the hundreds of millions of regular Americans. People working for the President, she says, should be hounded at their home. Unleash the Brown Shirts! Waters, claiming to be concerned about the feelings of children of illegals, appears happy with Republican children being frightened in their beds due to bullhorns and liberal activists shouting outside their homes and bedrooms.
Instead of trying to find a workable solution to a national emergency inherently fraught with necessary but difficult procedures, Pelosi , ala Rahm Emanuel, has exploited this crisis for her own personal ambition, namely, to regain the Speaker’s Gavel. Worse, she overlooks the safety of our American families in her quest to import, on a grand scale, a new Democrat voting constituency. Pelosi knows that these protocols began long before Mr. Trump’s presidency and that the incendiary picture seen around the world was from the Obama era, not on Trump’s watch. But, as we have seen many times before with the Palestinian/media alliance, pictures and photographs are manipulated that are absolutely false or misappropriated. All of this is highly unethical.
Two: The Deep State was represented by former NSA and CIA Director, Michael Hayden. He compared the temporary separation of children from parents at our southern border to the Nazi Holocaust. It is an abhorrent comparison. It is knowingly wrong; it minimizes the Holocaust and it unfairly maligns our country. It is an unethical assertion, done by a “Deeper” who loathes the President so much as to put politics above truth.
The Nazis separated families as part of a first phase of forced labor and murder of Jews, an entire race. We, in contrast, are taking care of these children—probably better than they’re normally taken care of–during the days of necessary investigation. No animus is intended on our part, or on the part of President Trump, AG sessions, or the Dept. of Homeland Security. Mr. Hayden’s offense was not simply against Holocaust survivors but America itself. It’s unethical to make accusations that are absolutely false and purposely defaming. Why was such a man CIA Director?
Three: The Never-Trump neo-cons, who for the first time since 1980 find themselves out of the loop, also gleefully pounced this weekend on the President and Attorney General. They’ve been unable to accept that they’re no longer setting the agenda within the Republican Party. Nor should they be. The neo-cons loathe everything we love. The majority of the Party’s constituency believes in nationalism, fair trade and placing America first. They don’t. Most of the Party is no longer enamored by foreign nation-building, globalism, and sacrificing American jobs on the altar of international social engineering. The neo-cons are.
Most neo-cons are former Democrats from the East Coast and will forever feel more comfortable around academics and theoreticians than around blue collar, hands -on, regular Joes. They latch onto and advance anything that will smear and bring down the President in the hopes of restoring their big-shot status, as well as the perks, relevance, and power that go with it. Jennifer Rubin, a neo-Con and blogger for the Washington Post, wrote approvingly for “shunning” and publicly refusing service to those supportive of President Trump. Why was she ever considered a Republican?
Four: Some left wing organizations calling themselves religious, but who are more so socialist, condemned the President for not “welcoming the stranger”. In fact, years back Barack Obama quoted the Scripture “Thou shall not Afflict the Stranger” as justification for shooting down anyone who disagreed with his borders-as-sieve policy and granting a full basket of entitlements to all who come here, even illegally. But, welcoming the stranger refers to individuals, not an invasion of millions…certainly not a calculated importation of millions to swell the voting ranks of the liberal party. It’s about treating decently a stranger temporarily in the land; not about making it easy for would-be terrorists, gangs, and criminals to blithely enter; nor is it about forgetting that newcomers can’t come to feed and live off the sweat of others. It is not “affliction” to require standards.
Welcoming the stranger was not intended by the Bible to be a national suicide program. The Bible itself speaks of the blessing of impenetrable borders. Welcoming the stranger is a directive for not being cruel to people, harassing or torturing them, as was the practice in many ancient societies and still practiced today toward “infidels”. Democrats could take a lesson in decency… and stop harassing Republicans.
In my own Jewish backyard, I witnessed a host of liberal Jewish organizations almost two weeks ago eagerly sign on to a letter condemning the President and Attorney General. They felt so good about themselves for doing so. They kept piling on, not taking the time to find out the facts. Forget the truth: it was a chance to show their greater “nobility” and, once again, demonize Trump. This frequently happens in today’s Jewish organizational community. The vast majority of the non-Orthodox Jewish organizations in America are loudly anti-Trump, actually in the vanguard against him, pining for the return of Barack Obama. Their automatic assumption is that the average conservative and American is indifferent to the plight of children, the needy, strangers, or non-Americans. Self-righteousness, when used to dismiss the goodness in others, is unethical.
None of the hysteria and condemnation that has gone on these past two weeks was necessary. If there was goodwill and respect from the Left, they would have realized we all want what is proper, yet responsible. Sit down with DHS and find solutions or improvements. That’s the American way. Instead, they deliberately chose to demonize in the hopes of bringing down everything. But you don’t measure morality by hysteria. Their hysteria does not reflect a higher morality, rather their ongoing project of malice and low ethics.
| EPA’s Scott Pruitt, Fallen American Hero
Jul 6th 2018, 04:04, by Matthew Vadum
Radical environmentalists claimed a Trump cabinet member’s scalp yesterday as they forced out a great American patriot, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, under a cloud of largely invented ethics scandals.
Nothing Pruitt did in office was unforgivable. Nothing he did was even particularly bad.
Pruitt, previously attorney general of Oklahoma from January 2011 to February 2017, was the victim of a sustained, well-funded leftist assault aimed at crippling him and removing him from office. It succeeded. The Left, emboldened by its success, will now use this blueprint again and again against Trump administration officials. Pruitt’s expected successor, EPA’s second-in-command, former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler, will feel the Left’s wrath soon enough.
President Trump had reportedly grown weary of the unending stream of bad publicity Pruitt brought with him.
“I have accepted the resignation of Scott Pruitt as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency[,]” the president tweeted perfunctorily Thursday at 3:37 p.m. “Within the Agency Scott has done an outstanding job, and I will always be thankful to him for this.”
The official line is that Pruitt didn’t want to be a distraction. This may be true but it doesn’t excuse the lack of resources put into defending him.
Consistently the voice of reason, Fox News contributor and Federalist senior editor Mollie Hemingway, said the massively funded “Boot Pruitt” campaign by green groups was “very effective.”
Hemingway is right.
Boot Pruitt was apparently created by admitted communist and 9/11 truther Van Jones, a so-called social entrepreneur who is extremely adept at generating the illusion of grassroots activity in furtherance of his radical goals. The campaign was slick leftist astroturf manufactured by pressure groups beholden to George Soros and Tom Steyer.
But Soros seems particularly heavily involved. A cursory examination of Boot Pruitt’s “Our Partners” page shows several groups (or their sister organizations) that are funded by Soros through his philanthropies.
Among those nonprofit organizations to receive funding from Soros’s Open Society Institute and/or the Foundation to Promote Open Society are: Center for American Progress Action Fund (Center for American Progress) ($10,541,376); UnidosUS Action Fund (National Council of La Raza) ($5,737,331); Natural Resources Defense Council ($3,962,907); Van Jones-founded Green for All ($350,000); Earthjustice ($305,000); Hip Hop Caucus Education Fund ($300,000); and Friends of the Earth ($50,000).
Latino Victory Fund also appears on the list. Soros has donated $500,000 out of his own personal funds in the 2018 election cycle to Latino Victory PAC.
One of Pruitt’s more psychotic media assassins, Jennifer Rubin, the phony conservative columnist the Washington Post hired to make all conservatives look affective and scatter-brained, was dancing on Pruitt’s political grave within hours of his resignation.
Rubin, who assailed Pruitt for spending taxpayer money to protect himself and his family, had the audacity to write, “The extent to which he ripped off taxpayers must be determined, and anyone who assisted in his escapades must be fired.”
Rubin herself has gleefully embraced the terrorism of the Left – she is one of the reasons Pruitt and other Trump officials have to spend extra money on security.
After deranged restaurant co-owner Stephanie Wilkinson threw White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family out of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Va., and chased them around town because Sanders works for President Trump, Rubin cheered Wilkinson on.
Sanders deserves a “life sentence” of public shaming, Rubin pontificated.
Sanders has “no right” to “live a life of no fuss” for “lying” to and “inciting” against the media, Rubin said. “These people should be made uncomfortable and I think that’s a life sentence, frankly.”
In an environment in which Democrats, cheered on by the media, have been free to nearly assassinate House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), and violent attacks on other GOP office-holders and Trump supporters are becoming commonplace, Pruitt, whom the Secret Service said received the most threats of anyone in the cabinet, can’t be faulted for demanding extra security no matter how expensive.
In the end, history will be kind to Pruitt. To describe his work at EPA as outstanding would be ridiculous understatement.
Pruitt’s three-point “back-to-basics agenda” centered on returning EPA to its proper role. They were “[r]efocusing the Agency back to its core mission”[;] “[r]estoring power to the states through cooperative federalism”[;] and “[a]dhering to the rule of law and improving Agency processes[.]”
Under Pruitt’s leadership, Obama-era Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that would have forced passenger car and truck manufacturers to maintain a fleet-wide average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 (up from 35.5 miles in 2016) were scrapped. This could save – no exaggeration – millions of Americans from death and dismemberment in the future. That’s because car makers typically comply with such fuel-efficiency rules by reducing the weight and size of the vehicles they produce. Generally speaking, the lighter and smaller a vehicle is, the less safe it is in a collision.
Under Pruitt, the Trump administration exited the awful Paris Agreement dealing with the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, and slashed economy-killing regulations such as those related to the Clean Power Plan, which was President Obama’s declaration of war on power plants and coal country.
Pruitt restored the rule of law by rescinding the insane Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, a truly grotesque Obama-era power grab that literally gave EPA the power to regulate land containing puddles unconnected to larger bodies of water.
Pruitt ended the corrupt “sue and settle” practices allowed during the Obama administration by which special interest groups conspired with collaborators within the EPA to create priorities and rules outside of the usual rulemaking process. According to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce summary, “[t]hese settlement agreements are negotiated behind closed doors with no participation from the public or affected parties. As an example, between 2009 and 2012, EPA chose not to defend itself in over 60 lawsuits from special interest advocacy groups. These cases resulted in settlement agreements and EPA publishing more than 100 new regulations – including the Clean Power Plan.”
Generations of Americans will be healthier and wealthier because Pruitt acted boldly at EPA. Some who would have perished in car crashes will get to live.
Posterity’s verdict on the fallen Environmental Protection Agency chief will be that he was thrown under the bus by people who should have known better. Congressional Republicans, and elements of Conservatism Inc. allowed his ouster to happen.
The knives were out for Pruitt from the moment he was nominated. Leftists saw the damage he could do to their bureaucratic fiefdom at EPA and enlisted help from their allies in the media, as well as from squish Republican office-holders.
Pruitt could have easily weathered these storms if he enjoyed institutional support. Evidently he felt he didn’t have it so he quit.
Cowardice begets cowardice.
Feeding conservatives to the crocodiles only guarantees that crocodiles will enjoy a steady diet of conservatives in the future.
Let Scott Pruitt, a great conservative who went down fighting, be Exhibit “A” for this proposition.
| Don’t Call It Diversity, Call It Racism
Jul 6th 2018, 04:03, 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.
Harvard lashed out at the Department of Education and the Justice Department’s withdrawal of Obama era letters backing extreme racist preferences in education by vowing to “continue to vigorously defend its right, and that of all colleges and universities, to consider race.”
To paraphrase the inaugural address of a noted Democrat: “Affirmative action now, affirmative action tomorrow, affirmative action forever.”
The right that Harvard is fighting for is the right to be racist. The same right that George Wallace, the KKK and nearly every single college in the country have been obsessed with protecting and preserving.
Harvard already stands accused of considering race in its admissions to such a degree that an Asian student’s chance of getting in would go from 25% to 95% if she switched races and pretended to be black. Low-income Asian applicants were less likely to get in than wealthier black applicants.
“Make no mistake, this is the law of the land. Today’s announcement does not change that,” Ted Mitchell declared, channeling segregationist rhetoric which also leaned heavily on the ‘law of the land.’
Holistic admissions are as much of a racist farce and a ‘law of the land’ as separate but equal.
Mitchell was Obama’s point man in his war against colleges operating outside the traditional higher education model. These days he heads the American Council on Education, the lobby group of the higher education industry, the universities and colleges trading a fortune in debt for an increasingly worthless degree. Mitchell’s transition from educational hit man to educational lobbyist is a typical example of the self-serving agendas of the Obama administration and its lefty Educrat allies.
ACE is a defender of racial preferences which it benefits from not only politically, but economically. And the Educrats have a better plan to preserve their segregationist system than the segregationists did.
After Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court may be ready to strike down racial discrimination at colleges and universities. Without Kennedy’s Fisher v. University of Texas decision, which will go down in history with Plessy v. Ferguson, that would have already happened. Three of the letters being withdrawn by Kenneth L. Marcus, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, involve Obama guidance to schools on Fisher.
And if affirmative action joins separate but equal in the racist dustbin of history, Ted Mitchell’s spurious appeal to the ‘law of the land’ will be as worthless as those of past defenders of legalized racism.
Statistics and merit are the smoking guns of racial discrimination lawsuits like the one that Asian students have filed against Harvard. But if you eliminate scores, then you eliminate the entire academic merit argument. And that leaves the system free to use the non-academic and non-merit based measures that Harvard allegedly used to occlude the straight academic merits of Asian applicants. Discrimination grows more difficult to prove as the selection criteria become more subjective.
Would the Educrats really burn down tests to protect the cantons of their academic apartheid state?
The University of Chicago is jettisoning SAT and ACT scores for applicants as part of its UChicago Empower Initiative. In addition to going “test-optional”, it will also allow students to submit a two minute video introduction “in lieu of the traditional college interview”. How “holistic” of it.
Going test-optional isn’t a new idea. But it’s been gathering steam. Chicago joins UTA, GWU, DePaul, George Mason and Old Dominion as a test-optional school. Others, like NYU and Drexel have gone “test flexible”. Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania are dropping the writing portions of the SAT.
And the movement isn’t stopping there.
The American Bar Association’s Standards Review Committee called for making standardized tests optional for law schools. In response, UC Irvine School of Law’s African-American Assistant Dean warned that such a move would be disastrous for, among others, minority students.
“Students who are admitted on GPA alone or perhaps in conjunction with qualitative factors absent from a standardized test may borrow six figures for just their first year,” he pointed out.
The MCAT, the granddaddy of admission tests which will turn 90, is also on the target list. But the current system limits the impact of academic merit badly enough. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education warned that relying on MCAT tests without affirmative action would cause the percentage of African-American med students at the most selective schools to fall by 90%. And, it goes without saying, the percentage of Asians and other students who had been discriminated against would rise accordingly.
As the Trump administration moves against affirmative action, going test-optional or even test-free will be the modern equivalent of George Wallace’s stand in front of the doors of the University of Alabama.
Jettison any system of national or state standardized tests and the only metrics that will matter will be the dubious GPAs of the local high school and the racial biases of the university. GPAs will provide a fig leaf of merit while the rest will be made up for with key metrics like courage, likability and diversity.
Asians, who often lack either victimhood status or legacy links will be the biggest losers in this arrangement. Eliminate standardized testing and much of the evidence of disparate impact goes with them. And disparate impact on a general population won’t help an academically overrepresented population group. And it’s why Asian students are fighting racist destandarization measures the hardest.
But when merit makes way for political merits, we all lose.
Do you really want to be treated by a doctor who didn’t do well enough on his MCAT, but was scored really well on his perceived personal qualities by a panel of guilty white lefties scoring diversity points?
Opponents of standardized testing argue that there’s more to any profession than answering test questions. That’s true. But the dedication and ability to learn the material is far closer to an objective measure of merit than the subjective biases and political agendas of administrators and staffers.
A meritocracy is not immune to privilege. But it is also the least influenced by it of all the alternatives. And the most likely to produce results. Like democracy, it is the worst system, except for all the others.
And academic meritocracy is dying.
The standardized tests being denounced by education lobbies have already been watered down to an absurd degree. SAT scores rose after the test was dumbed down giving students more time, fewer choices, an optional essay and no penalty for wrong answers. New York’s Algebra 1 Regents offers a passing score for students who only get 30%. But even this grade inflation isn’t enough.
Grades, any grades, create a paper trail. Standardized tests in and across states are the first foe. But any measure of merit undermines the control of educrats by rewarding individual initiative. That is the very thing that the left has been fighting against under the guise of combating classism, racism and a thousand other ‘isms’ for over a century. To kill individual initiative, wipe out merit. And then the only metrics for a good education, a good job or a good anything will be the castes of identity politics.
Undermining standardized testing at the college level is a typical Cloward-Piven strategy creating a vocal and scholastically weak constituency opposed to tests on campus. Students who don’t come in on merit can’t be expected to stay in on merit. As standardized tests stop being a gateway to college, they will become irrelevant at the high school level. Under a system where the best student at a worst school is deemed as good as the best student at the best school, parents who once sought the best schools for their children will instead seek the worst schools where their son can perch at the top of his class.
The destruction of any objective measure of merit is meant to protect racial privileges. The Educrats of academia would rather destroy education than abandon their shameful racial discrimination.
The era of legal affirmative action, like legal segregation, may be coming to an end. But its academic perpetrators intend that it go on through stealth discrimination, holistic admissions and covert quotas.
Standardized tests will be eliminated to protect the academic suppression of Asian and white students.
Catherine Lhamon, Obama’s former Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, complained that ending support for super-racial preferences “will discourage the lawful use of race to achieve diversity” and “our college and university campuses will become whiter and less diverse.”
‘Whiter’ is to the new segregation of safe spaces what ‘blacker’ was to separate water fountains. The “lawful use of race”, a term also redolent of segregationist sentiments, is the only thing protecting campuses from becoming “whiter”. And, it once again goes without saying, more Asian.
Don’t call it diversity. Call it racism.
(Photo: Joseph Williams)
| Paul Joseph Watson Video: The World Cup is Racist
Jul 6th 2018, 04:02, by Frontpagemag.com
In this new video, Paul Joseph Watson discusses how The World Cup is Racist — according to pedantic idiots. Don’t miss it!
| Sex, Lies and the Deep State
Jul 5th 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
At the heart of the effort to bring down President Trump were two affairs. Unlike the bizarre lies about Moscow hotel rooms and prostitutes in the Steele dossier that was used by the Clinton campaign and its allies to smear President Trump and generate an investigation against him, these affairs truly took place.
And they didn’t just expose the malfeasance of four people, but of a corrupt political culture.
The affairs between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in the FBI, and between Senate Intelligence Committee security director James Wolfe and New York Times reporter Ali Watkins, did more than betray the spouses of Strzok, Page and Wolfe. They also betrayed the duties of the two men and two women.
The affairs were not private matters. The two illicit sexual relationships were also illicit political arrangements. As the Inspector General’s report noted, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Clinton ally who has since been fired, used Page as his liaison with Strzok to circumvent the chain of command on the investigation. McCabe used Page as his conduit and Watkins’ media employers used the young reporter as a conduit to her older married lover and the leaked information he allegedly provided her.
BuzzFeed, Politico, the Huffington Post and the New York Times were aware of the Watkins affair. As the Times piece on Watkins coolly put it, “Their relationship played out in the insular world of Washington, where young, ambitious journalists compete for scoops while navigating relationships with powerful, often older, sources.” Usually it’s enemy governments that employ young women having an affair with older married government officials to extract information on Intelligence Committee proceedings.
But here some of the biggest names in the media were caught using the same tactics as the Russians.
How significant was the Ali Watkins and James Wolfe affair? Former New York Times editor Jill Abramson, in her furious defense of Watkins, noted, “most crucially, the value of her journalism (her Carter Page scoop in BuzzFeed actually helped lead to appt of Mueller).” Strzok was forced to leave the Mueller investigation due to the exposure of his texts with Lisa Page. Watkins’ affair with Wolfe has been credited by a key media figure with helping create the monster that is the Mueller investigation.
