Displaying posts published in

June 2016

Milo’s Epic Battle Against the Fascist Left Campus “social justice warriors” meet their match.

Conservative social commentator and Breitbart technology editor Milo Yiannopoulos is waging an epic battle against the insidious attack on free speech that is occurring across college campuses throughout the United States. The latest spectacle occurred at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), that bastion of a particular brand of progressive fascism characteristic of the new Left. This past week, UCLA’s College Republicans invited Yiannopoulos to give a talk on campus, one of many stops on Yiannopoulos’ “Dangerous Faggot Tour,” which has taken direct aim at university totalitarianism. Yiannopoulos, who is gay, is no stranger to controversy, espousing views that some regard as anti-feminist. This has made him a target of the radical Left, and particularly, of radical feminists who view him as one of their chief antagonists.

When students and the guest speaker arrived at the Broad Art Building where the Yiannopoulos event was to be held, they were greeted by protestors holding pro-feminist signs who physically blocked the entranceway. Campus police were dispatched and ushered guests in through alternative backdoor entrances, but the feminists caught wind of it and attempted to block these entrances as well, causing fights to break out. Once inside, Yiannopoulos’s address was interrupted by radicals who were ultimately removed by police. The event was further marred by anonymous bomb threats forcing police to evacuate the building.

One of the anti-Yiannopoulos protestors, who affixed black duct tape over her mouth, held a sign that read, “When you use your ‘First Amendment Right’ to spread hate and exclusion, you are silencing people and communities, not promoting ‘freedom of speech.’” That sentiment is typical of the mindset of the radical Left who believe that the concept of freedom of speech extends only to speech vetted for use in “safe spaces.” The radical Left has adopted techniques employed by assorted despots and autocrats to silence speech that they disapprove of.

The above incident is not unique and is occurring with alarming frequency. What is even more disconcerting is that on some occasions, student protestors and faculty members are working in tandem to disrupt scheduled events. Perhaps most troubling is that police who are dispatched to the area are often instructed to do nothing resulting in the event’s complete shutdown, thus making the university complicit in the suppression of free speech.

No Refuge for the Victims of Jihadist Genocide Obama’s de facto ‘no admittance’ policy for Christian and Yazidi refugees from Syria. Joseph Klein

The Obama administration is rapidly accelerating its admission and resettlement of Syrian refugees. The administration is well on its way to meeting its target of taking 10,000 Syrians into the country by the end of the current fiscal year on September 30th. In the first five months of 2016, 2,099 Syrian refugees have been admitted, compared with 2,192 for the whole of 2015, according to a report by CNS News. However, only a very tiny percentage are Christians, a beleaguered minority who are facing genocide in their home country. The Obama administration is immorally discriminating against Christian Syrian refugees.

“Out of the 2,099 Syrian refugees admitted so far this year, six (0.28 percent) are Christians,” CNS reported. Ten (0.3 percent) are Yazidis. Over 99 percent are Muslims. And the trend line is worsening as the year progresses. Last month, only two Christians (0.19 percent) were admitted compared to 1,035 Muslims.

Christians are estimated to have made up approximately ten percent of the total Syrian population at the outset of the conflict in Syria, according to the CIA Factbook. As Christians have come under attack by both the regime and jihadist groups, including ISIS, the Christian population in Syria has declined.

Patrick Sookhdeo, the founder and international director of the charity group the Barnabas Fund, which has worked to rescue Syrian Christians, said: “In Aleppo, to give you one illustration, there used to be 400,000 Christians four years ago. Today there may be between 45,000 and 65,000.”

Yet, according to data compiled by the U.S. State Department Refugee Processing Center, only 47 Syrian Christians have been admitted to the United States in all that time – slightly over 1 percent of the total number of Syrian refugees admitted. The current rate of Christian admissions is running far below even that miniscule level.

The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines the crime of genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”

The Benghazi Cover Up How Obama, Hillary and their media allies won an election by lying to the American people. ****

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263082/benghazi-cover-frontpagemagcom

Editor’s note: The following video was produced by journalist Lee Stranahan and exposes the coordinated campaign between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the media to conceal the truth about the Benghazi terrorist attack until after the 2012 presidential election. The video sequence is featured in Stranahan’s film “The Caliphate.”

