Displaying posts published in

May 2016

HIS SAY: 5 CRITICAL QUESTIONS UNDECIDED CONSERVATIVES MUST ASK TRUMP By: Benjamin Weingarten

Who cares if Bush pere et fils will skip the convention? They can sup with James Baker and their Saudi pals instead and sulk over the findings of Saudi complicity in 9/11 that incriminates the Bushies.Message to the GOP…..Trump won in a democratic process of primaries. Now the question is who is worse Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? Ben Weingarten has some suggestions for thinking it through.
5 CRITICAL QUESTIONS UNDECIDED CONSERVATIVES MUST ASK TRUMP

By: Benjamin Weingarten

– See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/05/5-critical-questions-undecided-conservatives-must-ask-trump#sthash.3sapmDUv.dpuf

To conservatives shell-shocked at the jarring conclusion of the Republican Primary and those in despair over the prospect of a Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton general election, many are struggling with the same Hobson’s choice ironically lamented by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in reference to the options in the GOP field.

There are several questions those of us dedicated to advancing individual liberty, private property rights, the rule of law and a Kirkpatrickian defense must consider in the coming days and weeks. We must decide whether or not we can in good faith pull the lever for a candidate anathema to many of us personally and antithetical to us politically and ideologically.

Before we begin, let us stipulate that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be an extension of the Obama years – that is, an utter disaster for the country. None of the below questions are meant to imply that any Republican or conservative should make the unconscionable decision to vote for the pox on the body politic that is Hillary. But they are meant to serve as a framework for determining whether – given the stakes of growing existential threats and the dominance of regressive progressivism – we can in good faith vote for a lesser of two potential evils, or should give no sanction to any potential evil at all.

The following are five critical questions with which undecided conservative voters must grapple:

Can we in good conscience vote for someone who is not only left on most issues but is personally petty, narcissistic and arguably sociopathic, and who engenders the support of a percentage of fans who are truly detestable and who will be used to smear the conservative movement more broadly?

Trump has argued for, among other things, touchback amnesty, socialized medicine, tariffs that will increase the costs of goods for Americans, liberal use of eminent domain if it means more tax revenue, commitment to maintaining the welfare state generally and entitlement status quo specifically, opening up libel laws as a means of threatening the press (thereby chilling free speech), openness to job-killing minimum wage increases, retrenchment from America’s leadership role abroad while increasing spending on public works projects at home, “neutrality” vis-à-vis Israel versus the Arabs, continued support of Planned Parenthood and a host of other positions at odds with core conservative principles. He has undeniably shown himself to be an egotistical, dishonest philanderer prone to bullying and rashness. Many of these character defects are celebrated by his most rabid fans on social media, some of whom truly are the neo-Nazis and white supremacist caricatures that the Left loves to paint genuine conservatives as being. The invocation of “America First,” meant to troll #NeverTrump folks while tickling his most bigoted supporters should not have been lost on anyone. It is unfair to judge a person by the fans they attract, but Trump’s strongman utterings and praise for Vladimir Putin are clearly intended to stir up fans with whom no conservative would ever want to associate or be associated. Moreover, Trump’s apparent encouragement of violence and intimidation lends further credence to an inaccurate image of conservatives. Plenty of flawed human beings may make great presidents, but Trump presents a unique combination of problems substantively and stylistically. Holding your nose for Trump is qualitatively different than holding your nose for Romney or McCain.
If Trump’s administration was to discredit conservatism, would that do more damage to the cause than a Hillary presidency?

Clinton and Trump: Where Do They Stand on Islamism? Ryan Mauro

https://www.clarionproject.org/print/analysis/clinton-and-trump-where-do-they-stand-islamism
With Trump and Clinton the de facto nominees, it is time for voters to begin weighing the national security policies of each candidate.

Donald Trump is the all-but-declared Republican presidential nominee and Hillary Clinton on the cusp of winning the Democratic nomination. It is time for voters to begin weighing the national security consequences of each candidate’s potential administration.

You can read our full profiles of the candidates’ positions related to Islamist extremism by clicking here for Donald Trump and here for Hillary Clinton. Below is a summary of six policy areas where they differ:

Defining the Threat

Trump defines the enemy as “radical Islam.” Clinton defines it variably as “jihadism,” “radical Jihadism” “Islamists who are jihadists.”