At the rotten heart of the campaign against Trump lay the betrayal of private and public fidelities.
But the Strzok-Page and Watkins-Wolfe affairs were also crucial in bypassing formal lines of communication. Illicit affairs are popular espionage tradecraft not just because they provide blackmail material against influential officials, but because their very informality makes it easy to create covert networks within organizations as personal intimacy is used to maintain political intimacy.
McCabe allegedly used Page to create such a connection between him and Strzok. The media appeared to have used Watkins to create a link into the Senate Intelligence Committee. It’s unknown if anyone on Wolfe’s end was aware of the affair and using it to feed information to the media. But it would not be too surprising if the open secret of the affair was just as open on his end as it was on the media’s end.
It’s easier to piggyback one illicit secret on another. There were two layers of secret affairs here, one layer of intimacy between two couples, and another layer of illicit intimacy between organizations. The organizational affairs cover three key players in the campaign against President Trump: elements in the FBI, the media and the Senate Intelligence Committee who had adulterated their responsibilities.
When we talk about the deep state, what we really mean are these illicit networks within the government that have their own rogue agenda. These networks exist in every part of the government. Some are just corrupt, trading favors, cash and access. Others are political. Like enemy spy cells, their members coordinate privately to suborn organizations the way that these men and women did.
The arrest of the occasional spy ring gives us an insight into how they operate. The exposure of Strzok, Page and McCabe, of Watkins, Wolfe and the media, gives us an insight into how the deep state runs.
Corruption requires complicity. As every good spy knows, the best sources are those who have proven that they are willing to compromise their ethics in other areas, whether it’s gambling, adultery or theft.
The network that went after Trump was, at least in part, built out of such people. In their varied cases, mistresses and spouses served as crucial conduits to a public official such as the DOJ’s Bruce Ohr whose wife Nellie worked to dig up dirt on Trump for Fusion GPS or McCabe whose wife Jill had received $675,000 for her political campaign through a close Clinton ally, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.
Spouses could be used to route financial benefits while mistresses carried information, as Watkins did from Wolfe and Page did from Strzok. Formal political affiliations, such as James Comey’s supposed Republican status, matter less than the private ones of his wife and daughters who are rabid Clinton supporters and Trump opponents. In Washington D.C., formal party affiliation is downstream from social politics. The career networks that matter are built in restaurants and cocktail parties, not polling places.
Up close the swamp is making friends who can help you move from the public sector to the private sector. It’s peddling influence, getting to know people and building transactional relationships. It’s players who know everybody hiring out to other players who need to know everybody. It’s also knowing how to bypass ethics rules, oversight and chains of command to be able to get the things you need to do done. That might be a contract, a subsidy, a sale or the overthrow of the United States government.
It’s just another day in the swamp.
The Mueller investigation rose out of that swamp and the Clinton-Steele dossier dived deep into it. The investigation of the investigations has only begun mapping the swamp. Underneath the turgid waters of the Potomac, the swamp dwellers have their own mores. The stately government buildings, cozy restaurants and dignified manors conceal twisted relationships between people and organizations.
In every society, the governors live by a different set of rules than the governed. In Washington D.C., infidelity to spouses, oaths, governments, voters and ethics is not an aberration. It’s the rule. Adultery to whatever you claim to hold true is the price of admission. It’s how you can be trusted to join the club.
The political side of the imperial city is a small town. And everyone knows all the dirty secrets. Call it the deep state, the swamp or just what happens when government becomes its own culture.
Government runs on rules, on knowing them, enforcing them and breaking them. At the lowest level of power, you know the rules. At the next level you enforce them. At the final level, you break them.
That final level of power is the deep state. It lives where the rules are meant to be broken.
The campaign against Trump ran on the parallel laws of Washington D.C. Its networks were covert alliances that ran on the social relationships of the swamp. That these networks included infidelity and political prostitution as a feature would only be natural. In a transactional town that traffics in relationships, running a coup piggybacked on an affair and prostituting a reporter are virtues not sins.
The legitimate body of government tests for ethics. The parallel deep state tests for corruption. The men and women who went after President Trump didn’t just cheat on each other, they cheated on America.
These parallel networks, in government, in public life and in private life, are the conduits of corruption. To defeat the deep state, these parallel networks in government must be exposed to the light of day.
As long as the deep state remains deep underwater, the corruption will continue.
| Lawsuit Against Obama Officials Proceeding
Jul 5th 2018, 04:09, by Matthew Vadum
New proof the FBI slow-walked and undermined its own investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email abuses has given a former Navy sailor pardoned by President Trump new determination to press on with a malicious prosecution lawsuit against senior members of the Obama administration.
“You know, these people aren’t above the law,” said Kristian Saucier, a former submariner. “But apparently, they are. And I’m going to fight that until — and you know, as long as there’s a breath in me, I’m going to fight that.”
Any of us that have been watching this case as it’s unfolding now we see that in fact, the fix was in. They were making sure that no matter what happened, Hillary Clinton wasn’t going to get prosecuted and nobody around her was because they would have folded on her and it’s shameful.
Saucier’s comments came after newly unsealed documents from federal court show that the FBI put little energy into investigating Hillary Clinton, senior aide Huma Abedin, and others.
As Trace Gallagher explained Monday on Fox News Channel:
… the documents also confirmed three things Republicans have been complaining about for years. First, the FBI did not use grand jury subpoenas to interview witnesses including State Department employees, those who set up Clinton’s private e-mail server and those who had knowledge of the e-mails, so in other words all of the 72 witnesses testified voluntarily and none of them was under oath or had their testimony recorded.
The FBI also did not obtain search warrants for the laptops used by Clinton’s attorneys Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson. Instead, the emails on those laptops were secured through consent agreements. Even lead FBI agent Peter Strzok who the I.G. [i.e. Inspector General of the Department of Justice Michael E. Horowitz] did conclude was biased was pushing to use more aggressive investigative measures against both Mills and Samuelson. And finally the court documents show the FBI did not try to obtain the personal phones and devices of Clinton’s top aides who sometimes also use private email for State Department work and use private devices to communicate with Clinton while she was the Secretary of State even though Republicans have serious issues with things the FBI did not do in regards to the Clinton email investigation.
Which makes Saucier justifiably angry.
U.S. Navy Petty Officer First Class Saucier, a machinist’s mate on the submarine USS Alexandria from September 2007 to March 2012, went to prison for an infraction of the sort that the U.S. military normally deals with administratively.
Saucier used his cellphone to snap photographs of the vessel’s nuclear propulsion system while the ship was docked at the Naval Submarine Base in Groton, Conn. Saucier said he took pictures to show his future children what he did aboard the submarine.
He was convicted of felony unauthorized retention of national defense information and obstruction of justice. On Aug. 19, 2016, he was sentenced to one year in prison, three years’ supervised release conditioned upon six months’ home confinement and the performance of 100 hours’ community service, and given an “other-than-honorable” discharge from the U.S. Navy.
“They were going after me and never once have I said what I did wasn’t wrong,” Saucier said on Fox. “I’ve accepted responsibility and I think it’s shameful that Hillary Clinton and her aides just won’t accept responsibility. I pled guilty. I didn’t go to trial.”
Where I mishandled low-level classified information and they threatened me and intimidated me for four years and harassed my family and finally put me away in prison for a year. You know, I just want the rest of them to be held to the same standard. Nowhere in that justice code have I found you know, addendum that says well if your name is Hillary Clinton or [former FBI Director] James Comey this law doesn’t apply to you, so why isn’t it? I think all American people should be asking that question.
Months after Saucier was sentenced, President Obama infamously commuted the prison sentence of U.S. Army Private Chelsea Manning whose leaking of sensitive U.S. government documents may have cost Americans and friendly foreign assets their lives. Manning stole and then gave away close to 500,000 Army field reports from Iraq and Afghanistan and 250,000 diplomatic cables from the U.S. Department of State.
On Aug. 21, 2013, Manning, whom many patriotic Americans consider to be a traitor, was sentenced to 35 years in prison, reduction in pay grade to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. On Jan. 17, 2017, President Obama commuted Manning’s sentence to a mere seven years’ imprisonment, which led to the disgraced soldier’s release on May 17, 2017.
This past March 9, President Trump granted Saucier, whose unauthorized photography made him guilty at worst of minor misconduct, a full and unconditional pardon. (The presidential pardon document for Kristian Mark Saucier dated March 9, 2018, may be viewed here.)
“He has been recognized by his fellow servicemembers for his dedication, skills and patriotic spirit,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in March, as reported by Stars and Stripes.
“While serving, he regularly mentored younger sailors and served as an instructor for new recruits. The sentencing judge found that Mr. Saucier’s offense stands in contrast to his commendable military service.”
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump often likened the comparatively harsh treatment Saucier received with the lax handling received by Clinton, who has never faced prosecution for her misdeeds. Trump led campaign rallies in chants of “lock her up!”
The Saucier case was thrust into the national spotlight on Oct. 4, 2016, when vice presidential candidates Mike Pence (R) and Tim Kaine (D) sparred over whether the sailor was held to a different legal standard for improper handling of classified information than former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, with the apparent connivance of President Obama, created an illegal network of email servers over which mountains of secret government documents were transmitted.
Then-Gov. Pence told Sen. Kaine, “If your son or my son handled classified information the way Hillary Clinton did… they’d be court martialed.”
Kaine indignantly shot back, saying, “That is absolutely false and you know that.”
Of course, Kaine’s son does have some expertise in actual sedition: He’s an Antifa terrorist.
Linwood Michael “Woody” Kaine was part of an Antifa assault on Trump supporters in the rotunda of the Minnesota Capitol. Young Kaine fought with police as they tried to arrest him for lobbing a smoke bomb.
The senator’s son got a slap on the wrist. He was fined $236 and sentenced to 90 days in jail, though 86 of the days were stayed. He received credit for four days’ time served. His one year of probation runs until Dec. 11, 2018.
Meanwhile, Saucier’s lawsuit is off to a rocky start.
On June 21, Saucier’s lawyer, Ronald Leonard Daigle Jr., had his law license suspended by authorities in New York for one year for “professional misconduct arising from [Daigle’s] handling of an estate matter.”
It appears Daigle had been working on settling a specific estate but skipped important required paperwork related to the process. According to the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, Daigle was disciplined for taking $23,000 from the estate of the deceased person, despite lacking proper authority to do so. He later returned $15,000 to the family.
Saucier claims Daigle’s suspension is aimed at hindering the lawsuit against Obama administration officials.
“Out of the blue the court decided to come after Ron for his license for a year, the window I have for my lawsuit, and they announced it after we announced my case,” Saucier said. “It’s a liberal court system … trying to dismember my legal defense. It’s a shame, it’s retribution. They’ve backed us into a corner so that I won’t be able to file the lawsuit.”
“They’re trying to silence us,” Saucier added. “Ron doesn’t deserve this. I won’t be silenced. If I have to go to court and represent myself, act as my own lawyer, I will. I’m not going to be strong-armed.”
Of that there is little doubt.
| Did Obama Grant Residency To Sworn Enemies Of America?
Jul 5th 2018, 04:08, by Ari Lieberman
Like a recurring bad rash that simply won’t go away, the aftershocks of Barack Obama’s calamitous Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) keep coming and with each aftershock, another layer of betrayal, deception and appeasement is exposed. The latest controversy centers on an allegation made by a high level Iranian official that the Obama administration, in an effort to appease the mullahs and close the Iran deal, granted citizenship or residency permits to 2,500 Iranian nationals some of whom were connected to the ruling mullah elite.
The bombshell allegation was leveled by hardline cleric Hojjat al-Islam Mojtaba Zolnour. Zolnour is no small-time slouch. He’s chairman of Iran’s parliamentary nuclear committee and a member of its national security and foreign affairs committee. He’s also part of “Supreme Leader” Ali Khamenei’s inner circle so presumably, he has some inside knowledge.
Though he did not name names, Zolnour alleged that Obama extended naturalization to the children of top level Iranians; this in an effort to curry favor with the mullahs and make them more amenable to signing the JCPOA. The children of at least two top Iranian officials currently reside in the United States. The son of Iran’s speaker of parliament, Ali Larijani, and the son of Hossein Fereydoun, a brother and close aide to Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, both reside in the nation routinely characterized by their parents as the “Great Satan.”
To date, the only Obama administration official to publicly comment on Zolnour’s allegation was former State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, who termed his allegation, “…totally made up BS.” Like most Iranian officials, Zolnour is a dissembler and his allegations should be viewed with healthy dose of caution. Nevertheless, there is ample reason to believe that there’s some truth to the allegation, after all, many ancillary aspects of the Iran deal were kept from Congress and the American people by an opaque administration that trampled on the concept of transparency.
For example, the Iran deal embodied secret side arrangements between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Iranian regime, which governed inspection of nuclear sites under the control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Congressional leaders stumbled across these secret side deals wholly by accident, and were shocked to learn that sites like the highly secretive Parchin facility remained off limits to international inspectors, making a mockery of Obama’s numerous declarations that any agreement with the Islamic Republic would embody “anytime, anywhere” intrusive inspections. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Then we learned that the Obama administration transferred $1.7 billion in untraceable cash, in the dead of night, to the mullahs as ransom for the release of four hostages they were holding. Cash was the preferred method of payment for the mullahs given Iran’s difficulties in dealing with the international banking sector. It is a virtual certainty that at least some of the money was diverted to pay Iranian mercenary gangs who are currently waging war in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere throughout the region. In addition, the legality of the exchange remains dubious. Attorney General Loretta Lynch was supposed to have signed off on the arrangement but no paper bearing her signature was ever forthcoming despite congressional demands to produce such a document.
If that wasn’t enough, we were stunned to find out that in its twilight months in office, the Obama administration gave its consent to allow the Iranians to receive 116 metric tons of natural uranium, the foundational material for nuclear bombs, from Russia as compensation for Iran’s export of tons of reactor coolant. Experts familiar with the transaction noted that that quantity of uranium could be enriched to weapons-grade sufficient for the production of at least 10 nuclear bombs.
Following that revelation, we learned that the Obama administration shut down a highly successful and complex DEA operation aimed at thwarting Iranian-Hezbollah drug smuggling, arms trafficking and money laundering schemes. The secretive operation was known as Project Cassandra and was reaping rewards before Obama stepped in and quashed it. Law enforcement officials involved in the operation were outraged and left scratching their heads. Countless expense and time had gone to waste.
Then there’s the matter of Obama’s alleged thwarting of an Israeli effort to assassinate Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran’s infamous Quds Force. The Quds Force is the IRGC’s overseas terrorist branch in charge of creating mischief wherever they set foot. Soleimani’s elimination would have significantly hampered Quds Force operations and Israel was keeping tabs on his movements and had a plan to take him out during one of his excursions to Syria. Obama was fearful that an assassination of an official so closely associated with the mullah regime would derail the JCPOA. Consequently, he tipped the Iranians off to Israel’s plans. If true, it would represent one of Obama’s most glaring acts of treachery.
During the course of Obama’s fanatical zeal to secure a foreign policy legacy, he committed unfathomable acts which undermined the security of the United States and its allies. The granting of residency to sworn enemies of the United States, if proven true, would merely represent another betrayal in a long series of perfidious actions.
| If We're Nazis, Expect More Violence
Jul 5th 2018, 04:04, by Dennis Prager
Because of the ever-descending moral and intellectual state of the mainstream news media, there has been no outcry against the leftists who call President Donald Trump and all Americans who support him Nazis. Indeed, members of the media now regularly do so.
Without that outcry, this labeling will only increase; and this steadily increasing drumbeat of hysteria is likely to lead to one result: violence against conservatives.
It is not plausible to foresee any other outcome of left-wing normalization of the terms “Nazi” and “white supremacist.”
The American left has put itself in a moral quandary: Either it doesn’t mean it when it calls the president and his supporters Nazis, in which the case it is merely guilty of cheapening — and, as I explained in my previous column, actually denying — the Holocaust, or it does mean it, in which case morality demands it take violent action against Trump supporters.
For at least a decade, I have been saying that America is fighting a second Civil War. But I have always added that unlike the first Civil War, this one — thank God — is nonviolent.
It’s getting harder and harder to assume it will stay that way.
A Senate intern shouts an obscenity at the president of the United States in the halls of Congress and the U.S. senator for whom she works does not fire her.
Left-wing mobs yell and chant “No justice, no sleep” in front of the homes of administration officials.
A Democratic Congresswoman, Maxine Waters, foments such action. “Let’s make sure,” she tells Democratic mobs, “we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
The Democratic Party labels political opposition to the president “Resistance,” the term used to describe the opposition to the Nazis during World War II.
All these are only the beginning. Few violent movements begin with violence. And when the left sees that these tactics do not undo the last presidential election, some morally consistent leftists could quite possibly take the obvious next step and start targeting Republicans — as the shooter of Republican Rep. Steve Scalise and four others did.
As one liberal writer, Peter Beinart of the Atlantic, asked nearly a year ago, “If you believe the president of the United States is leading a racist, fascist movement that threatens the rights, if not the lives, of vulnerable minorities, how far are you willing to go to stop it?”
When conservatives — even one as critical of the president as Ben Shapiro — need the protection of bodyguards and police officers in riot gear when speaking on an American college campus, it is clear where we are headed. You can get an idea by watching what students did to biology professor Dr. Bret Weinstein, perhaps the only decent faculty member at Evergreen State University, because he refused to cooperate when left-wing students demanded that all whites leave the university campus for a day. Some months later, Weinstein was told by the left-wing university administration it “could no longer guarantee his safety.” Weinstein then left Evergreen State for good.
In March 2017, Charles Murray’s scheduled speech at Middlebury College was preempted by a violent left-wing mob, resulting in police escorting him off the campus. In the process, his interviewer, professor Allison Stanger, was injured by enraged leftist thugs, and she later ended up in a neck brace.
The New York Times recently reported that left-wing intellectuals regret the historic liberal defense of free speech. There is no question that if the left were to have its way, many, if not most, conservative opinions would be legally banned and those expressing them arrested.
I pray violence does not erupt in America. But if, God forbid, it does, let’s be clear it was the left that started it, just as surely as the South’s firing at Fort Sumter started the first Civil War.
| Robert Spencer Video: Muslim Spokesman Admits the Real Cause of “Islamophobia”
Jul 5th 2018, 04:02, by Frontpagemag.com
In this new video, Robert Spencer discusses recent remarks by Muslim spokesman Corey Saylor, in which Saylor revealed that he knows that some people have negative views of Islam not because of “Islamophobic propaganda,” but because of the activities of jihad terror groups:
| Immigration Anarchists Vs. National Security
Jul 5th 2018, 04:02, by Michael Cutler
Just when you thought you’d heard and seen it all, members of the Looney Left have shown that there is no end to the insanity and depravity that they would foist upon America and Americans.
Their creation of “Sanctuary Cities” has done incredible damage to national security and public safety by harboring and shielding illegal aliens, including those who have serious criminal convictions from detection by ICE. These bastions of anarchy should be referred to as “Magnet Cities” because they attract international terrorists and fugitives and transnational gang members. In point of fact, Sanctuary Cities Endanger – National Security and Public Safety
Not content with this insanity, some politicians are now demanding that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) be dismantled altogether, creating a de facto “Sanctuary Country.”
They attempt to justify this lunatic proposal by decrying the separation of illegal alien children from their parents when they are arrested for entering the United States without inspection.
In this Orwellian era, smugglers who assist aliens in entering the United States without inspection are referred to as “Human Traffickers.” Years ago these criminals were referred to as “Alien Smugglers.” In point of fact, I was assigned to the Anti-Smuggling Unit of the New York District Office in the late 1970’s.
There is a major difference in the perceptions created by this deceptive word-smithing, creating the false illusion that somehow these illegal aliens are “victims of human trafficking.”