‘Dead Woman Walking’: Paglia Slams Dowager Empress’s ‘Zombie’ Campaign By Michael Walsh

Ouch:

It’s zombie time at campaign Hillary. Behold the dead men walking! It was with strangely slow, narcotized numbness that the candidate and her phalanx of minions and mouthpieces responded to last week’s punishing report by the State Department’s Inspector General about her email security lapses. Do they truly believe, in the rosy alternate universe of Hillaryland, that they can lie their way out of this? Of course, they’re relying as usual on the increasingly restive mainstream media to do their dirty work for them. If it were a Republican in the crosshairs, Hillary’s shocking refusal to meet with the Inspector General (who interviewed all four of the other living Secretaries of State of the past two decades) would have been the lead item flagged in screaming headlines from coast to coast. Let’s face it—the genuinely innocent do not do pretzel twists like this to cover their asses.

There are fewer sharper critics of the American politico-cultural scene than Camille Paglia; that she generally comes to the wrong conclusions with her heart (she’s a Sanders supporter), her head does formidable work nailing the candidates’s strengths and weaknesses.

She’s right about Hillary, of course. Mrs. Clinton is the worst, and least-qualified, major party candidate in eons: a career criminal whose flouting of the law and nose-thumbing at the American people are finally coming to the ignominious end she so richly deserves. And — equal time! — she’s also spot-on regarding Donald Trump:

Over on the GOP side, Donald Trump continues to gain strength, despite the nonstop artillery barrage of Democratic operatives and their clone army in the mainstream media. Trump just rolls on and on, despite every foot-in-mouth gaffe that would stop a normal campaign cold. He’s terrific on the radio, I must say. Even though I do like Elizabeth Warren (I even believe she has Native American ancestry, although certainly not enough to qualify her for affirmative action), I burst out laughing in my car last week when I heard Trump confidingly say (like a yenta at Zabar’s deli), “She’s a woman that has been very ineffective—except that she has a big mouth.” His New York comic timing was spot on. I laughed out loud again this week when I heard Trump interrupt his press conference to tag an ABC reporter as “a sleaze”—at which I am sure thousands of other radio listeners heartily cheered. It’s been a long time since any major politician had the chutzpah to tell the arrogant, double-dealing East Coast media what most of the country thinks about them.

Kerry Says This Would be ‘Most Reckless, Irresponsible, Historically Wrong’ Move Ever by Next President By Bridget Johnson

In remarks aimed at Donald Trump, Secretary of State John Kerry said “seeking to rattle people is not objective, number one, most of the time” in foreign policy.

Last week, President Obama said fellow world leaders are “rattled by [Trump] — and for good reason — because a lot of the proposals that he’s made display either ignorance of world affairs, or a cavalier attitude, or an interest in getting tweets and headlines instead of actually thinking through what it is that is required to keep America safe and secure and prosperous, and what’s required to keep the world on an even keel.”

Trump responded at a press conference in North Dakota: “When you rattle someone, that’s good. If they’re rattled in a friendly way, that’s a good thing … not a bad thing.”

On MSNBC Wednesday night, Kerry stressed that he’s “not permitted to get in the middle of the election and I don’t want to.”

“But I can’t help but say that as I meet with my counterparts all around the world and as I engage with other countries, they are very concerned about the quality of what’s happened to America, and it’s a clarity of leadership, if you will,” Kerry said. “And I think the bombast and the dividing language is very hard for some people to digest even as we are working to undo sectarian divisions and old religious overtones to different conflicts. We need our voice to be above reproach and I think, right now, people are really wondering about where we’re heading.”

On Trump saying that rattling other countries is a good thing, Kerry replied that “we’re not doing a Trump hotel business deal.”

“These are dealings between nations based on precedent, based on understandings, based on the trust from one administration to another. This is an ongoing relationship. And when you’re dealing with nuclear weapons and you’re dealing with war and you’re dealing with the life and death choices that the president of the United States have to make everyday, seeking to rattle people is not objective, number one, most of the time,” he said.