Defeating the Ideology

Trump said in his foreign policy speech that “containing the spread of radical Islam must be a major foreign policy goal of the United States.” His policy proposals include a vague commitment to use the U.S. military more aggressively, deterring terrorists by killing their families, closing down the most radical mosques and banning Muslim immigration into the U.S. until the homeland is secure and an effective vetting process is established.

Trump is adamantly opposed to democracy-promotion and overthrowing regimes; instead, he favors alliances with authoritarian rulers who cooperate on counter-terrorism. He says, “our goal must be to defeat terrorists and promote stability, not radical change.”

He criticizes Clinton for supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Bashar Assad in Syria. However, a reputable senior foreign policy adviser to Trump, Dr. Walid Phares, is an expert on combating the Islamist ideology and believes in promoting human rights and civil society.

Clinton’s national security platform calls for “defeating ISIS and global terrorism and the ideologies that drive it.” Her strategy emphasizes civil society and a foreign policy that promotes freedom, women’s rights, free markets, democracy and human rights, all if which she believes are necessary in order to “empower moderates and marginalize extremists.”

Clinton says the U.S. needs an “overarching strategy” to defeat the ideology like the U.S. used to win the Cold War. Clinton wants the State Department to better “tell our story” overseas by confronting anti-American propaganda via public engagement.

Clinton’s speech on foreign policy and ISIS also includes confronting state sponsors of extremism like Qatar and Saudi Arabia and identifying “the specific neighborhoods and villages, the prisons and schools, where recruitment happens in clusters, like the neighborhood in Brussels where the Paris attacks were planned.”

IMPORTING TERROR: JOSEPH KLEIN

Obama’s plan to accelerate vetting of Syrian “refugees” for U.S. entry.

President Obama is willing to gamble with the lives of American citizens. He is intent on emptying Guantanamo of as many of the detainees as possible, even as some of the released jihadists have returned to the battlefield to fight against our soldiers. Now the Obama administration is reportedly planning to accelerate the screening process for Syrians claiming refugee status, so that they can be rapidly resettled in communities across the United States.

The Washington Free Beacon has reported that, according to its sources, “The Obama administration has committed to bring at least 10,000 Syrian refugees onto American soil in fiscal year 2016 by accelerating security screening procedures from 18-24 months to around three months.”

The current resettlement vetting process for self-proclaimed refugees begins with an initial screening by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The applications of some who make it through this preliminary UN screen are referred to United States authorities for further consideration and possible resettlement. UNCHR’s role in the front end of the vetting process should be reason enough for alarm.

The United Nations has called for more open borders to accommodate the millions of “refugees” and other migrants whom have left the Middle East and North Africa. To this end, UNCHR is said to be looking for alternative avenues to admit Syrian refugees that are faster than the current refugee “resettlement” vetting process. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi suggested a number of such alternatives last March, at a high-level meeting held in Geneva to discuss “global responsibility sharing through pathways for admission of Syrian refugees.”

Among the alternative “pathways” listed by the UNCHR High Commissioner for Refugees were “labour mobility schemes, student visa and scholarships, as well as visa for medical reasons.” He added, “Resettlement needs vastly outstrip the places that have been made available so far… But humanitarian and student visa, job permits and family reunification would represent safe avenues of admission for many other refugees as well.”

The Racist Trees of Our National Parks Trees are America’s newest racist symbol. Daniel Greenfield (Huh????!!!!)

Mickey Fearn, the National Park Service Deputy Director for Communications and Community Assistance, made headlines when he claimed that black people don’t visit national parks because they associate them with slaves being lynched by their masters.

Yellowstone, the first national park, was created in 1872 in Wyoming. Slavery was over by then and no one had ever been lynching slaves around Old Faithful anyway. But false claims of racism die very hard.

Now Alcee Hastings, an impeached judge, and a coalition of minority groups is demanding increased “inclusiveness” at national parks. High on their list is the claim that, “African-Americans have felt unwelcome and even fearful in federal parklands during our nation’s history because of the horrors of lynching.” What do national parks have to do with lynchings? Many national parks have trees. People were hung from trees. It’s racial guilt by arboreal association. Trees are racist down to their roots.