To be clear, aliens who are brought to the United States through coercion or deception, are truly the victims of human trafficking. However, aliens who pay smugglers to enter the United States illegally are not victims but co-conspirators!
Currently hundreds of thousands of American children are in foster care for a number of reasons that include the fact that their parents have been arrested for committing various crimes and there are no family members who can care for them.
This is the unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of prosecuting any law violators who have children.
The media also ignores that many of the illegal alien children were separated from their families before they came to the U.S. / Mexico border when their parents gave their children over to criminal human traffickers / alien smugglers who then attempted to smuggle these unaccompanied children into the United States. The potential, in fact, exists that even when very young children are found in the care of their “parents” that these adults really are not the parents of the children but are posing as the parents of these alien children in the hopes of not being taken into custody.
Consequently it would be reckless for the Border Patrol to release these very young children along with the adults who brought them here, without first being certain that the adults are truly the parents of these young children.
We cannot rule out the possibility that infants and extremely young children may have been kidnapped by criminals and smugglers to be used as a “get out of jail card” if caught by the Border Patrol.
Therefore I would strongly recommend that DNA testing be conducted before any of these young children are reunited with those claiming to be their parents.
Immigration law enforcement is central and critical to national security, consequently terminating the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States would do irreparable harm to national security and public safety and would violate the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
The 9/11 Commission staff comprised of attorneys and agents of various federal agencies noted this about the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior: “abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity.”
Termination of immigration law enforcement from the interior would also flood America with a virtually limitless supply of foreign workers, thus displacing huge numbers of American and lawful immigrant workers, driving down wages, and resulting in huge increases in remittances wired home by foreign workers, greatly increasing the U.S. national debt and stifling the U.S. economy.
The stampede would overwhelm America’s infrastructure including mass transit, education, healthcare and other such systems and services.
The common mission for all five branches of the U.S. military is to keep America’s enemies as far from our shores as possible. However, today not all enemy combatants are members of the military of foreign nations.
Unlike enemy saboteurs during World War II, who sought to enter the United States surreptitiously on U-Boats, today’s terrorists and enemy combatants seek to infiltrate the United States by entering without inspection by running our borders or stowing away on ships or by subverting the lawful entry process conducted at ports of entry by committing visa fraud as nonimmigrant (temporary) visitors, as refugees or as lawful admitted permanent resident immigrants.
Border security and the interior enforcement of our immigration laws are, in a very real sense, extensions of the primary mission of the U..S. military, to protect the United States and its citizens from the Damoclean threats posed by terrorists and other enemy combatants.
The official report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel
focused specifically on the ability of the terrorists to travel around the world, enter the United States and ultimately embed themselves in the United States going about their deadly preparations.and carry out an attack.
Here are some key excerpts:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
If the United States stopped deporting aliens who entered the United States without inspection, there would be no reason to continue to spend nearly 14 billion dollars per year on CBP (Customs and Border Protection) to conduct inspections at ports of entry and to operate the Border Patrol to interdict those who attempt to evade that important inspections process.
Furthermore, the interior enforcement mission involves much more than simply arresting and deporting aliens who enter the U.S. illegally or subsequent to lawfully entering the U.S. commit crimes and/or violations of their immigration status.
Immigration fraud investigations are critical to the integrity of the immigration system and to national security.
Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.”
Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.
ICE agents are also conduct investigations into crooked employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens- not out of compassion but greed, paying these employees substandard wages under often illegally hazardous conditions.
ICE agents also play a major role in various task forces.
In fact, ICE contributes the second largest contingent of law enforcement personnel to the
JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force) because virtually all international terrorists violate immigration laws to enter the United States and embed themselves in our country.
Another critical task force, and one I am intimately familiar with, is the Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) where I was assigned for the final ten years of my INS career.
There is a clear nexus between alien smuggling and drug smuggling and, indeed, today much of the alien smuggling crimes are committed by members of major drug trafficking organizations.
Furthermore, since heroin and cocaine are not produced in the U.S. and much of the meth and marijuana sold by drug trafficking organizations are smuggled into the United States, aliens tend to head up most of these operations in the U.S.
Calls for terminating ICE are tantamount to calling for “shields down” in a particularly dangerous era.
Politician who seeks the termination of ICE should hear from the voters in the voting booth.
| Independence Day and the Recovery of True Freedom
Jul 4th 2018, 04:10, by Bruce Thornton
Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
We are celebrating this Independence Day in the midst of a conflict over what freedom really means. Whatever the crisis du jour that dominates the news cycle, whatever the conflicting policies and clashing ideologies, look deep enough and you’ll find the ancient war between those who believe in true freedom and citizen autonomy, and those who have reduced it to just doing what one wants subject to the intrusive power of Big Government guardians.
Start with the origins of today’s holiday, which were the American Colonists’ desire for political freedom and autonomy. The thirteen colonies, their customary rights for self-rule violated by England, took the momentous step of creating an independent state that empowered citizens to debate and decide how they would collectively chart its course and pursue its aims. This political community would be free and sovereign because it would not be subjected to any earthly power beyond the collective consent of the citizens as expressed through laws and political institutions to which politicians could be held accountable.
Yet this idea of freedom was dependent on citizens’ knowing how to use this freedom responsibly and for the proper aims. For freedom is not “doing as one likes,” which is not true freedom, but what the 18th century called license, a selfish indulgence that cares nothing for the good of the state as a whole, but everything for the needs and ambitions of one faction or ideology. This selfishness breeds tyranny and the loss of freedom, for to act on whatever selfish appetites and passions that arise in one, is to enslave the soul to them and subject the self and the political community to their destructive effects. As Russell Kirk wrote, “The worst enemies of enduring freedom for all may be certain folk who demand incessantly more liberty for themselves.”
Genuine freedom, then, is defined by restraints and limits on human nature’s destructive “passions and interests,” as James Madison called them. And the most dangerous passion is the lust for power. These limits on power’s “encroaching nature” were formally built into the structure of the Constitution in its separation and balance of powers, and in a federalism that checks the centralized, concentrated federal power and leaves the political decisions directly affecting people’s lives as close as possible to those who will have to live with the outcome. Both these structures protect freedom by limiting the ability of the ambitious or tyrannical to amass too much power at the expense of the citizens’ liberty.
And most important, government is limited by the notion of “unalienable rights” that are bestowed by the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” rather than being the gift of any earthly and temporal power subject to the flaws and passions of human nature, and the vicissitudes of time and chance. These ideas, of course, are famously expressed in the Declaration’s second paragraph: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ––That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Ordered liberty is what we call political freedom as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution––the divided and balanced political order that creates, in the words of Orestes Brownson, “The sovereignty of the people without social despotism, and individual freedom without anarchy.” But also necessary to true freedom are the “habits of virtue,” the individual’s power to do what is right rather than what is desired that is necessary for Americans “to reconcile the enjoyment of their natural rights, with the peace and tranquility of their country,” in the words of James Madison. The seldom sung verse of “America the Beautiful,” published as a poem in 1895 to commemorate the Fourth of July, confirms the foundational place of virtue in sustaining America’s political order:
God mend thy ev’ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy Liberty in Law
Look around at our cultural and political scene and we rarely hear freedom talked about as ordered liberty dependent on limits and virtue. Freedom today is “license,” doing what we want either to fulfill an appetite or gratify an ideological passion. And we have seen the political consequences of this degradation of freedom––the despotism of the few. Plato observed this link between license and despotism nearly 2400 years ago in the Republic. Socrates scorns the “city full of freedom and frankness,” where “a man may say and do what he likes,” and everyone “is clearly able to order for himself his own life as he pleases.” The result of this state is “variety and disorder,” as each man is given over to “the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures.” Eventually, drunk on the “strong wine of freedom,” these citizens will sell their political freedom to any tyrant who promises to allow them to continue indulging those selfish pleasures.
A few hundred years later, Polybius connected such a tyranny to the attack on property needed to fund entitlement payments to the masses. Grown dependent on the gifts of the tyrant, Polybius writes, “the people have become accustomed to feed at the expense of others, and their prospects of winning a livelihood depend upon the property of their neighbors; then as soon as they find a leader who is sufficiently ambitious and daring . . . they will introduce a regime based on violence.” Social and political order will deteriorate until the people “degenerate into a state of bestiality, after which they once more find a master and a despot.”
Nearly two millennia later, in 1840 Alexis de Tocqueville prophesized the modern version of this tyranny–– “soft despotism,” which “would be more extensive and more mild,” and “would degrade men without tormenting them.” Instead it would reduce the people to “an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives.” And watching over the people would not be a tyrannical “regime of violence,” but “an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications,” a power “absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild.” As the agent of this control, this power “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules.” Through these regulations this power seeks to “keep [the people] in perpetual childhood,” and it is “well content that the people should rejoice, provided that they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors,” but it chooses “to be their sole agent and the only arbiter of their happiness,” and strives “to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living.”
Our modern tyrants, the big-government progressives, have created Tocqueville’s soft despotism, which has been as effective as violence in destroying true freedom. Ordered liberty has indeed been reduced to mere license, as the ancients predicted. The first step in this process in our time has been secularization, the driving of religion from the public square and the reduction of it to a private lifestyle choice. In this way the moral order sanctioned by “Nature’s God” and the “Supreme Judge of the world,” as the Declaration describes the divine order, that once enforced limits on license and self-indulgence, now can be marginalized and bereft of its power to sanction destructive behavior. This leaves the state as the only authority for regulating people’s lives.
Next, as Polybius says, the redistribution of property through taxation and entitlement spending also erodes the autonomy of the citizens by fostering dependence, at the same time the state has to grow ever more powerful and intrude ever more intimately into private life in order to manage and control this distribution. The citizens gradually become more and more hooked on various transfers and subsidies from the state, even as they surrender more and more autonomy over their lives to ensure that the state-funded benefits keep coming.
Meanwhile, this erosion of their freedom is masked by the short-term pleasure of getting something for nothing. Virtues like self-reliance and self-responsibility, vital for political freedom, weaken, even as the Constitution’s balance of powers is disrupted by an activist judiciary and an overweening executive branch and its massive and minutely intrusive federal bureaucracy. The traditional limits on license thus disappear, paving the way for governmental tyranny and the decay of freedom.
But on this Fourth of July, there is some hope that this degradation of freedom perhaps has been slowed. Out of the cunning of history has appeared the most unlikely leader to restore that old freedom, at least at the level of the federal government. This brash, vulgar, thrice-married reality-television star and tabloid celebrity has somehow understood or intuited what most of our credentialed and degreed pundits and politicians seemingly had not seen, or had seen and accepted: that an overweening federal bureaucracy had evolved into the soft despotism Tocqueville predicted, its growth coming at the expense of our freedom and property. And Donald Trump is fighting back. He has cut back on regulations, returned money to the people, taken on the lickspittle media that shills for Leviathan, appointed Constitutionalist judges to the courts, is poised to add another to the Supreme Court, and daily scourged and scorned the corrupt deep-state functionaries who have perpetuated one of the most dangerous usurpations of federal power in recent history.
As a result, Trump has taken the first steps necessary for restoring our freedom and autonomy: fighting the federal government and attacking its hubristic powers. Whether he and we the people can continue the fight for freedom, not just in our politics but in our daily lives, remains to be seen. But this Fourth of July let’s take a moment to appreciate that we now have the best chance since Ronald Reagan to achieve that aim.
| America, America
Jul 4th 2018, 04:09, by Bruce Bawer
I missed Darkest Hour when it played Norway, and The 15:17 to Paris never made it to my town, so I pre-ordered the DVDs of both films and watched them back-to-back the day they arrived. Both proved to be masterpieces. And thematically they made for a perfect double feature: Joe Wright’s movie about the early days of Winston Churchill’s prime ministership and Clint Eastwood’s picture about the three young Americans who took down a would-be terrorist on a French train in August 2015 are both about the existential threat posed to Western civilization, then and now, by two different varieties of totalitarianism – and about the massive difference that one man (Churchill), or three men (Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler, and Alek Skarlatos), can make in that struggle.
They’re also about something else, which is relevant to this 242nd anniversary of America’s founding. At the end of Darkest Hour, Churchill addresses the House of Commons on June 4, 1940. Faced with a considerable number of colleagues who – after a period of weeks during which the Nazis have conquered Denmark and almost completed the occupations of France, Norway, and the Low Countries – think that Britain doesn’t stand a chance and should work out a deal with Hitler, Churchill delivers his classic “We shall fight on the beaches” speech, the most celebrated passage of which reads as follows:
We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender….
Only slightly less famous are the words that immediately follow these, and that form the speech’s conclusion:
…and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
In the event, needless to say, Britain was never subjugated. But those last words of Churchill’s oration proved prophetic: America liberated Western Europe. Since those last few dozen words come right after Churchill’s stirring call to arms, they can easily be overlooked – as can their import. What they represent, note well, is a remarkable conviction on Churchill’s part that America, however maddeningly hesitant (in his view) to enter the war, would ultimately, if push came to shove, behave in a way that great powers, as Churchill the historian was fully aware, had seldom if ever behaved: it would sacrifice the lives of countless numbers of its own young men, and spend untold sums of money from its own treasury, not to conquer other countries or to defend itself from an enemy but, rather, to fight for the freedom of its friends.
Think about that. Yes, too many Americans have swallowed the lies of the Howard Zinn-style revisionists who drain America’s actions in World War II of every last drop of nobility. But most of us still know better. America acted out of virtue. And Churchill was sure it would.
To turn from Joe Wright’s fade-out on the cheers following Churchill’s extraordinary exhortation to the fade-in of Eastwood’s movie is to leap more than seven decades into the midst of an episode in the lives of three real-life young American men who, born long after the end of World War II, performed an act of heroism that strangely and touchingly echoed their country’s wartime rescue of Western Europe. On a crowded train from Amsterdam to Paris – a train on which most of their fellow passengers were presumably Europeans, predominantly (one assumes) French, Belgian, or Dutch – a jihadist named Ayoub El Khazzani headed up the aisle firing an assault rifle; and while almost everyone went running in the other direction, it was those three Americans in their early 20s – one of them a member of the U.S. Army National Guard and another an Airman First Class in the U.S. Air Force – who rushed toward the danger and took the son of a bitch down, thereby saving the lives of heaven knows how many people. Three days later the President of France awarded them the Legion of Honor.
Of course, this actual episode takes up only a few moments of screen time. The bulk of the movie is devoted to the back stories of these three young men, who had been close friends since their schooldays in Sacramento. Most of the mainstream media reviewers were clueless enough about the world we live in today, and about the importance of such things as human values and human character, to find this material superfluous. Todd McCarthy of the Hollywood Reporter dismissed it as “filler.” Richard Roeper called the movie “padded.” On the contrary, seeing these heroes as schoolboys helps us understand why they, and not somebody else, saved the day on that train. We discover that while they weren’t bad kids, they could be unruly, chafing at their teachers’ authority. They attended a Christian academy. (Two of them had deeply religious mothers.) They shared a love of guns. They weren’t especially polished or book smart, but they were quick-witted, adventurous, and good-natured, and they shared an appealing combination of pragmatic, alpha-male can-do-ism and old-fashioned manners and decency. They were, in short, Americans.
America! Those of us who live in Western Europe nowadays – and who aren’t in denial about the Islamic threat – have a special reason to be grateful to it. When it comes to the topic of Islam, our regular news media lie to us. If we want the facts, we have to go online. The Internet is (with some exceptions) a free-speech zone. And that’s true only because it’s an American product. Thanks to the First Amendment, the United States has greater freedom of speech than any other nation on earth; and thanks to the Internet, the First Amendment – or something close to it, at least – has spread to countries where freedom of speech is otherwise quite seriously restricted, particularly where the topic of Islam is concerned. Yes, the Islamization of Western Europe is still an ongoing reality, but if not for the boon of alternative online news sources, that vile process would have advanced much further by now than it has, and the people of Western Europe would be far less well informed about this crisis than they actually are. It’s chilling, in fact, to think just how brainwashed the average Western European citizen would be on the subject of Islam (some of them are brainwashed enough as it is) if they didn’t have the truth about it available at their fingertips.
Thanks to the gift of the Internet, then, America may once again help save the Old World. But there’s another contribution that America is clearly making on that front. In President Donald Trump, millions of Western Europeans see a leader who, to a greater extent than the overwhelming majority of politicians on either side of the pond, says it like it is, keeps his promises, and puts his own nation’s citizens first. Almost every major country in Western Europe is run by Hillary types – establishment hacks who don’t mean a thing they say, who view ordinary citizens as deplorables, and who think that those deplorabes should keep their opinions to themselves. Look, for example, at Merkel’s pathological effort to play guardian angel to armies of Muslim thugs – and her utter indifference to the impact of her actions on her own people. Look at the British political class’s appallingly tepid response to grooming gangs – and their obsessive hatred of Tommy Robinson. Look at the cynical attempts by Dutch courts, which mollycoddle Muslim malefactors, to destroy Geert Wilders. Look at the leaders of Finland and Ireland who, apparently more eager to please their EU masters than serve their own people, call for increased Muslim immigration and insist, quite insanely, that it “enriches our cultures and societies.”
After only a year and a half in power, Donald Trump has already done a great deal for America. But he has also done something crucially significant for Europe: he has opened the eyes of Western Europeans to the possibility of giving their mediocre, pusillanimous, appeasement-happy leaders the bum’s rush and replacing them with strong, smart, genuinely patriotic men and women who might still manage to deliver their continent from evil. Yes, America First, by all means – but that very slogan, that very sentiment, is emboldening people all over Western Europe to raise their own voices to say “France First!” “Germany First!” “Sweden First!” We may yet hope that Western Europe’s salvation is at hand – and if it is, the people of these devastated countries may once again have America to thank for it.
| BDS and Terrorism are One Hate Network
Jul 4th 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.
“We support the BDS movement.”
Those were the words of Ismail Haniyeh, a former Hamas prime minister and the head of its Politburo. And they revealed that Hamas considers BDS to be a component of its strategy for destroying Israel.
Even as Hamas continues the violence against Israel, it has gone on cheering BDS.
In a statement last month, Hamas welcomed BDS support for its cause even as it vowed victory. Last year, it tweeted, “We salute and support the influential BDS Movement.”
Hamas officials have praised BDS as a means of destroying Israel and urged greater BDS coordination against Israel. But Hamas support for BDS is a lot more than just words. And the support isn’t one-sided.
The US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR), the umbrella group for BDS in this country, whose work guides Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), has been funneling money to the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) which operates in the terrorist occupied territories of Israel. BNC includes an umbrella group which numbers Hamas, the PFLP and Islamic Jihad, among other terrorist groups, as its members.
The recent expose of these intimate links between terror groups and the BDS movement in a Tablet report by Armin Rosen and Liel Leibovitz demolished the myth that BDS is a non-violent movement or that it seeks a peaceful solution. Rather than a non-violent alternative to terrorism, BDS is an ally of Islamic terrorist groups and seeks to supplement their violence with economic and cultural pressure.
BDS is not an alternative to terrorism. It’s another political arm of the terrorists.
Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy, Gilad Erdan, has now made “The Hate Net” map public. The Hate Net map charts the connections between BDS organizations and terrorist groups.
“Here are the 42 leaders of the BDS network,” Minister Erdan said, at his presentation at the Global Coalition 4 Israel Forum (GC4I), as he explored how the connections to the Palestinian BDS National Committee create a direct link between domestic BDS groups and Islamic terrorist groups.
Hate Net maps how BDS groups in the United States and Europe intersect with designated terrorist groups using political organizations in the terrorist occupied territories as their interface. These organizations, like the Palestinian BDS National Committee, Addameer or al-Haq, launder BDS support while plugging into local terrorist organizations such as Hamas or the PFLP. The PFLP’s Dawson Field hijackings of multiple airplanes in order to seize Jewish hostages was Al Qaeda’s inspiration for 9/11.