Kerry stressed that any president who would rip up the Paris climate accord “would be reckless, counter productive, self-destructive.”

Peter Smith: A Discordant and Delusional ‘Harmony’

This talk we hear of inter-faith amity and understanding, how does Islam meld with that kumbaya narrative? Not well, or so it strikes me. As Mohammed denied Christ’s divinity, the Trinity and Resurrection, what common ground is it possible to find?
Francis Kalifat, the newly elected president of France’s Jewish communities, said this: “The fight against anti-Semitism is our main cause because French Jews are in the most difficult situation they have experienced since World War II.” I wonder why? My goodness, don’t we need to build religious harmony!

Who could possibly object to building harmony? Well, unless I am mistaken, harmony is what appeasers have sought down the ages. So count me as one of those who retains a healthy degree of scepticism about pursuing harmony. Don’t misunderstand me. I am all for harmony between those of goodwill. It’s harmony with the bad guys and the perpetually precious that worries me.

Interfaith dialogue is about harmony. One description of the process is Christians kowtowing to discordant Muslims. What else is it about? Without Muslims, interfaith dialogue these days would be a movement with a substantive cause. Here are just a few of the many examples of Christian overtures:

Established in 2003 by the National Council of [Christian] Churches in Australia, the Australian National Dialogue of Christians, Muslims and Jews provides “opportunity for the national bodies of each faith to come together to build understanding and harmony in the Australian context.”

In 2014 Pope Francis called for interfaith dialogue to help end fundamentalism and terrorism during his first visit to Turkey. And only with considerable distaste is it possible to bring to mind Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran in 1999 at the Vatican. No doubt this was observed with satisfaction by his Muslim visitors.

European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech by Soeren Kern

Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the European Union’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the EU itself.

Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours — as “Orwellian.”

“By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people… into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.'” — Douglas Murray.

In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation.

The European Union (EU), in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, has unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe.

Proponents of the initiative argue that in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, a crackdown on “hate speech” is necessary to counter jihadist propaganda online.

Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the EU’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours, and replaced with “counter-narratives” — as “Orwellian.”

The “code of conduct” was announced on May 31 in a statement by the European Commission, the unelected administrative arm of the European Union. A summary of the initiative follows:

“By signing this code of conduct, the IT companies commit to continuing their efforts to tackle illegal hate speech online. This will include the continued development of internal procedures and staff training to guarantee that they review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.

“The IT companies will also endeavor to strengthen their ongoing partnerships with civil society organisations who will help flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct. The IT companies and the European Commission also aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives [emphasis added], new ideas and initiatives, and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”

Excerpts of the “code of conduct” include:

“The IT Companies share the European Commission’s and EU Member States’ commitment to tackle illegal hate speech online. Illegal hate speech, as defined by the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law and national laws transposing it, means all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin….

Charles J. Cooper:Terry McAuliffe vs. the Rule of Law The governor defied Virginia’s constitution, and centuries of precedent, with the stroke of a pen.

Virginia’s Gov. Terry McAuliffe recently signed an executive order restoring, with the stroke of a pen, the right to vote for all 206,000 Virginia felons who have completed their terms of incarceration and supervised probation. This includes more than 40,000 felons convicted of violent crimes. The order also restores the rights to serve on a jury and to seek and hold public office, and it makes each of them eligible to ask a court to restore their right to own and carry firearms.

The sweeping order has no precedent in Virginia history, and last week Virginia’s Republican House Speaker William J. Howell and Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr. and four other state voters filed a challenge to its constitutionality. Their petition asks the Virginia Supreme Court to invalidate the governor’s order before votes are cast in November, lest the validity of the general election be cast into doubt. Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the state’s high court issued an order on June 1 calling a special session of the court to hear argument in the case on July 19.

The executive order defies the text of the Virginia Constitution. Article II flatly prohibits all felons from voting, but it grants the governor a narrow power to restore voting rights to deserving felons on an individual, case-by-case basis. Nothing in the constitution gives the governor power to restore political rights en masse to virtually all felons, no matter how heinous or numerous their crimes.