The origin of the bizarre racist lynching theory of national parks appears to be Carolyn Finney. Finney was an actress noted for, apparently, little more than an appearance in The Nutt House. Then she became a cause célèbre for race activists when she was denied tenure by Berkeley’s Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management because her work didn’t meet academic standards.

Her supporters blamed racism, rather than her academic shortcomings, and protested vocally.

These days she’s a diversity advisor to the U.S. National Parks Advisory Board. What wasn’t good enough for UC Berkeley is good enough for national parks. She is also the author of Black Faces, White Spaces. In it she claims that “oppression and violence against black people in forests and other green spaces can translate into contemporary understandings that constrain African-American environmental understandings.”

Finney cites the work of Joy DeGruy Leary who invented a Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome that she claims black people suffer from. Affected by PTSS, black people experience “fear and mistrust of forests and other green spaces.” According to Finney, the tree is a racist symbol to black people.

“Black people also wanted to go out in the woods and eat apples from the trees,” Finney explains.” But black people were lynched on the trees. The tree became a big symbol.” Black people are triggered by trees and suffer Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome flashbacks. You can’t expect them to go to on a hike.

What shall we do about the racist trees? Finney is front and center at the new “inclusion” initiative, “You’re sitting here making up a rule and assuming that everybody is going to feel comfortable to come to the woods and go on a hike,” she whined. “Maybe they’re not interested in doing that, that’s not how they like to come to the woods.”

Putin’s Moral Clarity, ISIS, Disingenuous Pundits and the Truth by Dr. Robin McFee

A few months ago I wrote a piece titled Putin’s moral clarity on radical Islam at the UN – Did I just say that? To be sure it was a bit of surrealism – just check out the title! Amongst many other inclusions, in the article I quoted Putin’s speech at the UN, during which he describes the dangers of ISIS and the poor results of US foreign policy in terms of various dangers emerging as a result of our (Obama’s) failed Middle East efforts. Well it’s time to look at how the Middle East, global events, and my predictions played out from when it was first posted.

Let’s recap what has transpired since I wrote that….Putin has control over Santa’s Village and the North Pole. His air force has invaded our sovereign air space – both the continental US territory, and our US Navy. He has turned part of Syria into a Russian outpost. Iran has enjoyed an influx of money, as European interests invest in that energy rich nation. The fine friendly folks of Tehran have advanced their missile capacity, and are continuing nuclear development, as well as other forms of advanced weapons. Iran’s proxies continue the strategy of death by a thousand cuts on Israel. Iran has outplayed Obama deftly, and is reaping the benefits without any sacrifice. ISIS is a global franchise holder with offices across the Western world preparing to attack at opportune moments – whether bringing an airliner down, or attacking public transportation centers or office buildings, ISIS has had significant success. It is destroying historic landmarks of incalculable value, raped and murdered children, slaughtered families, and embarked upon a policy of genocide against Christians that has gone largely unnoticed by Obama, and ignored by the media. The US military budget is being cut, and our capabilities degraded. Obama has put boots on the ground in Iraq while the media largely turn a blind eye. Palestine is getting away with atrocities against Israel – while the UN and team Obama, along with team Bernie continue providing political cover.

While Al Qaeda and its various franchisees still have influence, and pose a great threat in certain regions, not the least of which are Yemen, Eastern Africa, and parts of North Africa (you know, the places Obama and Hillary claimed were becoming democracies, and closer friends with the US), ISIS has emerged as a leading danger to the West and US, having infiltrated major global capitals, and inspired or carried out major attacks in historically important cities such as Paris and Brussels. Christians, Jews, (and Muslims who do not subscribe to the ISIS brand or dogma), have a target on them. Crucifixion has returned, and ISIS uses it deftly to warn adversaries, especially Christians, of their fate under the growing Caliphate in the region.