Minister Erdan pointed out that al-Haq boss Shawan Jabarin had served over a decade in prison for his role in the PFLP. Jabarin’s dual role with the PFLP terrorist organization, al-Haq and Human Rights Watch had already demonstrated the intersection between activist groups and terrorist organizations.
The Israeli High Court had noted at the time that “Some of his time is spent in conducting a human rights organization, and some as an operative in an organization which has no qualms regarding murder and attempted murder, which have no relation whatsoever to rights. Quite the opposite, they reject the most basic right of all, without which there are no other rights, that is, the right to life.”
In 2016, Rep. Hank Johnson, who would slur Jews as “termites”, BDS backer Rep. Mark Pocan, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Rep. Dan Kildee and Rep. Matt Cartwright had met with Jabarin on a trip funded by MIFTAH, an anti-Israel BDS group, which is in turn funded by the UN, that glorifies anti-Semitic terrorism and has accused Jews of using blood to make matzas. MIFTAH’s chairman sat on the board of the Arab Fund for Arts and Culture which is mostly funded by George Soros.
Some of the 8 terrorist occupied territories area organizations listed in the Hate Net, BNC (Palestinian BDS National Committee), PACBI (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel), Al-Haq, Addameer, DCI-P (Defense for Children International – Palestine), BADIL, PCHR (Palestinian Center for Human Rights) and Al-Mezan are accused of serving as links between BDS and terror groups.
As NGO Monitor’s past report had noted, Addameer was an official PFLP affiliate and key figures in the organization were PFLP members, including a board member who was a nephew of PFLP terror boss George Habash. DCI-P’s board members have documented PFLP ties and PCHR’s founder had served time in prison for his PFLP role. These groups connect to familiar anti-Israel groups here like Code Pink.
DCI-P’s terror ties didn’t stop Rep. Betty McCollum from thanking it for its role in her anti-Israel bill.
Hate Net’s 9 US BDS groups, 18 European BDS groups, and various other regional anti-Israel groups are effectively part of a network that includes the PFLP the PLO and Hamas. This network allegedly shares propaganda, funding and political goals.
As Minister Erdan noted, “Under the guise of ‘civil activities’, a coordinated and financed network of organizations is led from Ramallah and Gaza, a quarter of which have links to terrorist organizations, including Hamas and the Popular Front.”
The US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR) sponsors the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) in the terrorist occupied territories. Donations by Americans to the BNC, which when drilled down to its constituent elements includes Hamas and other terror groups, use USCPR’s tax-exempt status.
How can there be tax-exempt donations going to an organization whose constituent elements include terror groups? While Obama’s people abused the IRS to target pro-Israel groups, and media outlets from the New York Times to the JTA, and anti-Israel groups such as T’ruah and If Not Now, have urged financially targeting pro-Israel charities, this extremely disturbing arrangement was allowed to remain intact.
Meanwhile Students for Justice in Palestine, the campus hate group notorious for its harassment of Jewish students and for anti-Israel events funded by student fees, credits the support of USCPR in its BDS handbook. And SJP members have been notorious for their support of the PFLP. At Temple University, SJP celebrated PFLP terror boss George Habash. Columbia’s SJP tweeted PFLP propaganda. SJP Vassar concluded its withdrawal of anti-Semitic material with a Habash quote.
USCPR’s own constituent elements include American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) whose origins lie in the Palestine Committee that was set up by the Muslim Brotherhood to support Hamas. At least one AMP board member has spent time in prison for his work on behalf of Hamas. AMP’s National Campus Coordinator, Taher Herzallah had praised Hamas violence against Israel on social media.
Minister Erdan had noted that, “The relationship between terrorist organizations and the BDS movement has never been closer, ideologically or operationally.”
BDS is a crucial part of that operational relationship.
The Hamas shift to using fake civilian protests as human shields for its attacks on Israeli soldiers and farmers is clearly meant to aid its BDS allies. Rather than abandoning violence, the Islamic terror group is finding new ways to combine terrorism with civilian protests in a way that meets both its military objectives and the political objectives of the BDS movement.
Meanwhile campus BDS propaganda is being shaped by groups interlinked with the PFLP and Hamas. And the leading BDS group in America is helping raise money that trickles into a terror-linked network. The notoriously vague demands of the BDS movement are purposely so because spelling them out would mean echoing the rhetoric of their allied terror groups in calling for a genocide against the Jews.
Hate Net’s map of the BDS movement’s ties to terrorism shows the multidirectional operational relationship between bombings and BDS. This relationship is not merely supportive. The Hate Net spectrum shares a common cause. And that cause is the destruction of Israel.
Hamas and the PFLP support BDS. And BDS supports the PFLP and Hamas.
BDS is not just a point of view. It’s not non-violent. Like the Nazi boycott of Jewish stores, it’s another tactic in a violent anti-Semitic campaign by Islamic supremacists to exterminate the Jewish people.
| Dems' Pak Man Imran Awan Wins Big in Sweetheart Plea Deal
Jul 4th 2018, 04:06, by Lloyd Billingsley
“Our Justice Department must not let Awan & Debbie Wasserman Schultz off the hook,” President Trump tweeted back on June 7. “The Democrat I.T. scandal is a key to much of the corruption we see today. They want to make a ‘plea deal’ to hide what is on their Server. Where is Server? Really bad!” A month later, it looks like the DOJ got what they wanted.
As Fox News reports, Imran Awan, former IT aide to congressional Democrats, “pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal bank fraud in a plea deal.” Prosecutors said they “uncovered no evidence” that Awan “violated federal law with respect to the House computer systems.”
Prosecutors said they interviewed 40 witnesses, took custody of the House Democratic Caucus server and other devices, reviewed electronic communications between House employees and questioned Awan during “multiple voluntary interviews.” They found “no evidence that your client illegally removed House data from the House network or from House Members’ offices, stole the House Democratic Caucus Server, stole or destroyed House information technology equipment, or improperly accessed or transferred government information, including classified or sensitive information.”
Observers of the case could find evidence that the outcome had been rigged. Since November, the Fox report noted, “a judge postponed Awan’s court hearing in U.S. District Court six times at the request of the prosecution and defense.” As it turns out, prosecutor and defense are on the same side.
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan was once a partner in the law firm of Boies, Schiller, & Flexner, which represented Huma Abedin in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server. In 2014 POTUS 44 tapped Chutkan for the DC District Court. There Chutkan was a vocal opponent of President Trump’s travel ban and ordered the Trump administration to provide abortions to two false-documented illegals.
Judge Chutkan has been keeping the case under wraps lest it draw attention away from the Mueller probe, but there’s more to it. One of the key players is California attorney general Xavier Becerra, a former congressman once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate. As head of the House Democratic Caucus, Becerra was in charge of the server that Awan accessed. When investigators requested the server, they got only false information.
That likely prompted Becerra’s flight back to the sanctuary state of California. Chutkan conveniently delayed the previous hearing until after the June primary, which Becerra duly won. So judge Chutkan clearly had the mid-terms in mind.
Imran’s attorney, Christopher J. Gowen, is a former aide to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Gowen described Awan’s arrest as “clearly a right-wing media-driven prosecution by a United States Attorney’s Office that wants to prosecute people for working while Muslim.” There was a bit more to it, and not just bank fraud.
As Frank Miniter noted in Forbes, Imran Awan was born in Pakistan and got a green card through the immigration lottery system. Awan became a U.S. citizen in 2004 and earned an IT degree from Johns Hopkins. He did not work for any of the six officially vetted IT firms that perform work for congressional offices.
Even so, DNC boss Debbie Wasserman Schultz not only brought Awan aboard but hired his wife Hina Alvi and other family members, though none had degrees in information technology. Of all the IT people in all the companies in all the world, this was the squad the Democrats wanted.
The unvetted Awan could not possibly have qualified for a security clearance but he enjoyed access to the computers of 45 members of Congress, including members the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees. As Luke Rosiak of the Daily Caller discovered, Awan was sometimes doing his job remotely, from Pakistan.
Awan also had a problem with women, but Democrats failed to place the Muslim on their honor roll of abusers with Al Franken and John Conyers. Awan’s brother Abid ran a fake car dealership in Virginia that “took money from a Hezbollah-linked fugitive” whose financial books were “indecipherable.”
Capitol police eventually banned Awan from the congressional computer system and a number of Democrats fired him. For her part, DNC boss Debbie Wasserman Schultz kept Awan aboard for six months, charging that he was “put under scrutiny because of his religious faith,” a victim of the “right-wing media circus.”
When Awan attempted to flee the country last July the only charge was bank fraud. Obama judge Chutkan and Clinton crony Chris Gowen kept it that way. Frank Miniter was in the courtroom Tuesday and as he explains, the “incredible sweetheart plea deal” insures that Imran “will not be charged” for any other nonviolent crimes he may have committed in Washington prior to the agreement, and even dismisses all charges against Awan’s wife Hina Alvi.
The deal did not reveal what, exactly, the unidentified “government” investigators found on the House Democratic Caucus server and “other devices” they allegedly examined. Maybe somebody else should take a closer look.
Also on Tuesday, judge Chutkan allowed Awan to remove his electronic tracking device. The Democrats former IT man is slated to be sentenced on August 21 and Gowen seeks “a probation-only sentence without fine or restitution.” The odds are strong he will get it.
The DOJ and FBI may have vast resources, but with the right connections an IT man can do just about anything and walk free. If President Trump were to tweet “really bad!” it would be hard to blame him.
| Jahi's Life Mattered
Jul 4th 2018, 04:03, by Michelle Malkin
Amid all the raging political headlines and hyperventilating tweets of the Summer of Resistance, a searing ember of news stopped me in my tracks this week.
Jahi McMath has passed away.
I never had a chance to meet the young California teen, but her fight for life gripped me three years ago and was never far from my mind or heart — especially as my own daughter, the same age as Jahi, battled her own health crisis.
Do you remember Jahi? Medical experts declared her “brain dead” after a routine tonsillectomy gone wrong. Children’s Hospital Oakland pushed to have all life-sustaining medical treatment terminated; the professionals predicted quick deterioration. California declared Jahi legally “brain dead.”
But Jahi’s mother, professional nurse Latasha “Nailah” Winkfield, refused to accept their verdict. As a parent, caregiver and believer in Christ, Winkfield was compelled to protect her child. With the help of the pro-life Schiavo Foundation, Winkfield moved with her daughter to a long-term care facility in New Jersey.
Medical ethics scholar Wesley Smith visited Jahi with the Schiavo Foundation’s Bobby Schindler 10 months ago and reported: “At the time of the tragedy, I believed … that Jahi was, indeed, dead. But I now have strong doubts. It’s nearly four years later, and Jahi’s body still has not broken down…She has experienced no visible bodily decline … Disabled is not dead.”
Dr. Alan Shewmon, professor emeritus of pediatrics and neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, reviewed nearly 50 videos of Jahi moving her fingers on command last year and wrote in a court declaration that Jahi was “a living, severely disabled young lady, who currently fulfills neither the standard diagnostic guidelines for brain death nor California’s statutory definition of death.”
And a team of Harvard researchers recently reported that over the past five years, Jahi was indeed growing, digested food, had menstrual cycles, healed wounds and fought off infections. “We would say that Jahi’s parents were far from crazy in believing their daughter to still be biologically alive,” Dr. Robert Truog, director of the Harvard Center for Bioethics, concluded.
The changed tune of many “experts” came too late for Jahi’s family, which had been fighting in court to bring her back to California. After undergoing several surgeries for intestinal problems, Jahi succumbed to excessive bleeding and liver failure after an operation. Jahi will finally head home to Oakland this week, where the family’s lawyer says her brain will be preserved for further study.
With all the roar these days of keeping families together, why is there so little media attention to the plight of American families of brain-injured children who’ve been forced to separate by medical elites making bright-line mortality judgments based on murky diagnostic criteria for what constitutes life?
Also suffering out of the selective media spotlight: Children with rare illnesses ripped from their homes in medical kidnappings by arrogant medical professionals and child welfare bureaucrats who scoff at parental sovereignty and autonomy.
Jahi’s life and death inspired other families of disabled children to fight back.
Jahi’s life and death raised awareness of patients’ rights, living wills, durable powers of attorney, “do not resuscitate” orders, revocable trusts and advance directives.
Jahi’s life and death resonated beyond ideology, race and class. I’ll not forget the Instagram image of Jahi’s mom clasping her daughter’s hand at her hospital bedside — an enduring symbol of hope, suffering, resilience and abiding love.
Jahi McMath mattered. She defied her California death certificate. She humbled the experts. She brought joy to her loved ones. Her heart and brain may have stopped, but the light she brought in her short time on earth will not be extinguished.
| Prager U Video: Why Do We Celebrate the Fourth of July?
Jul 4th 2018, 04:02, by Prager University
Why do we celebrate the Fourth of July? What happened in 1776? Will Witt went to the beach to see if people know.
| Cleveland Terrorist Attack Thwarted
Jul 3rd 2018, 04:10, by Matthew Vadum
The FBI has reportedly foiled a potentially devastating Muslim terrorist attack a homegrown al-Qaeda supporter planned for Independence Day celebrations in terrorist-infected Ohio this week.
The suspect, Demetrius Nathaniel Pitts, also known as Abdur Raheem Rafeeq, is a violent, convicted felon known for expressing support for al-Qaeda. Pitts was preparing an attack in Cleveland. He was arrested Sunday morning and charged with attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization.
Pitts reportedly has a long criminal rap sheet, including for felonious assault, domestic violence, and aggravated robbery. He appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz in Cleveland on Monday afternoon. A preliminary hearing and a detention review have been scheduled for July 5, the Washington Times reports.
Authorities began tracking Pitts last year when he lived near Cincinnati. At that time he advocated violence and terrorism in social media. Pitts said he wanted to give children in military families explosives-rigged remote-controlled toy cars so they could blow them up to hurt their parents, according to the FBI.
“His Facebook posts were, quite frankly, disturbing,” said Stephen D. Anthony, the FBI Special Agent in Charge in Cleveland. “They included words to the effect that ‘we as Muslims need to start training like this every day. We need to know how to shoot guns, throw hand grenades, and hand-to-hand combat.’”
The FBI continued tracking Pitts when he moved to the Cleveland area in May.
“Just last week, this individual was walking around downtown Cleveland, taking reconnaissance for what he thought was a large-scale attack on the Fourth of July,” said Justin Herdman, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Ohio.
Pitts considered attacking an Independence Day parade, a downtown park, and a U.S Coast Guard facility in Cleveland.
Anthony quoted Pitts saying, “I did tell myself that their holiday is coming up – the Fourth of July, Independence Day. What would hit them in the core? Blow up. Have a bomb blow up at the Fourth of July parade.”
According to the FBI, Pitts told an undercover agent about his plan to detonate a vehicle packed with explosives during the parade. He also said he wanted to decapitate people and lop off hands.
In addition, Pitts talked about the possibility of launching a separate attack in Philadelphia, a city in which he used to live.
Ohio has become a hotbed of violent Islamist activity, particularly on behalf of Islamic State, Patrick Poole writes at PJMedia.
On June 20 this year Amir Said Rahman Al-Ghazi, also known as Robert C. McCollum, of Sheffield Lake, Ohio, was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment for one count of providing material support to the Islamic State, along with two counts of being a felon in possession of firearms. Al-Ghazi tried to persuade others to join Islamic State and took steps to generate propaganda videos for the group.
On March 20 an Ohio jury convicted Erick Jamal Hendricks of attempting to create an Islamic State-inspired terrorist cell to carry out attacks on targets inside the U.S., according to the Plain Dealer.
A large part of the government’s case against Hendricks centered on his connection to one of two gunmen who opened fire at “The First Annual Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest” in Garland, Texas in May 2015. Elton Simpson and Nadir Hamid Soofi drove from Phoenix to Garland, which is outside Dallas. They wounded a security guard before a police officer and killed them.
Terrence J. McNeil of Akron was sentenced Aug. 2, 2017 to 20 years in prison for soliciting the murder of members of the U.S. military. McNeil entered guilty pleas to five counts of solicitation to commit a crime of violence and five counts of making threatening interstate communications.
“With this sentence, McNeil is being held accountable for disseminating ISIS’s violent rhetoric, circulating U.S. military personnel information and explicitly calling for the killing of American service members in their homes and communities,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Dana J. Boente. “McNeil went far beyond free speech by reposting names and addresses of 100 U.S. service members, all with the intent to have them killed,” according to the FBI special agent in charge.
On May 11, 2017, Laith Waleed Alebbini of Dayton was indicted on one count of trying to provide material support and resources to the Islamic State.
On Dec. 4, 2016, Christopher Lee Cornell of Green Township was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment for plotting to attack the US. Capitol and kill President Barack Obama during the 2015 State of the Union address. After sentencing Cornell said the courts are a “rigged ass system” and that “Allah’s in control, not the judge.”
On Nov. 28, 2016, Abdul Razak Ali Artan ran over and stabbed people at Ohio State University in Columbus. Artan was shot and killed by police but not before he killed one person and put 13 in the hospital. Authorities said Artan was inspired by propaganda produced by Islamic State.
Given the rapid ongoing growth of Ohio’s Muslim population, more Muslim terrorist attacks in the Buckeye State are a near-certainty.
| The Muslim Plot to Murder Children at a 4th of July Parade
Jul 3rd 2018, 04:09, by Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.
“The wicked Catholics, Jews all of them,” Abdur Raheem Rafeeq ranted, as he scouted downtown Cleveland.
Abdur had a worthless degree from a culinary school that had gone out of business, a criminal record encompassing everything from domestic violence to aggravated robbery, and a deep love of Allah.
Living on disability in what news reports describe as a Dayton, Ohio Job Corps facility, Abdur, who had formerly been known as Demetrius Nathaniel Pitts and would soon demand to be called Saladin Osama Waleed, after the two famous Muslim leaders he worshiped, loved Allah and hated America.
St. John’s Cathedral, whose bells can be heard throughout downtown, drew the Muslim’s ire. On the video, which would later be recovered from the terrorist’s phone, he spoke of taking it “off the map.”
But Abdur didn’t limit the scope of his plots to Catholics and Jews. He also considered hitting the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Other targets included the Coast Guard Station, the Anthony J. Celebreeze Federal Building, and Cleveland Harbor. The Muslim terrorist was having a good time narrating his terror plots in the traditional Al Qaeda style that had almost gone out of fashion. After years of impotently railing against America, he had finally found a helpful collaborator to help realize his terror dreams.
The plan for removing St. John’s or the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame from Cleveland’s map was detonating a bomb in a van. That plan, like the rest of Abdur’s horrific plotting, never came to fruition.
Unfortunately for Abdur, his new Muslim terrorist friend was actually an FBI informant.
Abdur’s first message, which helped begin the FBI investigation, was sent to a San Diego business show whose title, The American Dream, may have caught his attention. “USA Will Be Destroy. Allahu Akbar.”
“We must kill all Kafiruns (non-Muslims) destroy, annihilate them,” he later declared in his pledge video.
Abdur thought that his pledge videos, in which the criminal murderously boasts about his plots, would be circulated by Al Qaeda or ISIS around the world. Instead the only place they’re going, like the culinary school graduate who in reality never seems to have gotten past food service, is a court of law.
In the middle of June, the culinary terrorist formerly known as Demetrius was boasting about chopping up Marines and President Trump.
“You take the head,” Abdur fantasized. “You send it straight to ‘em. The person’s head and his two hands.”
It was a style of mutilation favored in Islam. Apologists may insist that beheading, like all the other forms of Islamic terrorism, had nothing to do with Islam, but Mohammed’s prized sword, Zulfiqar, meaning, ‘Spine-Splitter’ and the popularity of the practice in Islamic law to this day, testify otherwise.
