Displaying posts published in

November 2016

Former Soviet Dissident Faces Felony Charges for Posters Targeting SJP at George Mason U. Anti-terror posters were torn down while Hamas-promoting SJP National Conference was held on campus. Sara Dogan

As students filed back to campus this Fall, the anti-Israel hatefests began. At the University of Michigan on Rosh Hashanah, Jewish students heading to services encountered a mock “apartheid wall” plastered with anti-Israel propaganda and a protestor garbed as an IDF soldier harassing passing students. On the wall was written “CTRL + ALT + DELETE,” the combination of commands needed to restart a PC, implying that Israel should be destroyed and the land should be regenerated as Palestine. At Portland State University, the student senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution supporting a genocidal and Hamas-inspired Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) resolution against Israeli companies. The resolution stated that “the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land has been entrenched since 1948.” At CSU Long Beach, a flier for a Jewish Studies course on Israel’s history and culture was defaced with the message “not a valid course. Israel is occupied territory.” The words “modern State of Israel” were also crossed out and overwritten with “occupation of Palestine.”

The common thread in all these incidents is the Hamas-funded, anti-Israel hate group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) which held its annual conference November 4-6 at George Mason University, a public campus in Fairfax, Virginia. In spite of the barrage of evidence—including recent congressional testimony—that SJP is a campus front for Hamas and an instigator of Jew hatred, George Mason opened its doors to the group, providing resources and facilities to the terrorist-supporting campus organization.

SJP purports to be a standard campus cultural group, but in reality it is a pro-terror organization which receives funding and educational support from anti-Israel Hamas terrorists for the purposes of destroying Israel and committing genocide against its Jewish population as is dictated by the Hamas charter.

As described in the Freedom Center’s recent pamphlet, Students for Justice in Palestine: A Campus Front for Hamas Terrorists, SJP’s pro-terror campaign is guided and funded through a Hamas front called American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), whose principals are former officers of the Holy Land Foundation and other Islamic “charities” which were previously convicted of funneling money to Hamas. AMP was created by Hatem Bazian, a pro-Hamas professor at UC Berkeley who is also the co-founder of SJP. AMP provides funding and leadership to SJP chapters across the nation, enabling them to promote the Hamas agenda.

European Union Orders British Press NOT to Report when Terrorists are Muslims by Yves Mamou

This is the moment where hate speech laws become a greater threat to democracy and freedom of speech than hate speech itself.

In France, Muslim terrorists are never Muslim terrorists, but “lunatics,” “maniacs” and “youths”.

To attack freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not anti-hate speech; it is submission.

By following these recommendations, the British government would place Muslim organizations in a kind of monopoly position: they would become the only source of information about themselves. It is the perfect totalitarian information order.

Created to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one’s race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.

It is disturbing to wonder how long the EU will strongly engage its experts and influence to cut through existing legal obstacles, in a quest to criminalize any type of criticism of Islam, and to submit to the values of jihad.

According the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) — part of the Council of Europe — the British press is to blame for increasing hate speech and racist violence. On October 4, 2016, the ECRI released a report dedicated only to Britain. The report said:

some traditional media, particularly tabloids… are responsible for most of the offensive, discriminatory and provocative terminology. The Sun, for instance, published an article in April 2015 entitled “Rescue boats? I’d use gunships to stop migrants”, in which the columnist likened migrants to “cockroaches”…

Christopher Akehurst Master Trump and the Masochistic Left

Having been whipped and humiliated on Election Day, those protesters now clogging streets in the US are consoling themselves as leftists always do when things don’t go their way at the ballot box: a perverse delight in flaunting the welts of their imagined victimhood.
P. G. Wodehouse, in Right Ho, Jeeves (1934), has his eponymous manservant tell a story that bears on the election of Donald Trump.

In my own family … it was a generally accepted axiom that in times of domestic disagreement it was necessary only to invite my Aunt Annie for a visit to heal all breaches between the other members of the household. In the mutual animosity excited by Aunt Annie, those who had become estranged were reconciled almost immediately.

Donald Trump is Aunt Annie.

He has succeeded in bringing together the Left and a large chunk of the Right, united in deploring his election. He has catapulted Democrats and half of his own party into dithyrambs of grief and shared detestation of his person and his politics. They’re still in shock that this coarse and lascivious upstart, this xenophobic warmonger who will never be a statesman, could get his finger on the button.

This alliance is temporary, as no doubt was the reconciliation in Jeeves’s family when Aunt Annie went home. It’s already begun to fray and tatter. Once Trump is installed in the White House and we start getting used to him it will be forgotten. The Right will get over its distaste for Trump and regroup behind him, especially if he begins to implement policies it likes, gets on with “draining the swamp”, doesn’t send us all to Kingdom Come and – perhaps? – sees Hillary sent up the river. The Left will become increasingly bitter, violent and uncooperative.

Trump is a gift to the Left. The whole sad world of print and online whingers, with splenetic tweets their substitute for a fulfilling existence, will have a single individual on whom to focus their perpetual dissatisfaction with everything. Those wells of choleric rage that never run dry have a new focus. Feminism, gender politics, climate change – anything lefties don’t get their way on in the next four years can be laid at the door of this, as they see him, vulgar usurper of Hillary’s right to succession.