Putin and Prime Minister Netanyahu were, and are correct about the growing threats of ISIS – you know, the folks President Obama referred to in one speech as the “JV” and in another speech as “killers with good social media.” Putin revealed a clarity about a clear and present danger that Obama has yet to demonstrate, starting with the basics, like acknowledging or naming “radical Islam” as a problem, and identifying the terrorists, the various jihadist groups within the broader family of radicalized Moslems – ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko haram, and AQIM and the list of subsidiaries and free agents of various permutations of fanatic terrorists worldwide.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

“Beyond a few glaringly obvious issues, like Russian influence in Iran, and criminal money laundering, nevertheless, Putin highlights important facts.

Yes Putin is calling us out. He has announced his role as global statesman, sheriff, and arbiter. Putin is telling us, Russia is back, and he will fill “the power vacuum. ” He is saying we are foolish to arm folks who are no more virtuous than the savages they are fighting.

We would be wise to reflect upon such foolishness since Obama became POTUS in terms of “‘the mythical moderate in the Middle East.’ It is Obama’s white whale. It truly is a fool’s errand. The Arab Spring, to which Putin refers, was a glaring example of this folly.”

Is there anyone with even half a brain unable to recognize when there is a power vacuum, someone will fill it – whether in the board room or world stage. Does anyone think Obama is a strong leader? His red lines in the sand are laughable. He negotiates so poorly that it would almost appear he is trying to disadvantage US interests (think the Iran deal). By comparison, and unhappily for those of us on Team USA, Putin is all too willing to fill the leadership void. And sadly he has become a sort of ‘go to guy,’ while simultaneously remaining bad boy public enemy number one for the US State Department and POTUS. One day Obama and Kerry are nearly pleading with Putin for assistance, and the next day are chastising Putin for coloring outside the lines. Putin is the school yard bully, the school yard big brother, energy czar, military threat, and agent provocateur on the global stage all in one. Putin is part spy, part killer, part politician, and part statesman – all likely how he would describe himself.

The Failure of the Swedish Establishment by Nima Gholam Ali Pour

In Sweden’s third largest city, Malmö, the children of illegal migrants receive income support payments from the government, and the unemployment rate among foreign-born men aged 18-24 years is at 41%. In Sweden, those who do not have jobs receive generous welfare payments from the local authorities, and families in the country illegally have their rent paid by the taxpayers. It is an open invitation to more migrants to come to Sweden.

The Swedish establishment tells Swedes that the more immigrants come to Sweden, the richer Sweden will become — no matter which country these immigrants come from.

The Swedish establishment is characterized by incompetence combined with an extreme left-wing ideology and a hillbilly-like mentality that refuses to see the rest of the world and the risks involved in it. The Swedish establishment has not dealt with Sweden as if it were a country, but as if it were a village.

By gross miscalculations, the Swedish establishment has eroded its own legitimacy. Today, fewer than one in four Swedes have confidence in their government. Meanwhile, the Swedish media is a major threat to Sweden’s security today: it downplays the migration crisis with ridiculous arguments.

A major threat to Sweden’s security today is the Swedish journalistic establishment: it downplays the migration crisis with ridiculous arguments.

As migrants flooded into Sweden in December 2015, Fredrik Virtanen, a writer for Sweden’s largest newspaper, Aftonbladet, wrote an article entitled, “Have refugees forced you to buy worse red wine?” It is not really dangerous, Virtanen argues, that that Sweden was accepting 160,000 migrants; such migratory movements, he wrote, do not really impact anyone’s life.

Turkey: “We Need a Religious Constitution” by Burak Bekdil

The new constitution “will emphasize Islam and faith in Allah.” — Abdulkadir Selvi, pro-government columnist.

“We are a Muslim country. That is why we need a religious constitution,” said Ismail Kahraman, Speaker of Turkey’s Parliament. He lamented that, unlike in other Middle Eastern countries, the word Allah did not appear in the current version of the Turkish Constitution even once.

“The chaos in the Middle East is the result of politics instrumentalizing religion.” — Kemal Kilicdaroglu, leader of the opposition Republican People’s Party.

“One cannot be secular and Muslim at the same time.” — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The Speaker of the Parliament is no ordinary office in Turkey. The speaker comes second in the state protocol only after the president (and even before the prime minister). Such is the seat occupied since November by Ismail Kahraman, an MP from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Along with Erdogan, former president Abdullah Gul and eight AKP heavyweights (mostly cabinet ministers) Kahraman comes from the ranks of the National Turkish Student Union (MTTB in its Turkish acronym). Another MTTB bigwig, Huseyin Velioglu, later formed what became the militant Islamist group, “Turkish Hizbullah.” Especially between 1965 and 1980 when a military coup administration dissolved it, the MTTB operated as the youth organization of Turkish political Islam. Kahraman, in late 1960s and early 1970s, was MTTB’s president.