“That’s how I would send Donald Trump back. Head, hand, hand,” Abdur went on ranting.
Scimitars aren’t that easy to come by in Cleveland, so Abdur rhapsodized over machetes, the current favorite blade of devout Muslim and MS-13 killers. “I can’t wait ‘til I get me the right machete cause the first day I, how I’m gonna clean it is cutting a person’s head off,” he boasted.
Abdur proposed beheading a Marine by distracting him and asking him to point out a place on a map. But his first and final love was still the bomb. Driving past a Marine Corps flag on a house, Abdur urged planting explosives in the house. Then he suggested bombing a bar outside a base.
But the final plot he would settle on was murdering children at a Fourth of July parade.
The Muslim terrorist detoured to Philly to check out the possibility of bombing the city he called his hometown. “We gonna hit the Bicentennial city, Philadephia, now that’ll really open their eyes.”
He pondered ‘hitting’ Philly’s toweringly baroque City Hall whose clocks put Big Ben to shame, encrusted below with sculpted representatives of all the races of man and topped at the height of what had briefly been the world’s tallest building with a 37 foot statue of William Penn. Abdur might have dreamed of toppling William Penn for Allah, but his murderous heart lay back in the state he had already terrorized.
Abdur/Demetrius had built up his criminal record in Ohio and had built his terror plots around Cleveland targets. The final climax of his terror was to be in downtown Cleveland on the Fourth of July.
“What would hit in the core?” he asked. “Have a bomb to blow up the 4th of July parade.”
As the Marines were marching through the front gate and all the bands were playing, that’s when the bombs were meant to go off. “That’s when you wanna take them bastards out.”
“You gotta wait ‘til the parade starts, where it gets into motion,” Abdur sketched out his plans.
He settled on remote control cars with C-4 explosive and BBs inside. Inside, the Muslim terrorist wanted to add shrapnel. “if BB’s hit you, you can still live, but if shrapnel hits you— it will tear you up.”
The cars would have little American flags on them. “Ain’t nobody gonna pay attention ‘cause it’s got the little flags on it and everything. Everybody gonna be like aw, aw….BOOM!”
Then the deranged monster managed to top his horrific visions with a new level of evil. He wanted to give remote controlled toy cars to the children of military personnel as gifts. Some would blow up at the parade. Others would be brought home to kill their parents.
And at that point, the FBI had enough.
Abdur was arrested. And though he never got to kill anybody, at least one of his wishes did come true.
“I want it to make the news,” the Muslim terrorist had insisted to the informant. And now he has. He’s on the local news in Philly, in Dayton and across the two states where he plotted his wicked slaughter.
But another of his wishes never will.
“I just wanna leave my name. Marked on this earth so they never forget it,” he had vowed.
No atrocity will mark Abdur’s name. He will not be remembered as Abdur, as Demetrius or as Saladin. There will be no mourning families who will recall, decades from now, a terrible day or night of terror. Not even the Al Qaeda terrorists whom he worshiped and sought to emulate will remember him.
Abdur proved to be as much a failure at killing Americans as he was at tossing salads and searing steaks. While he languishes in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, St. John’s Cathedral and Philadelphia City Hall will remain where they are taunting the Jihadist with his failure.
An Islamic evil lurked in Cleveland. Its monstrous plot was aimed at innocence and freedom. It failed.
Children who might have been maimed for life will run laughing home on the Fourth; never knowing the horror that nearly touched them. Their parents will look up as the sky fills with the lights of freedom.
Time will pass and as he rots in jail, the failed chef and failed terrorist will be forgotten. But the children whom he nearly killed will not. They will grow up. Some will become the Marines whom Abdur hated.
And they will go on defending this country and its freedoms from Abdur’s Islamic terrorist friends.
| Socialist “Messiah” Andrés Manuel López Obrador Wins Mexican Presidency
Jul 3rd 2018, 04:08, by Lloyd Billingsley
“Leftist Wins Mexico Presidency in Landslide With Mandate to Reshape Nation,” proclaimed the headline in the New York Times late Sunday. The leftist is Andrés Manuel López Obrador, also known as AMLO, and his landslide victory “upended the nation’s political establishment and handed him a sweeping mandate to reshape the country.”
Some are hailing AMLO as a “messiah,” and he says he wants to maintain close relations with the United States. On that theme his pre-election pronouncements need attention.
In late June, López Obrador said that soon after the victory of his National Regeneration Movement, “we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world.” Immigrants, he said, “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States” and this was “a human right we will defend.” So the new Mexican president wants to dictate policy for the United States, no surprise given the dynamics driving illegal immigration.
Previous waves of immigrants entered the USA legally and none from Poland, Italy or Ireland thought their nation held a claim to Vermont or Massachusetts. Mexicans tend to enter the USA illegally because they believe that the American southwest was “stolen” from them, and so they are only entering their own country. For the record, in 1848, a full 170 years ago and 13 years before the Civil War, an outnumbered American force defeated Mexico, which duly signed a treaty ceding those lands.
Previous generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards, blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.”
This master-race theory, as the Communist Bert Corona called it, is certified gospel for politicians such as California senate boss Kevin de Leon who wrote the state’s sanctuary law. That’s why he gives state jobs to false-documented illegals, a violation of state law. California privileges illegals with in-state tuition and admission preference on the basis of ethnicity, another violation of state law.
If the illegals are violent criminals, de Leon, governor Jerry Brown and attorney general Xavier Becerra believe they are still better people and protect them from deportation. And this fall one million illegals could be voting in California alone.
Like-minded Democrats in many states form a kind of Mexican Occupational Government (MOGO), ignoring U.S. law and serving the interests of Mexico. In effect, recent anti-ICE demonstrations functioned as campaign rallies for Lopez Obrador, on record that he won’t do Trump’s “dirty work” by restraining illegal crossing of Mexico’s own southern border.
As the New York Times noted, AMLO’s opponents compared him to Hugo Chavez, the former socialist leader of Venezuela. The socialist Chavez took over the richest economy in South America, with the largest proven oil reserves in the world. Venezuela since has become a nightmare of hyperinflation, violence and poverty. Food is so scare that, as the Independent notes, “three in four citizens report involuntary weight loss, averaging 19 pounds in a year.”
AMLO may make great promises but like Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro his leftist policies are certain to be malo for the Mexican economy. That will prompt more Mexicans to “leave their towns and find a life in the United States,” which AMLO believes is a “human right.”
President Trump must not allow AMLO to dictate American policy. The president should continue construction of the wall, step up deportations, reinforce ICE and send more troops to the border.
In an April speech, AMLO said Mexico would not become a “piñata” for any foreign government. From January to November 2017, Mexicans in the United States sent back $26.1 billion, impossible without massive input from American taxpayers. So the USA is Mexico’s piñata, not the reverse, and president Trump should move to tax, restrict or halt remittances to Mexico.
The president might also run some numbers on what U.S. taxpayers have spent to house criminal Mexican nationals such as Juan Corona, who murdered at least 25 Americans, and racist cop killer Luis Bracamontes, who in court yelled “black lives don’t matter.”
The Mexican election served as a primary for activists such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of Democratic Socialists of America. The affluent Bernie Sanders acolyte, 28, thinks the anti-ICE message can help Democrats capture the Midwest and has rapped Sen. Tammy Duckworth, who doesn’t think so.
The mid-terms might also function as a test of how much Americans are going to take from MOGO types on behalf of people who aren’t supposed to be in the country. Meanwhile, an important date is coming before November.
In 2014, Mexican police opened fire on a bus, killing six students and more than 40 others are still missing. Former Mexican president Vincente Fox tells the parents “it’s about time” they give up their demands on the Mexican government and “accept reality.”
Those students were heading for a protest of the Tlatelolco Massacre, when Mexican troops gunned down hundreds of protesters. The 50th anniversary is coming up on October 2. It will be interesting to see what socialist messiah Andrés Manuel López Obrador has to say about it.
| Democrats Bow to the Left’s Demands to Abolish ICE
Jul 3rd 2018, 04:07, by Joseph Klein
Left wing open borders activists are demanding the dismantling or defunding of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which was established in 2003 under the Department of Homeland Security to enforce federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration. The whole purpose for establishing ICE was to promote a more coordinated approach to homeland security and public safety than had existed prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The leftist base of the Democratic Party could not care less about Americans’ safety, however. They are pushing a radical anti-law enforcement agenda on immigration, mirroring the Black Lives Matter movement that reviled the police. The left’s rallying cry is “Abolish ICE.” It is reminiscent of the call by a Black Lives Matter activist during a Fox News interview two years ago to “abolish the police, period.”
The left’s rhetoric is becoming increasingly insane, as they live in a world where up is down and down is up. For example, according to Cynthia Nixon, the Sex and the City actress who is challenging Governor Andrew Cuomo in the New York gubernatorial primary this year, ICE, which was granted civil and criminal authority to better protect national security and public safety in response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, is itself a “terrorist organization.” She launched her very own “Abolish ICE” petition.
A protestor in Los Angeles from a “woman’s peace organization” felt that simply calling ICE a terrorist organization did not go far enough. She told MSNBC on Saturday, as protests against President Trump’s zero-tolerance law enforcement policies took place across the country, that ICE is “beyond a terrorist organization.” Then she blamed the whole immigration problem on U.S. economic and foreign policies. “We’re a woman’s peace organization,” she exclaimed, “and it is the violence of the United States government, and it is the 60% of the tax dollars that’s spent on the weapons and war that creates the immigration and refugees and our, you know, economic policies. So we have to be responsible. We have to bring them in and hold them and, not violate them farther than our policies have violated them.” Under this “reasoning,” the vicious animals of MS-13 who have illegally infiltrated our country became that way because of the U.S. government’s policies. Therefore, we are asked to make sure we do “not violate them farther than our policies have violated them.” Such is the thinking of the looney left.
Chanting “Abolish Ice,” protesters affiliated with the Women’s March staged a sit-in last Thursday in the Senate’s Hart Office Building, leading to the arrest of about 600 people. The Palestinian-American Islamist Linda Sarsour, a co-chair of the 2017 women’s march against Donald Trump who called for a “jihad” against the president at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention in Chicago a year ago and has opposed assimilation, helped to organize the “Abolish Ice” protest.
The Democratic party is following its radical left base. The No. 4 Democrat in the House of Representatives, Joe Crowley, was defeated in a primary contest by a young Democratic Socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who wants to abolish ICE. Boston-area Democratic congressional candidate Ayanna Pressley wants to defund ICE because it is an “existential threat” to “immigrant communities.” Last week, Wisconsin Democratic Representative Mark Pocan said he intends to introduce a bill in Congress that would officially abolish ICE, attacking what he claimed were the “heartless actions of this abused agency.” He has supporters in the House for his proposal. Democratic senators such as Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Senator Kristin Gillibrand of New York, both considered contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, have joined the anti-ICE chorus.
“The speed at which Abolish ICE has moved from slogan to legislation is telling,” said Sean McElwee, the co-founder of the progressive data group Data for Progress. “Every Democrat who wants to be President must articulate to the progressive base a vision of a world without ICE.”
The illogic underlying the “Abolish Ice” campaign is illustrated by Senator Gillibrand’s criticism of the law enforcement agency. ICE “has become a deportation force,” she tweeted. Duh! If foreigners are entering this country illegally, they should normally be deported. What’s Gillibrand’s alternative? A hearty welcome with open arms for flouting this country’s immigration laws, while people trying to enter the country legally must wait in line for years? Ending all forms of immigration detention, meaning more catch and release of illegal aliens who will seek the protection of sanctuary cities and be free to commit crimes against American citizens? Encouraging more migrant parents to risk their children’s lives as well as their own by placing themselves and their children in the hands of drug smugglers and human traffickers?
Gillibrand does not see the breaking of U.S. immigration law as a criminal matter. “We need to separate immigration issues from criminal justice,” she tweeted. Tell that to the families of victims killed by illegal aliens.
Senator Warren believes it is time to abolish ICE with something that “reflects the morality of the country.” Does the “morality of the country” include the enabling of drug smuggling, human trafficking, terrorist infiltration, or the killing of law-abiding U.S. citizens by illegal immigrants who never should have been allowed into this country in the first place? Apparently so, as far as Senator Warren is concerned, since she wants to abolish the agency charged with the responsibility to stop these threats to Americans’ security and sense of well-being.
Democrats risk overplaying their hand and allowing Republicans to portray them during the upcoming midterm election campaigns as pro-open borders and soft on crime. President Trump previewed this line of attack, tweeting Sunday morning: “The Liberal Left, also known as the Democrats, want to get rid of ICE, who do a fantastic job, and want Open Borders. Crime would be rampant and uncontrollable!” That nicely sums up the direction the Democratic Party is going, led by its radical left base.
(Photo: Cynthia for NY on Facebook)
| Syria Breaks De-Escalation Agreement
Jul 3rd 2018, 04:06, by Joseph Puder
The Assad regime is determined to capture the last few enclaves held by rebels. One such target of the regime is the Daraa-Qunietra provinces of southwestern Syria. Approximately 60,000 Syrian government troops who will likely include Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Hezbollah fighters, and a host of Shiite militiamen from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, all under Tehran’s control, are poised to move closer to the Israeli border on the Golan Heights. Approximately 30,000 rebel forces are expected to move closer to the Israeli border with the hope that Israel would provide them with cover. Should the Syrian regime move toward the Golan, Israel will more than likely be compelled to engage the Syrian regime forces, if it included Iranian IRGC officers, and elements of Hezbollah fighters, whether in their uniforms or covered with Syrian army fatigues. Five Syrian army divisions have traditionally been posted in the area bordering Jordan and Israel. Their strength has been depleted as a result of casualties, defections, and a collapse of recruitment. Iranian IRGC, Hezbollah, and Shiite militiamen are almost certain to fill the Syrian ranks. This may very well develop into more than a localized conflict, and may spread into an unknown direction.
Daraa and Quneitra fall under the “de-escalation zone” agreed upon by Russia, the U.S. and Jordan in July, 2017. Yet, according to the British based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights last week, the Assad regime helicopters dropped barrel bombs on the opposition-held areas of Daraa city for the first time in a year. The Assad regime, backed by Russian aircrafts, have been targeting the rebel-held enclave for a while now. The Daraa-Quneitra provinces in southwestern Syria borders Jordan and the Israeli Golan Heights, making it a strategic and most contentious area. It is also the area where the intifada against the Assad regime began in March, 2011. The Assad regime has eliminated the rebel held enclave of Eastern Ghouta in the northern Damascus countryside, with barrel bombs and poison gas, in spite of the area having been part of the de-escalation (Zone 3) agreement signed by Russia, Iran, and Turkey at Astana, Kazakhstan. This has provided the Assad regime with the confidence to move against the next target, being southern de-escalation area of Daraa and Quneitra.
According to Reuters (June 26, 2018), U.S. State Department officials told its reporters, “We are concerned by developments in southwestern Syria, particularly the intensification of Russian airstrikes and pro-regime ground attacks. This is once again an example of Russia violating arrangements it has entered into with no regard for civilian lives.” While the State Department condemned the Russian involvement, the U.S. administration has also informed the rebels in southern Syria who are being attacked, not to count on U.S. assistance. This leaves the burden on Israel.
Israel’s overriding principle is to have stability and peace along its Golan border. As such, it will not oppose the Assad regime forces return to their former positions next to Israel’s Golan Heights, provided that Assad can guarantee that Iranian and Hezbollah forces will not come along with them. According to a Reuters report (June 8, 2018), Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared in a televised address, “I will tell you that if the whole world comes together to force us to leave Syria, they will not be able to evict us.” He added that only the Syrian leadership could ask them to leave.
In recent years Israel has often denounced the Assad regime for slaughtering its own citizens and using chemical weapons in the process. Israel has also provided food, medicine, and clothing to Sunni and Druze Syrian villagers near its border. Moreover, thousands of Syrians, including rebel fighters, have entered Israel for medical treatment. There are also reports in the Western media that Israel has provided rebel Sunni militias arms and ammunition. Israel has denied these allegations. Some Israeli officials have indeed argued that helping rebel forces to capture and control southern Syria would create a wide buffer zone between Israel and the Iran-sponsored forces. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reluctance to be drawn into the Syrian quagmire shelved that idea. PM Netanyahu made it clear however, to Bashar Assad, that if he continues to allow the Iranians to establish military bases across Syria, Israel would be compelled to change its current policy of non-interference in the Syrian civil war. Simultaneously, Israel will continue to target Iranian bases in Syria, as well as Iranian shipments to Hezbollah via Syrian territory.
Israel’s concern is not with the Assad regime but with its Iranian allies. On his own, Bashar Assad and his regime have been seriously weakened by the 7-year civil war in Syria. Iran, Hezbollah, and the Shiite militias operated by the IRGC are however a serious if not an existential threat to Israel. Ehud Yaari, a Fellow with the Washington Institute, wrote, “Iran’s IRGC is determined to transform Syria into a platform for a future war with Israel, whereas leaders of the Jewish state have sworn to prevent what they often describe as the tightening of a noose around Israel’s neck.” Yaari added, “Since both the U.S. and Russia prefer to avert an Israel-Iran clash and its associated risks, expanded understandings over the south (Southern Syria-JP) could contain a prohibition on entry to the area of non-Syrian forces, such as Hezbollah, thus diminishing the danger of an eruption along the border. Curtailing IRGC acquisition of a network of bases in Syria also requires that Assad and his mentors be thwarted from capturing the area east of the Euphrates River – roughly a quarter of Syria’s territory currently held by the U.S. sponsored Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), aided by the presence of 2,000 U.S. soldiers.”
On June 27, 2018, The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that “After intense and violent shelling, the (Assad) regime forces and their allies, with the support of Russian warplanes, gained control of a town and a village in the eastern countryside of Daraa, and continue their aerial bombardment by helicopters and warplanes on Daraa City.”
Iranian participation in the assault on Daraa will force Israel to halt that advance with its air force. This will compel the Iranians and Syrians to retaliate, increasing the chance for a major flare up. Non-intervention by Israel would position Iranians over hilltops easily targeting the Golan with short-range missiles and mortars. Additionally, Iran and its proxies participation in the capture of Daraa (on the Jordanian border) may threaten the Hashemite monarchy, and may serve as a casus belli for Israel. The actual Russian role in the current assault also complicates Israel’s response.
The Trump Administration has vowed to remove the Iranian presence in Syria. This would be a perfect time for the U.S. to act firmly against the Syrian regime, should it employ IRGC forces and its proxies. Considering that the Assad regime and its allies broke the de-escalation agreement, and especially since it threatens its allies Israel and Jordan, the U.S. involvement is indispensable.
| Assault on Learning in Academia
Jul 3rd 2018, 04:05, by Jack Kerwick
As I show in my latest book, Higher Miseducation: A Dissident’s Essays on the Attack Against Liberal Learning (Stairway Press), matters are not all that well in academia.
This is but another way of saying that at institutions of higher learning all across the country the left has substituted training in their political ideology for a classical liberal arts education. Nor should anyone be misled into thinking, as so many people continue to assume, that this is happening only within Humanities and Social Science departments.
STEM (Science/Technology/Engineering/Mathematics) has been infected as well.
At the University of Washington, a computer science professor, Stuart Reges, wrote an op-ed with the title, “Why Women Don’t Code.” Reges, who admits to having taught over the years hundreds of women on how to code, reveals the extent to which universities, like his own, have buckled under Politically Correct pressure when it comes to the issue of the gender imbalance that is found in STEM disciplines.
“Ever since Google fired James Damore [who wrote an internal memo delineating his views of gender differences while complaining that Google will not tolerate any deviations from leftist orthodoxy] for ‘advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace,’ those of us working in tech have been trying to figure out what we can and cannot say on the subject of diversity.”