Gov. McAuliffe, a Democrat, has acknowledged that for 240 years none of the state’s 71 other governors exercised wholesale clemency power. In 2010 another Democratic governor, Tim Kaine, expressly declined to issue a blanket restoration order like Gov. McAuliffe’s, concluding that such an order would “rewrite” the law rather than follow it. Three years later, a bipartisan committee convened and headed by Virginia’s then-attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, advised Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell that a blanket order restoring voting rights would be unconstitutional.

Clinton’s Lawyer, Under Oath Hillary’s aide is so evasive that she can’t even clearly vouch for her own honesty. Kimberley Strassel

The news out of last week’s Cheryl Mills deposition was that the Clinton confidante didn’t say much about Hillary’s email server. Which only goes to show that Mrs. Clinton has a serious problem—and she knows it.

This is, after all, Cheryl Mills. For more than 20 years, she has served as the Clintons’ very own Winston Wolf ( Harvey Keitel in “Pulp Fiction”)—their fixer, their problem-solver. From impeachment right up through Benghazi and the server, Ms. Mills is the one constant in the behind-the-scenes obstruction. The less she talks, the more alarm bells ought to ring.
This was the measure to watch when Ms. Mills arrived last Friday to sit for an interview with attorneys for Judicial Watch, which has sued the State Department over missing federal records.

In early May the oversight group convinced a federal judge to order discovery into the creation and operation of Mrs. Clinton’s private server. Judicial Watch was granted permission to depose seven central figures, including Ms. Mills, who served as Hillary’s aide at the State Department and later as her private lawyer.

Mrs. Clinton claims she set up the home-brew server in an innocent act aimed at convenience, so it was notable that Ms. Mills marched into her deposition accompanied by no fewer than seven lawyers—three representing Ms. Mills herself, and two each from the Justice and State departments. Two of the government lawyers made clear that they were not only representing their departments but also guarding Ms. Mills in her capacity as a former federal employee. This is President Obama’s assist for Mrs. Clinton.

The lawyers earned their pay. The entire 270-page transcript of the deposition, which Judicial Watch released Tuesday, has an almost eye-glazing repetition about it.

A persistent Judicial Watch attorney attempts to ask Ms. Mills a straightforward question. Before she even finishes, Ms. Mills’s army of attorneys falls all over itself to object, to insist that the query is outside the “scope” of the inquiry or too vague, and to instruct the witness not to answer.

France Convenes International Meeting on Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process Goal is to settle on steps to prepare for a peace conference near the end of this year, French officials say.By Matthew Dalton and Felicia Schwartz

PARIS—World powers gathered in Paris on Friday to kick off a French initiative to push the Israelis and Palestinians to restart peace talks, after a monthslong surge of violence that has left Western officials fearing the two sides are heading toward another full-scale conflict.

Amid severely strained relations between the two sides, the French have set a modest goal for the diplomats from 26 nations, including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who are attending the meeting: an agreement to hold a peace conference near the end of the year, with the Israelis and Palestinians present.

French officials are hoping diplomats can approve steps to prepare for the conference but acknowledge that any substantive peace negotiations are far off.

“We can’t substitute ourselves for the concerned parties,” French President François Hollande said at the start of the meeting. “We can only give guarantees that the peace will be solid, durable and internationally controlled.”

Some 30 Israeli civilians and soldiers have been killed in more than 300 Palestinian attacks since September. Palestinian officials say more than 200 Palestinians, mostly alleged attackers, have been killed by Israeli security forces during the same period.

The violence has subsided in the past two months, with Palestinians carrying out fewer than a dozen attacks or attempted attacks since April, compared with almost daily assaults until then. Tensions still linger, however.

Given the bleak mood, officials question whether either side can be persuaded to return to the negotiating table.

“We know the path is difficult,” a French official said.

The nations represented at the conference include Egypt, China, Russia, Germany, the U.K. and Saudi Arabia. The meeting was originally scheduled for May 30 but pushed back to June 3 so Mr. Kerry could attend. CONTINUE AT SITE