Gaza Play Features Kid Stabbing a ‘Jew.’ Crowd Applauds… By Nathan Lichtman

https://pjmedia.com/video/gaza-play-features-kid-stabbing-a-jew-crowd-applauds/

In Gaza, a Jordanian refugee (“Palestinian”) group holds a children’s play, and it features a young man “stabbing” a “Jew.” The audience applauds this action on stage, so what can we expect when the action is carried out in real life?!?

SEE THE VIDEO AT SITE

SPEAKERS AT UN CONFERENCE VOICE SUPPORT FOR WAVE OF PALESTINIAN TERROR

At a UN conference “on the Question of Jerusalem,” invited speakers praised Palestinian terrorists as “martyrs” and legitimized the slew of stabbing, shooting, and car ramming attacks that have killed over 30 Israelis since October 2015. The conference, held in Dakar, Senegal on May 3 and May 4, 2016, was sponsored by the UN’s Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Here are some of the statements justifying Palestinian terrorism, analogizing Israelis to Nazis, and deemed worthy of distributing around the world via the UN’s press release:

Ahmad Rwaidy, Former Chief of the Jerusalem Unit of the Palestinian Presidency: “Israel still refused to hand over the bodies of martyrs killed by Israeli security forces, he continued. ‘What we need in Jerusalem is a scheme to support resilience,’ he said.”

Nur Arafeh, Policy Fellow at Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network: “New Israeli plans for Jerusalem used urban planning as a geopolitical tool to constrain the urban expansion of Palestinians and Judaicize the city, she said… In that context, the current Palestinian uprising should be seen as acts of resistance and desperation against ethnic cleansing, forced displacement and economic marginalization… She held that the development approach should be rethought and embedded in the larger Palestinian liberation struggle against Israel’s occupation and settler colonial regime.”

“During the ensuing interactive dialogue… a representative of the Democratic League, noting Israel’s ‘disgraceful attempts’ to exterminate the people of Palestine, said the time had come to ‘take things up a notch’ in Africa’s support for the Palestinians.”

The UN on Holocaust Remembrance Day: Where’s the ‘never’ in the ‘never again’? Anne Bayefsky By Anne Bayefsky

Thursday, May 5 is Holocaust Remembrance Day or “Yom Hashoah,” an occasion to remember and mourn the unique horror that resulted in the murder of 6 million Jews including one million children – unfathomable numbers that still shock the conscience of humankind. Except at the United Nations. Though the UN was built on the ashes of the Jewish people, in our time this organization plays a disturbing role in advancing antisemitism.

Antisemitism works in many ways. Devotees deny or minimize its very existence. Instead, they appropriate the suffering of their targets and invert the genuine victim and the actual perpetrator. The U.N. of the 21st century does all of this.

On April 27, 2016, the Palestinian’s UN representative Riyadh Mansour, held a press conference at UN headquarters in New York.

He said: “If you throw a stone…if you throw it at a moving car of the army or the terrorist settlers, they send you to jail for 20 years, and yet their representative in the Security Council…he paints them as terrorists. Guess what. All colonizers, all occupiers including those who suppressed the Warsaw uprising labelled those who were resisting them as terrorists.”

Jewish victims of Palestinian rock-throwers have been maimed for life with catastrophic brain injuries or have died as their cars careened out of control. According to the Palestinian spokesman, however, Israelis are like Nazis and Palestinians are their victims.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has been asked to condemn Mansour’s comments and to remove them from the UN website where they are now broadcast around the world 24/7 – because, for starters, these comments contradict the essence of the U.N. Charter. But the Secretary-General has refused to do so.

This is not an isolated incident. UN headquarters – visited by millions of American school children – hosts a Holocaust exhibit and also a Palestinian exhibit that is a model of historical revisionism. The Palestinians have succeeded in having the two exhibits placed side-by-side.