Continuing, Reges laments: “You might imagine that a university would be more open to discussing his ideas, but my experience suggests otherwise.”
As a consequence of his attempts to determine through conversation with his colleagues why Damore’s observations provoked such outrage, his department at the institution for which he works created an email list known as “diversity-allies.” The latter, according to its self-description, a “moderated list to prevent ‘nuanced, and potentially hurtful, discussion.” Reges has been “encouraged” to pursue his inquiry off-line, via face-to-face conversations.
Reges explains his motivation: “I embarked on this journey because I worry that tech companies and universities are increasingly embracing an imposed silence, in which one is not permitted to question the prevailing wisdom on how to achieve diversity goals.” To his great credit, Reges is not having it. “I intend to fight this imposed silence and I encourage others to do the same.”
Evidently, Reges has made a career of being an academic dissident. This is just the latest battle and Reges throws down the gauntlet:
“So let me go once more unto the breach by stating publicly that I believe that women are less likely than men to want to major in computer science and less likely to pursue a career as a software engineer and that this difference between men and women accounts for most of the gender gap we see in computer science degree programs and in Silicon Valley companies.”
In other words, it is the personal choices of women, and not some systemic sexist oppression, that account for why women tend to be underrepresented in this field.
Reges, it’s critical to note, is not in any obvious sense any kind of right-winger. He has a history of being, in his own words, “a strong advocate of many aspects of the diversity agenda.” But no matter. When Reges spoke to his colleagues regarding Damore in friendly terms, they were not receptive. “As a thought experiment, I asked how we could make someone like Damore feel welcome in our community. The pushback was intense. My question was labeled an ‘inflammatory example’ and my comments were described as ‘hurtful’ to women.”
And when he “mentioned that perhaps we could invite Damore to speak at UW, a faculty member responded, ‘If he comes here, we’ll hurt him.’” Reges is quick to note that while his colleague spoke in jest, her “sentiment was clear.”
Reges’ position that it is the differences between men and women that explain why women tend not to gravitate as much toward STEM provoked, predictably, a strong reaction amongst University of Washington students, and mostly its female students. This is particularly telling, for far from implying that women are inherently incapable in these disciplines, Reges quoted a 2013 study that showed “the greater likelihood that females with high math ability also have high verbal ability and thus can consider a wider range of occupations.”
And yet still students on the “Diversity Allies” listserv circulated a petition in which they asked one another how Reges’ contention made them feel. They also debated as to whether the administration should issue “an official response to” his essay.
Reges drew attention to the fact that these students make his point about gender differences as well as about the state of the contemporary university. The students, he noted, “asked each other how” his argument “made them feel.” But they never bothered to ask one another whether “there’s any validity to his arguments.”
When we consider the response by school administrators, it is not difficult to see why the students are as intellectual flaccid as they are. “Some of you may have read a recent editorial written by an Allen School faculty member about gender diversity in tech,” wrote Hank Levy, who is the director of the UW School of Computer Science. Upon noting simply that UW “disagrees with the conclusion” of Reges’s analysis—an assertion that he failed to expand upon even after Campus Reform made a request for him to do so—Levy goes on to state that the present time is “a good time to reaffirm our values,” i.e. namely, the value of “diversity.”
He added that while “we have a long way to go,” that diversity efforts are successful is borne out by the fact that “women are interested in CS, and they do code!”
Such is the state of “liberal learning” in too much of today’s academy.
| It’s Not Socialism, It’s Racism
Jul 2nd 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.
After the ’10 census, New York lost two congressional seats. Overpriced, lacking any growth industries except tourism and community organizing, the state just couldn’t keep up with the rest of the country.
New York had been bleeding congressional seats since the rise of the suburbs. After the massacre of ’10, its congressional delegation was the smallest since 1823. And it’ll lose more seats after the next census.
But the ’10 massacre also forced Rep. Joe Crowley out of the 7th Congressional District and into the 14th. The 7th became a gerrymandered a district built like a Frankenstein’s monster out of parts of Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens that had nothing geographically in common except Puerto Rican populations who will keep voting for Rep. Nydia Velázquez, a Democrat, until the city sinks beneath the waves.
Crowley, who is paler than birch trees, had no shot at the new 7th. But he settled down comfortably in the 14th, winning 70% of the vote by just showing up, without the fuss of a primary challenge. While representing a Hispanic district in Queens, he was allegedly living comfortably in Arlington, Virginia.
That was never going to last.
New York City’s working class white population is an endangered species. If you’re not on welfare or earning well in the six figures, you can’t afford to live there. Crowley’s district was 46% Hispanic. It had the second highest share of Latino voters in New York. The machine pol was living on borrowed time.
It’s hard to imagine a more vulnerable politician than doughy Joe, the echo of a 19th century political establishment of barstools and crony government jobs, used to winning ¾ of the vote in safe districts and who had forgotten how to compete in an election (if he ever knew how) facing a Hispanic district.
Of course that’s not the story you see in the media.
Instead the media thrills to its own fake news of how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the “girl from the Bronx”, a Socialist candidate and “giant-slayer”, impossibly defeated Rep. Crowley. And that’s accompanied by analysis of how her victory is proof of the inevitable triumph of Socialism. The media has even begun trying to ‘Obamaize’ her with stories about her brand of lipstick selling out.
The fake news narrative has nothing to do with the truth about Cortez and the reality of the 14th.
The simple truth is that the Democratic Socialists of America and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put in time and money into a district that the Democrats hadn’t bothered to protect because Republicans couldn’t win it. The secret to Cortez’s victory wasn’t socialism. It was her last name.
Nor is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a “girl from the Bronx”. She’s the daughter of an architect from a pricey suburb in Westchester County. Her father, a Pratt Institute grad, was a founder of KOR which stood for Kirschenbaum & Ocasio-Roman Architects. The Ocasio (rather than the Kirschenbaum) part of the name meant that it operated as a “certified minority business enterprise” which came with assorted privileges.
MBEs are able to cut in line and get all sorts of lucrative government contracts. All it takes is having a minority grandfather and your company is entitled to drink from a river of government cash flowing only to MBE companies. And if your ancestry is whiter than that of Senator Elizabeth Warren, you can always find a minority partner and then let the good times roll. At the expense of the working tax-paying stiffs.
After her father cashed in on affirmative action while living in Westchester County, his daughter cashed in her minority card in a New York City election even though she has far more in common with the white hipster Bernie Sanders supporters who provided the muscle for her campaign than any of the minorities living in a housing project in Queens or the Bronx. But that’s also why the media loves Cortez.
She’s one of them: a suburban leftist with a bio consisting of studying International Relations at Boston U, working on immigration issues for Ted Kennedy, serving as the National Hispanic Institute’s Social Entrepreneur in Residence, producing a web series, shuttling between trendy lefty protests and founding what appears to a defunct social justice publishing house.
This isn’t the biography of an urban minority politician, but an upscale lefty hipster drifting after college from one activist gig to another, developing the contacts that put her in the right place at the right time. These are the bios of ten thousand professional lefties who infest the non-profit sector. They’re all angry, self-righteous and interchangeable. The minorities among them hail from wealthy areas.
And like all upscale lefties, they love putting on as much working class cred as they can get away with.
The media is using Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to push the Democrats even further to the left. But her victory is no argument for socialism. It is evidence that the left can win an election if the turnout is really low and a Hispanic district is being represented by a boring white Democrat who lives in Virginia. Since the 14th is a minority district, Cortez will probably be able to hold on to it until she’s older than Maxine Waters. Or unless the coming redistricting after New York loses more seats changes its racial composition. And Cortez and her Socialism will go down hard in an Asian or African-American district.
The unspeakable truth is that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t win because of her views but because the Democrats have created a political racial tribalism that is as bad as that of any third world country.
It’s not Socialism that will send Cortez to Congress. It’s racism.
The 14th district has the second highest share of Latino voters in New York. The 13th has the highest. Before Crowley bit the dust, Rep. Rangel, an elder statesman of the Congressional Black Caucus, barely survived a 2012 challenge by Adriano Espaillat, a Dominican former illegal alien, when his Harlem district’s racial demographics shifted. Frantic efforts were made to dig up Rangel’s “Latino roots.” Rangel finally eked out a victory by a little over 1,000 votes. He didn’t show up in 2016. And Espaillat beat Rangel’s chosen African-American successor but not after some embarrassing race-baiting by both sides.
Nobody in the 13th or 14th needs Socialism. They’re already living it. Their phones, food, education, medical care, transportation and, their jobs (if they have them) all come from the government.
The 14th dumped the old white guy for the same reason that the 13th dumped the old black guy. They were the wrong color. And the 13th, 14th, and the other multicultural voting districts of Dem strongholds can’t be satisfied with getting their free phones from a political representative of another race.
The media has been marketing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the new Obama. And that’s what she is. Her lesson isn’t that socialism works. The details of her politics were as incidental to the voters of the 14th as Obama’s policies were to his most dedicated base. It’s that racism works. Just ask a Democrat.
| The "Moral Panics” of Leftist Social Media
Jul 2nd 2018, 04:09, by Danusha V. Goska
After 25 years online, I am trying to understand social media moral panics. Comparing and contrasting liberal social media panics with Jewish and Christians rituals may provide some insight.
People want to create. People also want to destroy. The human urge to destroy is dangerous, so societies channel it into controlled ritual. Ritual sacrifice is one form of socially mediated destruction. In Genesis, Abraham and his wife Sarah grow old without children. Children are essential to traditional people. God promises Abraham a son. Sarah finally gives birth to Isaac. God orders Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
How to understand such a harsh tale? Abraham is widely considered to be the first historical Jew. As the first, he is the one to establish precedent by breaking with the past and founding new ways. Abraham came from Ur, where human sacrifice was practiced. He traveled to Canaan, and was surrounded by practitioners of child sacrifice. The Bible is rife with emphatic condemnations of this child sacrifice. When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, God was not suddenly reversing his position. Rather, he was asking Abraham, “Are you willing to surrender what you most cherish to your relationship with me?” God couldn’t ask Abraham for his Maserati, his 401K, or his dreams of Hollywood, because traditional people don’t have those cherished possessions or ambitions. God was telling Abraham, and the reader, that we may be required to surrender everything to our relationship with God. After Abraham agrees to sacrifice Isaac, God explains that Isaac’s sacrifice is not to take place. Thus Abraham broke with his natal culture of Ur, and the surrounding Canaanite culture of child sacrifice. God offered Abraham a ram. Abraham thus established the Jewish practice of animal, not human, sacrifice. Requirements for a Jewish sacrifice are rigid and complex. See Leviticus 1, here. Judaism strictly inhibits and prescribes the human urge to destroy. After the Roman destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, Jews could no longer perform animal sacrifice. Some Jews interpret circumcision as a “part for the whole” sacrifice to God.
Catholics are required to attend mass weekly. The central ritual of Catholic mass is a re-enactment of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross, and the apostles drinking of wine and eating of bread that stand in for Jesus’ flesh and blood.
Sacrifice is not the only ritual of destruction. Jews and Christians are both called upon to seek out what is unacceptable in themselves, to eliminate it, and to rededicate themselves to their values. Maimonides outlined three stages for a Jewish confession: verbal acknowledgement of sin, remorse over that sin, and a commitment to renewal for the future. For Catholics, confession to a priest is a necessary sacrament.
The values Jews and Christians rededicate themselves to involve service to others. Jews and Christians must participate with God in nurturing God’s creation. Jews commit to tikkun olam. Christians must tend to the needy, as described in Matthew 25:35-36. Neither Jews nor Christians are adjured to, or believe that they can, save the world. They acknowledge a Higher Power and their own humility. Both Judaism and Christianity honor do-able, small deeds. Jesus praises a widow who donates a small coin, the so-called “widow’s mite.” Judaism cherishes the Lamed Vav Tzadikim, or 36 righteous saints. These saints, who are both utterly humble and completely anonymous, by living their quiet days in accord with God’s commandments, keep the world turning. Indeed, the Talmud states that to save just one life is to save the entire world.
Finally, both Jews and Christians profess creeds. Neither the Shema nor the Apostle’s creed prescribe hatred for, or exclusion of, any person or group.
Yes, apparently, humans need, want, and benefit from carefully choreographed destruction. Rituals that meet this need involve blood-letting, real or symbolic, the rejection of the tainted, the reaffirmation of community norms, and public declarations of faith.
In lieu of these rituals, my social media contacts practice moral panics. It works like this. Bob posts poetry. Betty posts photos of her garden, videos of her gamboling dogs, and pictures of her dinner along with recipes. Liz posts updates on her genealogical research. Roger posts his award-winning photos of scenic spots around the world. All is well in Facebook-land.
Roseanne Barr tweets a crude insult about Valerie Jarret. White nationalists march in Charlottesville, Virginia. Jack Phillips declines to accept a commission to design a cake for a same-sex wedding. North Carolina says that biological males must use restrooms set aside for males. Israel shoots arsonists targeting farmland with wind-borne incendiary devices. The Trump Administration decides to adhere to the letter of the law regarding illegal immigrants.
It’s as if someone pressed a button. Mammatus clouds blot out the sun. Ominous pipe organ music crashes. Bats stream across skies of lurid orange and purple. Goodbye to cute puppy photos! No more flowers! It’s a social media panic! Caps lock on! Blood is about to flow. The creed will be re-consecrated. True believers will rededicate themselves to community values. The unclean will be exorcised. The tribe will emerge tight as a phalanx and unwaveringly orthodox.
Social media moral panics share many of the following features.
THEATRICALITY. Social media panics are highly theatrical in many ways. They appear to exhibit ORCHESTRATION. Posts appear, like starlings in a murmuration, to be deployed by an unseen hand. Every one of my liberal contacts, from southern California to northern Maine, from heartland Indiana to beachfront Hawaii, spontaneously belches forth sulfur as if fed by the exact same underground lava flow. One candidate for the unseen hand manipulating the masses like so many marionettes is cable TV. If CNN or MSNBC needs a panic, it incites one.
Posts rapidly increase in number and ferocity. Betty, rather than posting once or twice a day, posts ten times in rapid succession. She usually uses words like “puppy,” “hydrangea,” and “corn bread recipe.” Suddenly she is using words like “genocide,” “fascist” and “torture.” Participants themselves do step in to attempt orchestration. They say to each other, “Please don’t post any jokes or cute cat videos today. Frivolity is inappropriate given that children are being tortured … Christian Nazis are persecuting transgendered people seeking relief in a public restroom … Roseanne is bringing back slavery days.”
Social media panics generally last, like the common cold, a week to ten days. After they have crested and are reaching their denouement, participants, again, attempt to orchestrate their extinction. “We’ve all been ravaged by recent news. We owe it to ourselves to feed our souls a bit. Let’s everyone post something uplifting.” And, so, recipes begin to appear again, along with cute puppy and kitten videos, photographic records of craft projects, and photos of nature scenes.
TIMELESSNESS. One of the most important tasks that rituals perform is the structuring of time. During a rite of passage, a child becomes an adult. Thus, the passage of time from the past to the future is emphasized. But a rite of passage also defies time. The child undergoes the exact same rite undergone by his father, and his grandfather, stretching back through the mists of history.
Just so with social media rituals. Years ago, the social media panic prompt was alleged American “Islamophobia” in the wake of 9-11. Today the prompt is immigration policy regarding children. But all the rituals are the same in that they all freeze and defy time.
Just as in a play, when performers temporarily adopt costumes, scripts, and personas, those involved in social media panics temporarily adopt others’ pain as fodder for their performance. Immigrants are fleeing poor economic conditions and gang violence in Central America. Numerous American charitable concerns have been involved in Central America for decades. As far as I know, none of my Facebook friends who are now wailing and gnashing their teeth over Central Americans have previously posted a word about Central America. None has ever previously mentioned supporting, either through donations or labor, any of the groups working to make Central America a better place. It is safe to say that after this panic passes, they will rarely if ever mention Central America or its long-suffering populations again. Thus, the topic of the panic changes, but the panic, like all rituals, remains essentially the same.
The language of the panic is HISTRIONIC. Peter Fonda tweeted, “We should rip Barron Trump from his mother’s arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles.” Barron Trump is twelve years old. After George Zimmerman was acquitted, one of my Facebook contacts, a mild-mannered, roly-poly comic book artist, said that he wanted to give Zimmerman a “Drano enema.” In the wake of the Trump administration’s child separation, one of my Facebook contacts has daily accused Trump of “torturing children.” He has also called anyone who supports the Trump administration “Satanic.” He insists that facilities to house immigrants are exactly like Dachau. I’m not sure why he didn’t go with the more famous camp, Auschwitz. Possibly because “Auschwitz” is harder to spell.
After the word “Hitler” begins to wear thin, posters go down the hierarchy: Goebbels, Himmler, Eichmann, Speer. Just this morning I found, in my Facebook feed, a Mike Luckovich cartoon featuring the Nazi Mount Rushmore: Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, and Goering. Luckovich’s cartoon equates White House press secretary Sarah Sanders with Joseph Goebbels. Such cheap Nazi analogies are the moral equivalent of Holocaust denial. The Holocaust exists, to panic participants, only to serve their need to get attention.
SCRIPTED. No matter what the topic of the latest wave of hysteria, the DEMON is always the same: Americans, Christians, Western Civilization, white people, men, Republicans, Southerners, and Israel. As reliably as Bond or comic-book-superhero-movie villains, these demons plot to destroy the world. Bwa ha ha.
Jews and Christians acknowledge that sin resides within each human heart. Thus the need for self-examination, confession, and renewal. Panic participants do not acknowledge any sin in their own hearts, or any need for self-examination, confession, or renewal. Their CREED recites hatred against, and the necessary destruction of, their chosen demons. America is a racist hellhole. Christianity is an oppressive, irrational monstrosity. Western Civilization is a wasteland of shame. Southerners are white trash rednecks. Israel is an apartheid state. Anything that the archdemon, the heterosexual, Christian, American white man has achieved or thought or innovated, he stole from an oppressed person of color.
To Christians, original sin is rebellion against God. We are all guilty. To panic participants, racism is the original sin and only the designated demons are guilty of it. Even the transgendered bathroom debates involved accusations of racism. People who want to prevent biological males from using the same facilities as vulnerable little girls are accused of being “racist.” “Racist” is the worst insult imaginable, and so it is furiously hurled no matter the panic du jour.
Because panics must always pillory the same demons as being guilty of the same sin, that is, the sin of racism, panics are highly SELECTIVE. I have never seen atrocities committed against Christians qua Christians or Americans qua Americans prompt a panic.
In April, 2013, Muslim terrorists bombed the Boston Marathon. In a photo, one can see Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, after he placed his backpack bomb right next to Martin Richard, an eight-year-old Catholic schoolboy. Martin can be seen in a photo online, carrying a handmade poster that reads, “No more hurting people. Peace.” Tsarnaev murdered this child, and others, because, as he himself wrote, according to the Koran 61:10-12, murder of non-Muslims guaranteed him a place “among all the righteous people in the highest levels of heaven.” In court, Dr. Henry Nields provided intimate details about exactly what Tsarnaev’s bomb did to little Martin’s body, and the “overwhelming” pain Martin felt before he bled to death. Participants in the current immigration panic post much about children’s welfare. None of them said a word, not on my Facebook page, at least, in 2013 after the death of Martin Richard.
I have never seen a panic prompted by atrocities committed by non-Christian, non-Westerners against other non-Christian, non-Westerners. Communist, officially atheist, traditionally Confucian China puts Muslims in re-education camps. Muslims are forced, against their religious beliefs, to dance, and publicly to declare, “Our income comes from the Communist Party, not Allah.” My Facebook contacts show no sign of caring.
Buddhist Burmese commit ethnic cleansing against Rohingya Muslims. Not a peep. According to an April, 2018 report in the New York Times, Hindu men in northern India kidnapped an eight-year-old Muslim girl, committed unspeakable atrocities against her, including gang rape, and murdered her. I saw no evidence that any of my social media contacts were even aware that this occurred. One panic participant plays audio of immigrant children crying. This murdered girl’s cries are inaudible to panic participants.
In 2012, Kassim Alhimidi beat his wife, Shaima Alawadi, to death in their California home. He insisted that Islamophobes murdered her. The Alawadi murder was piggybacked with the Trayvon Martin shooting. Linda Sarsour published “My Hijab is My Hoodie.” Non-Muslim women donned hijabs and posted their photos online as part of Facebook’s “One Million Hijabs for Shaima Alawadi.” “Women Worldwide of All Faiths Post Pictures of Themselves in Headscarves After Race Hate Murder” shouted the Daily Mail. After a trial revealed that Alawadi was beaten to death by her husband, there was no social media panic protesting honor killing or Koran verse 4:34 that advises husbands to beat their wives.
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at the height of the immigration panic, Lesandro Guzman–Feliz was dragged from a bodega in the Bronx and stabbed to death in the street. His assailants used a machete and other knives. Guzman-Feliz was a good kid, actively pursuing, through the Explorers program for high school students, a career as a police officer. His attackers were members of a Dominican street gang known as the Trinitarios. Video of their atrocity appeared online. Community members expressed despair that bystanders did not intervene. Six of the suspects in the murder were arrested in Paterson, New Jersey, my city.
I posted about Lesandro’s murder, and his grieving mother, and other gang-related killings, like the 2007 Newark Schoolyard Shootings. Terrance and Natasha Aeriel, Iofemi Hightower, Dashon Harvey, all good, African American kids, were shot by MS 13 gang members in a schoolyard in Newark. I was teaching in Newark at the time. I remember the palpable tension between Blacks and Hispanics on the public buses I took to and from work. I invited those involved in the immigration panic to mourn, with me, for Iofemi Hightower and Lesandro Guzman-Feliz. I invited them to consider how their feelings might differ if they lived in neighborhoods where gang murders occurred. None responded.
DIVORCE FROM OBJECTIVE REALITY. Perhaps the surest proof that the social media panic is a ritualized behavior is its theatrical divorce from objective reality. One would think that those engaged in the panic would focus on changing laws, taking up a collection, or volunteering to contribute to others alleviating the human suffering in question. In fact I have never seen, among my own contacts, a social media panic that involved any of these actions. No donations, no volunteering, no petitioning of elected officials. Hundreds of people are focused on problem X, and, during the social media panic, anyway, none of them does a thing to address the real-world aspects of problem X.
In fact, efforts to alleviate wrong are mocked as a drop in the bucket. Again, Jews and Christians are to “walk humbly with your God.” We are not in charge; God is. We can’t save the world, but we can donate a small coin, as did the widow. Panic participants reject such efforts as insignificant. The entire edifice must be brought down.
This divorce from objective reality is most obvious to me when it comes to panics involving race. My most fervent social media contacts on race are white liberals who have chosen to live not only in towns with few to no Black residents, they often live in states with few to no Black residents. I’ve known Chet for over a decade. I’ve never seen him talk to a Black person. I’ve never seen a photo on his walls of a Black person. He hosts parties with dozens of guests, none of them Black. He has no idea who Shelby Steele is, or any other Black conservative. Chet is certain that America is a white supremacist hellhole, and that only the ushering in of socialism will change that.
I’ve known Igor, a curmudgeon, for a quarter of a century. Igor does not give dollars to bums; he does not send sympathy cards to bereaved friends; he does not pet dogs; he does not wish anyone “Merry Christmas,” though he will say “Happy Holidays” if it will piss someone off. I’m not sure he’s ever managed to utter two sentences together without a reference to himself.
Igor is one of the most enthusiastic participants in social media panics that I know. The interesting part is not what occurs in his posts; they are boilerplate. “Christians are hypocrites; America is Nazi Germany; my heart bleeds, it bleeds, I tell you, for these poor people of color / immigrants / transsexuals.” He’s been posting the same script for twenty-five years. Rather, it’s the replies that make you sit up and take notice. Igor’s hundreds of fans applaud him. “Igor, you are compassionate / empathetic / sensitive / kind / woke.” Social media panics, like all theatrical productions, demand OSTENTATIOUS DISPLAY and APPLAUSE.
Panics are also divorced from objective reality in that they are often based on a dubious body of alleged facts. This is nowhere more the case than in the immigration panic. As even mainstream media has pointed out, every feature of the current panic has existed, in greater or lesser form, under previous administrations. In June, 2018, CNN’s Brooke Baldwin said to US Senator Tammy Baldwin, “So many people in this country are certainly outraged by the cages, the thermal blankets, and the facilities housing these kids. You know, they were all there in 2014 under President Obama. And my question to you, Senator Baldwin, did you speak up against them then?” Senator Baldwin never replied.
Also in June, 2018, Rachel Maddow melodramatically broke into tears when reporting what she insisted was “new news” just “broken by the Associated Press” that young children were placed in “tender age shelters.” This isn’t new. “Tender age” was terminology used during the Obama administration. Further, as The Federalist pointed out, in 2105, 21,000 children were separated from parents who had committed crimes. There was no panic that year over those separations. In 2014, the Brookings Institution wrote of 47,000 Central American children who entered the US without any adult. No panic in 2014 condemned the parents who tossed their own children away. I wonder if Rachel Maddow cried when covering what Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s heaven-earning bomb did to Martin Richard’s little body. I wonder if she even covered that victimized American child at all.
Perhaps the most Orwellian fabrication of the immigration panic was the exploitation and misrepresentation of the suffering of Yanela Hernandez, the toddler featured on TIME’s cover as emblematic of children separated from parents. Yanela’s father, Denis Javier Varela Hernandez, a port captain, alleged that his wife Sandra, against his wishes, abandoned him and her three other children, paid a coyote six thousand dollars, and attempted to enter America illegally because “she always wanted to experience the American dream.” US Border Patrol Agent Carlos Ruiz, who does not in any way resemble Heinrich Himmler, strikes the viewer as a kindly, concerned, Hispanic man. In his CBS This Morning interview, he described his own responsible and compassionate behavior toward this child, whose mother has abused her as a human shield to facilitate her breaking the law.
In fact, though, the entire social media panic over immigration policy is based on absurdity. Participants insist that America is the equivalent of Nazi Germany, and that Donald Trump is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler. They insist that America is racist and that racist America “destroys Black bodies,” in the words of lefty darling Ta-Nahisi Coates. And then they go on to insist that the only salvation for Central American immigrants is to be admitted into the racist, sexist, United States, thus, to any rational mind, undermining their beloved Nazi analogies. Can you imagine anyone in 1939 insisting that Jews must be admitted into Nazi Germany? “If America’s so evil, why does the left think immigrants keep coming?” Heather MacDonald asked in the New York Post.
DESTRUCTION RATHER THAN CREATION. These panics always invoke destruction of their stock demons as cure. This focus on destruction is related to the participants’ rejection of the Judeo-Christian emphasis on self-examination, confession of sin, and rededication to participation in God’s plan of salvation through humble service. Panic participants do not examine themselves. They are utterly unaware of their own hypocrisy, their own unthinking, trance-like theatricality. Rather, they scrutinize their chosen demons, obsessively seeking evidence of their cherished sins: racism, sexism, homophobia. Unlike Jews and Christians, who examine themselves, confess their sins, and rededicate themselves to obedient service to God and their fellow humans, panic participants do not serve. They do not feed the hungry, or cloth the naked. Their underlying assumption, expressed or not, is that such acts are a waste of time. Western Civilization is hopelessly corrupt. The widow donating her tiny coin, the Lamed Vov Tzadikam’s humble and anonymous adherence to God’s law, are worse than useless. What is needed is a violent revolution that will take down the entire corrupt edifice of Western Civilization.
During the immigration panic, I repeatedly pointed out that Maryknoll and other Christian organizations have been working in Central America for years. Indeed, not a few martyrs have given their lives to such work. See, for example, Sister Maura Clarke and her companions. Aid organizations accept donations, and they offer many volunteer opportunities for persons eager to help Central Americans. I mentioned Father Gregory J Boyle, whose Homeboy Industries helps rehabilitate former gang members. These posts were, for the most part, ignored.
The POLITICAL SYSTEM of a social media panic is ONE-PARTY RULE. Its ECONOMICS are MONOPOLISTIC. The contested COMMODITY is VIRTUE. Only one side may lay claim to it. The THEOLOGY of a social media panic is MANICHAEAN. Those involved in the moral panic are virtuous. Participants flamboyantly display their commitment to orthodoxy, and, thus virtue. Public declarations of the CREED are as loud and repetitive as the fall of a hammer in a blacksmith’s shop. There is no such thing as one’s private conscience during a panic. One must be seen to be declaring the creed, loudly, repetitively, in lockstep.
Gad Saad observed that during the 2018 immigration panic, UNESCO tweeted the phrase “No human being is illegal” ten times. Saad said that anyone who uses simple repetition to make a point is the intellectual equivalent of a kindergartner. UNESCO is a piker. I have Facebook friends who have posted dozens of times that Trump’s America is the equivalent of Nazi Germany.
Those who do not make public declarations of fealty to orthodoxy are accused and purged. As one of my social media contacts put it, anyone who disagreed with him about immigration is “Satanic.” Any solution to the problem at hand can come only from the only virtuous side. There can be no negotiation, no compromise, no listening to one’s opponent.
The heterodox are purged. Normally grandmotherly Betty issues fiats. “If you agree with ___, you are not fit to associate with. Your exposing me to your toxic bigotry poisons my world. I have a chronic illness, and just reading your posts worsens my symptoms. I am an open-minded, caring, empathetic, nurturing person, and I’d like nothing more than to invite all my Facebook friends over for a big meal of my special, homemade jambalaya, but I will not allow haters on my page. Please remove yourself, or I will unfriend you.”
Those who refuse to repeat the creed are challenged. Example: “If you don’t agree that Roseanne’s post is racist, and is part of systematic, structural oppression of Black people in this country, unfriend me right now.” During the Charlottesville social media panic, I received negative feedback because I refused to sign on with the phrase that “Charlottesville is the world epicenter of hate.” “What about ISIS-controlled territory? North Korea? The caste system?” I asked. I was unfriended and blocked by two men because I recommended that we attempt to understand, and initiate dialogue with, white nationalists, rather than to demonize and ostracize these men who are, like it or not, our fellow citizens. In 2014, the Pew Research Center reported that liberals are more likely to unfriend someone because that person’s political views differ from their own.
David Horowitz, a former leftist, has written, “Tainting and ostracism of sinners is in fact the secret power of the leftist faith … This spectacle … is a warning to others not to try [independent thought.] … The community of the left is a community of meaning and is bound by ties that are fundamentally religious … For the left [politics] is the path to social redemption … it is about us being on the side of the angels, and them as the party of the damned.”
After Horowitz left the left, stripped of elevating ideology, “For the first time in my conscious life, I was looking at myself in my human nakedness, without the support of revolutionary hopes, without the faith in a revolutionary future – without the sense of self-importance conferred by the role I would play in remaking the world. For the first time in my life I confronted myself as I really was in the endless march of human coming and going. I was nothing.“
Well, yes. “What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” asks Psalm 8. And yet, Judaism counsels each person to feel as if God created the world just for him. Christianity teaches that “Jesus died for you.” Jews’ and Christians’ intimate connection with a loving God serves as a shield against human insignificance. We don’t have to save the world. We can’t. We participate with God in nurturing the world, through the acts we are capable of performing that, feeble though they are, mean much to God.
Horowitz’s powerful words spark compassion in my heart as I think of my latest unfriending. I posted a brief objection to ubiquitous and constant equations of Trump’s America with Nazi Germany. One of my Facebook contacts called me a liar – she insisted, astoundingly, that she had seen no such comparisons. I briefly and politely indicated that I do not interact with those who falsely accuse me of lying. My Facebook contact responded, at length, in ten different posts. I read none of them. I responded to none of them. Finally, after three days of her posting every day, she sent me a private message, over three hundred words long, accusing me and our “conversation” of exacerbating her health problems, deepening her depression, causing her to obsess on death, and “shutting her up.” She also sent me a TED talk on empathy, entitled, “How I Have Conversations with People Who Hate Me.”
Applying the insights provided by Horowitz, we can see that my former Facebook friend had invested her very identity in her open-borders stance. To encounter someone who does not share her point of view didn’t just irritate her, it devastated her. Social media panics are not about alleviating suffering. They are about the universal human urge to use religious ritual to establish identity. They are serious business indeed.
Quotes are taken from The Collected Writings of David Horowitz: The Black Book of the American Left IX: Ruling Ideas. Los Angeles: Second Thoughts Books, 2017: 166, 144.
| Teaching about Islam
Jul 2nd 2018, 04:08, by William Kilpatrick
I recently came across a Time article entitled “Let’s Teach About Islam in Our Schools.” The piece is from December 2014, but the author’s views are still widely shared. Indeed, they represent the dominant point of view.
So let’s see what he has to say. He writes that it’s essential to teach about Islam in public schools because there exists in America “a huge and profound ignorance about Islam.”
Can’t argue with that. What else? Teaching about Islam, writes the author, means “rejecting the stereotyping of Islam.” Good point. Stereotypes of Islam abound in our society. Schools should try to correct these misperceptions.
What are the stereotypes? According to the author, people have been misled to believe “that fanaticism and intolerance are fundamental to Islamic religion, and that violence and even suicide bombing have deep Koranic roots.”
Uh oh! Maybe the author and I aren’t on the same wave length after all. I was thinking of a different set of stereotypes—the ones that portray Islam as a religion of peace, justice, and mercy. As it turns out, the author doesn’t think of these as stereotypes, but as accurate descriptions of “genuine” Islam. We must recognize, he writes, “That normative Islam…is a religion that promotes kindness and compassion, opposes violence, and promotes a middle way between extremes.”
An evidenced by…? Eric Yoffie, the author of the Time piece, and a former president of the Union for Reform Judaism, doesn’t offer any facts to back up this assertion or any quotes from authoritative Islamic sources. He just assumes that all the bien pensants who read Time will instantly recognize the truth of what he says. Islam “promotes kindness and compassion” and “opposes violence”? If he said the same thing about Catholicism, it would provoke a flood of letters to the editor detailing the militant, misogynistic, and child-abusing nature of Catholicism, accompanied by threats to cancel the subscription.
But you can get away with saying such pleasant things about Islam because very few will complain. Mr. Yoffie claims that there is a “huge and profound ignorance about Islam.” That’s true enough, but it’s not what he thinks. He seems to assume that students are kept in the dark about all the positive aspects of Islam when exactly the opposite is true. Not only does he appear to know little about Islam, he also seems to know little about American schools. The bland “kindness and compassion” version of Islam that he wishes they would teach, is what they do teach and have taught for many years.
Mr. Yoffie seems to be unfamiliar with the American Textbook Council’s 2008 report, Islam in the Classroom: What the Textbooks Tell Us. The study sampled ten widely adopted junior and senior high school history textbooks, and found that “they deliberately misrepresent Islamic history, jihad, Islamic law (sharia), global terrorism, and more.”
Mr. Yoffie rightly insists that in teaching about religion, schools should maintain the distinction between “teaching” and “preaching,” but the school history texts consistently fail to do that. According to the ATC report, the textbooks were “filled with adulatory lessons on Islam.” The lessons contained “inspirational tales,” material taken from devotional rather than historical sources, and stories of miracles, angels and revelations.
According to a McDougal Little text, people converted to Islam because “they were attracted to Islam’s message of equality and hope for salvation.” You might think that’s a bit one-sided. You might ask,”What about jihad?” Or, “Wasn’t Islam spread by the sword?” But to raise such questions only proves Yoffie’s point about “profound ignorance.” Or, at least, that’s how the textbook authors see it. According to them, the idea that Islam was spread by the sword is a common misconception. Jihad, they insist, simply means “to exert oneself” or to struggle “to do one’s best to resist temptation.”
Here’s how the History Alive text puts it:
Jihad represents the human struggle to overcome difficulties and do things that are pleasing to God… [Muslims] might work to become better people, reform society or correct injustice.
If it looks as though that could have been written by a committee of Muslim lobbyists, it probably was. According to Gilbert Sewall, the author of the ATC report, “Top editors… make a business of appeasing pressure groups. Islamic activists, some with no academic credentials or background, are listed as academic reviewers in major textbooks…”
The most troubling part of the ATC report deals with textbook treatment of terrorism. The general approach is to treat Islamic terrorists as a tiny minority who are essentially no different from the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, the Shining Path, and the Basque separatists. Of course, this is highly misleading. Islamic terror is sui generis. It’s much more extensive than other forms of terrorism and it is transnational in scale. Unlike the IRA or the Tamil Tigers, the aim of Islamic terrorism is not to force political concessions, but to impose Islamic law on the entire planet.
When textbooks do talk about Islamic terror, they blame it on the usual suspects: poverty, ignorance, Western imperialism, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the same time, they avoid making a connection between Islamic terror and Islam itself. Consider the textbook treatment of the 9/11 attack. Here is the entire discussion of that day in Prentice Hall’s The Modern World:
On the morning of September 11, 2001, teams of terrorists hijacked four airplanes on the East Coast. Passengers challenged the hijackers on one flight, which they crashed on the way to its target. But one plane plunged into the Pentagon in Virginia, and two others slammed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York. More than 2,500 people were killed in the attacks.
The first thing you notice is the brevity of the account. 9/11 is arguably, the most important event to have occurred thus far in the 21st Century. Yet it merits only one short paragraph in a book which purports to acquaint students with “the modern world.” The next thing you notice is that there is no mention of Islam or Muslims, only of “terrorists.”
Glencoe Publishers’ Modern Times gives a slightly more detailed account of 9/11, including the fact that “More Americans were killed in the attacks than died at Pearl Harbor or on D-Day in World War II.” Yet, once again, there is no mention of Islam or Muslims—the perpetrators are simply “terrorists.” That’s a bit like teaching about Pearl Harbor without mentioning the Japanese, or discussing D-Day with no reference to Nazis.
One textbook does refer to “Middle East terrorism” and “Muslim movements,” but hastens to add that “the vast majority of Muslims believe terrorism is contrary to their faith.” The upshot of this “reverential treatment of Islamic history” is that textbooks “give a false picture—or no picture at all—of grave threats to the U.S. and world”—including “the life-and-death threat of nuclear terror.”
While educators and textbook publishers are fretting over diversity and sensitivity, the ATC study rightly calls attention to the threat to national and international security posed by the whitewashed version of Islam presented in our schools.
Of course, the situation has gotten markedly worse since the 2008 report—both in terms of terrorist activity and in terms of increasingly pro-Islam curriculums. For example, a Chatham, New Jersey parent is suing the school system for forcing 7th grade students to watch a set of videos in their World Cultures and Geography class that proselytize for Islam. One five-minute video declares:
- The Quran is a perfect guide for humanity
- Islam is a shining beacon against the darkness of repression, segregation, intolerance and racism.
The video ends with a call to conversion: “May God help us all to find the true faith, Islam.”
And may God help educators to come to their senses before they give away the farm. Toward the end of the ATC report, Sewall says something that probably hasn’t been heard in educational circles for sixty years:
[Textbooks are] instruments of civic education that have among their responsibilities the obligation to alert the young to threats to American ideals and security.
He might have added that there is a connection between “ideals” and “security.” If students fail to appreciate the ideals of their own culture, why should they defend it?
Thanks to years of miseducation about Islam, students and graduates are ill-prepared to understand or cope with the threats to our society. Because of the innocuous portrayal of Islam in textbooks and classrooms, students will conclude that there is little to fear from it. They are not likely to know that the primary definition of “jihad” is “war against non-Muslims,” or that jihadist organizations are active in every corner of the world. They will have only the vaguest idea why Islamic terrorists attacked us on 9/11, and they will have difficulty understanding why a travel ban has been imposed on certain Muslim countries. Most troubling, they will come away from their studies with almost zero knowledge of stealth jihad—the primary means by which Islamists hope to Islamize Western societies. That’s ironic, seeing as they themselves have been the victims of what is probably the largest and most effective stealth jihad operation in America.
Mr. Yoffie ends his Time article by asserting that schools have a solemn obligation to teach about Islam—“the most misunderstood religious system of our time.” Yes, Islam is a misunderstood system, but the chief misunderstanders are naïfs like Mr. Yoffie, and the educators and textbook publishers who have misled a generation of students about Islam.
They have allowed themselves—sometimes gullibly, and sometimes willingly—to be used by Islamists. Now they have a solemn obligation to undo the damage. And the first step is to realize that the subject of Islam should not be taught from the perspective of multiculturalists and Islamic pressure groups, but from the perspective of our own cultural survival.
| DSAer Wins a Seat in Congress
Jul 2nd 2018, 04:04, by Matthew Vadum
A radical leftist upstart’s unexpected primary trouncing of a key member of the House Democratic leadership is sending shockwaves through the Democratic Party establishment.
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) member and first-time candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old of Puerto Rican ancestry, crushed longtime U.S. Rep. Joe Crowley, a 56-year Irish-American Catholic, in the primary election June 26 for the 14th congressional district in New York, covering parts of the boroughs of Queens and The Bronx. Ocasio-Cortez, who previously worked as an organizer for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential bid, garnered 57.5 percent of the vote compared to the 42.5 percent Crowley earned.
Of course, democratic socialism is a profoundly dishonest euphemism calculated to make the horrors of communism more palatable.
As I’ve written before,
Karl Marx thought of socialism as a necessary way station on the road to the supposed utopia of communism. The question of socialism versus communism is a never-ending debate in academic circles, and it is one that is too involved to get into here. Suffice it to say that socialists and communists all want government or the collective to be master. They all subscribe to bad, un-American ideas, are all in the same ideological camp, and all tend to believe that the ends justify the means. In ideological terms, there is no bright line or safe harbor that neatly separates socialism from communism. They overlap and blend into each other.
Communism, according to Marx, was a kind of heaven on earth and he was its foremost proselytizer. He argued that human beings could be changed and made to reject their natural, selfish, family-oriented impulses. When this happened, everything would supposedly change for the better. People would voluntarily work hard for a society filled with abundance so there would be no need for governments, taxes, armies, police, courts, and jails. In such a society the principle of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ would prevail.
But before this (impossible) idealized condition can be achieved, there has to be socialism. The working class, according to Marx’s theory, disgusted by the supposed evils of capitalism and the misery they feel it inflicts on them, transforms the capitalist nation in which workers are mercilessly exploited, into a socialist state. Under socialism, in theory the ‘means of production’ — factories, raw materials, machines, the labor force and the system by which it is organized — are controlled by the people through a powerful government. The ‘relations of production,’ that is, the relationship between those who invest in and control industries and those who work in those industries is forever changed. The government steps in on behalf of the people and imposes what some call ‘economic democracy,’ theoretically giving workers control over their workplaces.
Meanwhile, Daniel Greenfield isn’t convinced the voters of the 14th district acted based on political ideology.
I’m sure the voters liked Cortez’s promises of free stuff for everybody, but politics, especially in big urban cities, is often ethnically tribal. The simplest explanation is that Crowley’s district had changed ethnicity in a way that made him vulnerable to a Hispanic challenger.
When your district is 46% Hispanic, 24% white and 10.9% black, you don’t need Karl Marx to explain why Cortez beat Crowley. And the media is dishonest for pretending otherwise.
Greenfield may have a point.
Some time ago Democrats surrendered to the Antifa/Black Lives Matter/Occupy Wall Street faction within their own party. They are already so crazy-left there is no need for them to push back. They are already so far to port there is not much farther they can go.
As the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank observes in a rare moment of honesty:
Analyses indicate that first-time Democratic candidates this year tend to be more liberal than incumbents, but the entire party has moved to the left. There is no “civil war” within the party because no one is pushing back against the progressives’ rise — a rise that comes in reaction to Trump but also reflects the growing prominence of women, minorities and young voters in the electorate.
That said, the photogenic Ocasio-Cortez beat Crowley by running on an extreme-left utopian fantasy platform of abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, providing Medicare for All, and guaranteeing jobs for all.
Ocasio-Cortez is not only kooky – she’s an ignoramus. In one media interview the newly anointed leftist folk hero seemed to confuse ICE with the CIA.
ICE’s “extrajudicial nature is baked into the structure of the agency and that is why they are able to get away with black sites at our border with the separation of our children,” she said during a journey into fact-free paranoia on CNN June 27.
Ocasio-Cortez attacks more moderate Democrats for trying to impose any kind of restraint on federal spending, accusing them of pushing the notion that “we’re going to austerity our way into prosperity.”
But Ocasio-Cortez did claim an impressive scalp on the way to her primary victory: Queens Democratic boss Crowley is chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, the fourth-highest leadership position among House Democrats.
Ocasio-Cortez’s win suggests more upheaval may be on the way in the Democratic Party where fevered hatred of all things Trump and Republican threatens to make Democrats unelectable in all but the most hardcore Democrat districts across the nation.
In this sense her victory bears more than a passing resemblance to now-Rep. Dave Brat’s (R) shocking upset primary victory over then-Congressman Eric Cantor in Virginia’s 7th district in 2014. At the time, Cantor was House majority leader, outranked only by then-Speaker of the House John Boehner. Conservative and Tea Party revulsion at the GOP congressional leadership helped get the brash conservative champion Brat over the finish line and helped to move House Republicans to the political right.
Ocasio-Cortez’s victory should serve as a warning to all Democrat office-holders that the far-left policy positions of the past may not be enough to satisfy the angry Democrat mobs that now identify with the violent radicals of Antifa.
“The people of NY-14 demanded more from its [sic] representative than empty promises and deep pockets,” said Christian Bowe of DSA’s National Political Committee. “We’re proud of this victory, and we know this is only one of many more to come.”
DSA, a small-c communist group, is on the rise because the Left is in revolt against the Trump administration and perhaps because Bernie Sanders popularized the “democratic socialist” label, taking away much of the stigma traditionally associated with socialism.
On June 27, the day after Ocasio-Cortez unseated Crowley, DSA experienced a one-day membership surge 35 times larger than normal. DSA employee Lawrence Dreyfuss said that day the group signed up 1,152 new members. In the month after President Trump was elected, DSA claims to have had approximately six times more sign-ups than in the preceding month. The group now claims to have 40,000 members nationwide, up from around 5,000 in November 2016.
DSA has made inroads at the state level over the past year.
In May four female DSAers won Democrat primaries for seats in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Pittsburgh DSA endorsed primary winners Summer Lee and Sara Innamorato, while Philadelphia DSA endorsed primary victors Elizabeth Fiedler and Kristin Seale.
In November DSA member and self-described socialist Lee J. Carter was elected to represent the 50th district in the Virginia House of Delegates. The Democrat standard-bearer defeated House Majority Whip Jackson Miller (R) in the general election.
Other DSAers elected that month were Minneapolis City Council member Ginger Jentzen and Lakewood, Ohio, City Council member Tristan Rader.
Democratic Socialists of America is also affiliated with the terrorists of the Antifa movement.
Antifa are the self-styled anti-fascists who embrace fascist tactics and who have regained prominence in the post-Obama era for assaulting conservatives. Antifa trace their roots back to Nazi Germany where they opposed the Sturmabteilung (SA), or Nazi storm troopers, but copied their tactics, using their fists to shut down political opponents and break up meetings and rallies. The anarchists and communists of the Antifa movement are notorious for promiscuously labeling those they target as “fascists,” Nazis, and racists.
DSA activists use Saul Alinsky-approved tactics to get in the faces of their enemies.
DSA members terrorized Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen into abandoning her dinner June 19 at Washington’s MXDC Cocina Mexicana restaurant. (DHS is ICE’s parent agency.) The disrupters shouted “shame!” and “end family separation!” at Nielsen, who left the eatery without acknowledging the demonstrators.
“How can you enjoy a Mexican dinner as you’re deporting and imprisoning tens of thousands of people who come here seeking asylum in the United States?” a DSA member yelled at Nielsen. “We call on you to end family separation and abolish ICE.”
One of the disrupters has been identified as Allison B. Hrabar, a paralegal who works in the Technology and Financial Services Section of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. DoJ is reportedly investigating the incident but hasn’t taken action against Hrabar, who studied at Swarthmore College.
“Oppressed people have never been given their rights by asking politely,” Hrabar said. “Kirstjen Nielsen is not going to be convinced by us politely saying ‘could you maybe not separate children from their families? Could you maybe stop detaining and deporting migrants who have done nothing wrong?’”
DSA promises more attacks on Trump administration officials.
And Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) will be right out in front leading them.
| From Auschwitz to America: Lessons from Europe’s Killing Fields
Jul 2nd 2018, 04:03, by Gila Milstein, Adam Milstein
Reprinted from JPost.com.
This month, we had the privilege to learn more about the devastating and cruel truths of the Holocaust. We traveled to six countries – the Czech Republic, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Germany – with 100 leading American philanthropists and scholars, and together, we tried to wrap our heads around the scope of the genocide carried out by Nazi Germany and its European collaborators.
We saw the horrific conditions suffered by the Jews in Auschwitz-Birkenau, which were built with a single purpose: to eradicate the Jewish and Gypsy peoples. We saw mass graves in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland, where hundreds of thousands of Jewish families perished by firing squads because their gentile neighbors collaborated with or joined in when the German Killing Machine arrived. At the Rumbula Forest Memorial, we paid our respects to some of the 2.4 million Jews who were killed in the Hidden Holocaust by bullets – some, murdered by neighbors they had grown up alongside.
Far too many people view these places as simply historical sites, where you can learn something about the past, but nothing about the future. Many – including some within the Jewish community – can’t comprehend that the antisemitism that existed in Nazi Germany might happen again, especially in America.
Facing these horrors up close focused our attention on the relevance of the Holocaust to our present day. How can we ensure that Never Again isn’t just a slogan, but a mindset and an action plan?
Three lessons from our journey stand out.
First, events like the Holocaust don’t happen overnight. They result from a process of systematic racism, intimidation and discrimination that lasts many years.
Antisemitism had long been present across Europe. Nazi Germany harnessed that hatred to humiliate, marginalize, and weaken the Jewish people, as it prepared to unleash the largest genocide in history. During the first six years of Hitler’s rule, more than 400 decrees and regulations that Boycotted, Delegitimized and Sanctioned (BDS) all aspects of Jews’ public and private lives. Jews were dehumanized in the eyes of the public until gentiles believed genocide was a reasonable course of a final solution.
The parallels to recent events should not be lost on us. In the last two decades, America and, in particular, Europe have seen a steady rise in antisemitism from the radical Right, the radical Left and from radical Muslims. A growing alliance between radical leftists and radical Islamists has produced figures like Jeremy Corbyn, the head of the British Labour Party, who ignores and even espouses vile antisemitism.
This alliance has driven the rise of figures on the radical Right in Germany, Poland, Italy, Estonia and elsewhere, who are committed to deny the Holocaust, and trade in antisemitic stereotypes.
It seems the only thing shared by all the radical movements is their hatred of the Jewish people. While European governments publicly express strong support for the importance of protecting their Jewish communities, history tells us that nothing lasts forever.
We witnessed this trend up close. In many of our meetings, European officials blamed the Holocaust solely on Germany – not the collaborationist leaders of their countries. None of these countries seemed to take ownership of their actions in the Holocaust. This denial has become public policy. For instance, a law recently passed in Poland made it illegal to acknowledge the Polish people’s complicity in death camps, outlawing the phrase “Polish death camps.” At the same time, and some Germans – including the third largest party in the parliament – are now working to minimize the Holocaust, claiming it was a small spec of “bird poop” in their 1,000 years of glorious history.
This brings us to our second lesson: we must recognize and fight against antisemitism with all of our power whenever we encounter it.
When we don’t act, we legitimize antisemitism, allowing it to become mainstream. We become an accomplice to its growth and influence.
Before and during World War II, Jewish communities across Europe cried out for help. World powers were overwhelmingly silent. Jews trying to flee were turned away by countries across Europe and the Americas, with Britain blocking immigration to what is now Israel.
Unfortunately, some Jewish communities in Europe and elsewhere now downplay or even ignore the dangers the Jewish people face. We found this in some of our conversations with European-Jewish leaders, who expressed their unwavering confidence in their local government’s willingness and ability to protect them.
Jews in America today have the power to stand up, speak out, and fight back against the antisemites. We should use this power now – before it’s no longer available.
This brings us to our third lesson. We must support Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people and ultimate insurance policy for all Jews.
Israel did not exist during the time of the Holocaust. It has already saved millions of Jews fleeing antisemitism around the world. In its infancy, Israel accepted Holocaust survivors from displaced persons camps. It launched countless operations to save Jews facing existential threats across the Middle East, North Africa, Asia and Europe. In the 90s, the Jewish homeland welcomed approximately 1.6 million Jews from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia, who had endured harsh antisemitism and hatred. More recently, rising antisemitism in Venezuela brought over half of the country’s Jews to Israel.
Israel has changed the game when it comes to the security of the Jewish people. This point was driven home for us during the trip, by Maj. General Amir Eshel – the former commander of the Israel Air Force, who accompanied us to Auschwitz. In 2003, Eshel led a squadron of IAF F-15s in a flyover of Auschwitz, issuing an eternal promise from the cockpit that the IDF is “the shield of the Jewish people and its nation, Israel.”
Remembering the Holocaust is not enough. We must turn the tragedies of the past into lessons for the future. Nothing less than the continuation of the Jewish people is at stake. It’s in our hands to ensure that Never Again really means Never Again.
The writers are Israeli-American philanthropists and co-founders of the Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation. Gila is the president of Stand By Me and Adam is the national chairman of the Israeli-American Council.
| ICE + Local Police Cooperation
Jul 2nd 2018, 04:02, by Michael Cutler
According to court documents, Danny Josue Zelaya-Ortiz, aka “Jose Castro”, 29, was part of a conspiracy to charge illegal aliens in the United States a fee for transporting them from Texas to other states across the country. In April 2018, Zelaya-Ortiz picked up at least six alien passengers, all of whom had been smuggled into the United States from the Mexico border. Zelaya was driving the passengers towards Maryland and the New York area when his vehicle was stopped in Virginia by Fairfax County Police on April 25, 2018. He was cited for an improper vehicle tag display and driving without an operator’s license. Homeland Security Investigations special agents responded to the scene after it was determined Zelaya-Ortiz and the passengers had no lawful status in the United States. Zelaya-Ortiz admitted he knew the passengers were illegal aliens and that he received payments for his role in the scheme. At the time of the crime, Zelaya-Ortiz had been in the country illegally after having been twice removed by immigration officials.
Before criminals can be successfully prosecuted for their crimes, these law violators obviously must first be identified and evidence of their crimes must be accumulated.
The above-noted case illustrates the importance of routine and effective cooperation between local police and ICE to facilitating federal investigations into immigration law violations. In this instant case Danny Josue Zelaya-Ortiz, aka “Jose Castro,” an illegal alien from Honduras who had been arrested and deported on at least three previous occasions was taken into custody by ICE, along with several illegal aliens he was caught transporting. from the U.S./Mexican border to Maryland and ultimately to New York City.
This illustrates that illegal immigration impacts every state of the United States, from border to border and coast to coast.
Zelaya-Ortiz is also an apparent co-conspirator in an alien smuggling criminal organization. He is subject to prosecution for multiple federal immigration-related crimes including illegal re-entry, which, depending on his possible criminal history, may expose him to a maximum prison sentence of up to 20 years in prison under the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326
Smuggling, transporting, harboring and shielding illegal aliens are felonies under the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324
The illegal aliens who were also taken into custody in this case, may also have committed various felonies but identifying those possible crimes will fall to the ICE agents who are pursuing this investigation.
Those illegal aliens, for reasons known only to them, had entered the United States surreptitiously without inspection. This in and of itself poses and obvious potential threat to national security and public safety.
The only reason that Zelaya-Ortiz was prosecuted is that a sharp-eyed police officer in Virginia took the initiative to contact ICE.
It is entirely possible that an ensuing investigation may also help ICE to identify the alien smuggling/human trafficking organization with which Zelay-Ortiz conspired.
It has been said that the longest voyage begins with the first step. Often the arrest of a member of a criminal conspiracy may well represent that first step along the path to the ultimate investigation into a massive criminal conspiracy.
To understand just how important this is, consider the following quote from the 9/11 Commission Staff Report 9/11 and Terrorist Travel
found on page 61:
Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists
In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist
groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.149 Indeed, there is
evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of
terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.150 With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel.
In this dangerous post-9/11 era we are frequently implored by our political leaders, “If you see something, say something.”
The idea is that because of a shortage of law enforcement officers, civilians must act as the “eyes and ears” of the police to augment the often sparse numbers of law enforcement officers.
This is an effective and obviously commonsense approach to law enforcement and public safety. However mayors of Sanctuary Cities prohibit law enforcement officers under their jurisdiction from applying that approach when they encounter those who violate our nation’s immigration laws, despite the fact that both the 9/11 Commission Report
and the official report prepared by the 9/11 Commission staff, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel
repeatedly noted that multiple failures of the immigration system not only enabled the 9/11 hijacker-terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves, but was a major fact in other international terrorists found in the United States that the 9/11 Commission studied.
Additionally, in the years since the attacks of 9/11 a list of other foreign terrorists operating in the United States also exploited multiple failures of the immigration system.
Although mayors of Sanctuary Cities claim to be acting “compassionately” to protect “immigrants” from immigration law enforcement, in reality, lawful immigrants and nonimmigrant aliens such as tourists and foreign students need no “protection” from ICE as long as they abide by the terms of their respective admissions into the United States.
The only aliens who should be concerned about immigration law enforcement are those who violate those laws.
By prohibiting their police officers from cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement authorities mayors of Sanctuary Cities undermine the Constitution, the rule of law, public safety and national security. They place the law enforcement officers who operate under their command in the untenable position of having to violate their oaths of office.
By falsely, recklessly and maliciously portraying ICE agents and other law enforcement personnel who are engaged in the enforcement of our immigration laws, as “terrorists,” endangers the safety of those agents and their families as we have seen in recent news reports, and may compromise and obstruct their efforts to enforce our immigration laws- fundamental to national security and public safety.
The open hostility shown towards ICE agents by a laundry list of anarchist politicians on all levels of government, is also likely to have a chilling effect, inhibiting citizens and aliens alike from cooperating with ICE agents and reporting immigration crimes that result in the exploitation of aliens as well as the presence of foreign terrorists and transnational criminals.
This is certainly contrary to commonsense, morality and the well being of America and Americans.
In reality, the only individuals who are being protected by these insane and illegal policies are transnational criminals, international terrorists and international fugitives from justice. However, this creates a virtual “free fire zone” for innocent people, often the ethnic immigrants, who live in the various ethnic immigrant communities around the United States all too often fall victim to the predatory crimes of these pernicious aliens who infest those beleaguered communities because they were shielded from discovery by ICE although they should have been removed from the United States.
Where criminal aliens are concerned, the surest way of effectively dealing with recidivism is deportation!
Conversely, synergistic cooperation between local police with ICE agents and other immigration law enforcement personnel can be a highly effective force-multiplier to combat dangerous crimes that may well have far-reaching consequences.
This coming election the question that must be asked by the electorate is simple and straight-forward, “Does the candidate stand with Americans or with transnational gangs and international terrorists?”