Intellectual snobbery looms large in the contempt the leftist Establishment feels for Trump voters. They “should be subjected to an IQ test,” sneered ABC presenter Virginia Trioli, although with the competence we associate with the national broadcaster she didn’t know the microphone was still on when she gave us this glimpse of supposedly nonexistent ABC bias. (A word of advice, Virginia: apart from checking the mike always be careful of calling other people unintelligent: there are plenty brighter than you who don’t think you’re a giant brain either. And when it comes to IQs, what about all those ingenuous suckers who drive around with “An independent media? It’s as easy as ABC” stickers on their ancient Volvos?)

Trump might turn out to be a Reagan, in which case the Right and the middle will soon be all for him. The office will shape the man and Trump will adjust his style. But the manic Left will go on loathing him with hysterical intensity. Lachrymose Fairfax columnist Wendy Squires set the tone within seconds of his victory. “I am woman,” she wrote redundantly under her byline, “hear me sob” (why do feminists always fall back on old-fashioned female tears when they don’t get their own way?). Wendy was distraught that Americans had elected a “narcissist, megalomaniac oaf” (one of her kinder descriptions) instead of the female president “the world was ready for”. People like her seem to think an election should be an exercise in affirmative action, though you never hear them rejoicing in the achievements of Mrs May, who, not being of the Left, presumably doesn’t count as a woman.

Wendy’s distress is as nothing compared with the groans and weeping that have been echoing for a week around the quangoes and cocktail circuits frequented by Americans of the kind Virginia would consider don’t need IQ tests. Campus safe spaces are so wet with Generation Snowflake’s tears they’ve probably run out of mops and buckets. Democratic Party HQ must look as though the sprinklers have gone off.

White House: Kerry’s ‘Dogged’ Diplomatic Efforts on Syria Have ‘Not Worked’ By Bridget Johnson

Still, Josh Earnest concluded, a diplomatic solution “is our only path.”

The White House admitted today that Secretary of State John Kerry’s effort “working doggedly even in the face of some very difficult challenges to try to bring the parties together to resolve that violence” in Syria has “not worked.”

Russia unleashed a blitz on the besieged city of Aleppo this week, while not striking ISIS-controlled areas of Syria.

On MSNBC this morning, White House press secretary Josh Earnest was asked about Russia bombing a children’s hospital in Aleppo. Doctors told an NBC reporter that President Obama has done nothing to help them.

“What is true is that the tactics that had been used by the Assad regime and also have used by the Russians are disgraceful,” Earnest replied. “They are frankly targeting innocent civilians trying to bomb them into submission including by targeting hospitals and playgrounds and other locations that are frequented by innocent civilians including women and children. And it is an outrage.”

“And the moral outrage of the international community has been expressed loudly in opposition to this. The question really is what can the international community do, led by the United States, to try to bring that violence down? And try to make sure that innocent people are not caught in the crossfire?”

An Open Letter to Donald Trump By David Solway

Dear President-Elect Trump,

You have gone on record expressing a presumably laudable desire to “bind the wounds of division” between your supporters and opponents—anti-Trumpers and pro-Trumpers, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, left and right—that have torn the nation apart during and after your electoral campaign. Perhaps this is the kind of political rhetoric deemed necessary in the wake of a hotly contested election in which violent passions have been unleashed. Or perhaps you truly believe that a therapeutic healing of psychic lesions is now called for and is somehow feasible.

In the event that the latter is the case, I suggest this would be a serious mistake on your part. Not every question has an answer and not every problem a solution. That is simply the nature of life or, as some would have it, the condition of fallen man. It is certainly true of the political world and, in particular, of the competing theories of what constitutes the ideal or best possible political state. In modern times in the Western world, the conflict has been between a collectivist, command-economy philosophy held by a managerial elite, whether Marxist, Socialist or Progressivist, and a democratic, free-market dispensation predicated on the franchise and a government responsible to its citizens.

It is fought on both a domestic and international scale, and is a war that will never be resolved. It will continue indefinitely, despite the demonstrably historical fact that the collectivist faction has failed wherever it has imposed its hegemony, creating only misery, destitution and virtual enslavement for the majority over whom it rules. Nevertheless, failure after failure, it will always be with us, for it is a function of the utopian quest inherent in the human soul that inevitably leads to a dystopian finale. Nemesis invariably follows hubris, but hubris is perennial.

Thus I believe it is either naïve or disingenuous—one way or another, an egregious error—to assume that the political fissure between collectivism and individuality, Socialism and classical liberalism, fantasy and reality, can ever be closed. As I wrote elsewhere, “the rift between a part of the nation committed to the values of work, family, and creative expenditure and a part of the nation mired in ignorance, pride, and destructive sentimentality—in effect, between heartland and coast, rural and urban, conservative and left-liberal—is permanent. The attempt to heal the chasm, however laudable, is doomed to fail.”

My sense of realpolitik tells me that, although the “healing” rhetoric may have a prudential value, it remains an intrinsic misconception. By definition, one cannot pacify an implacable foe, and one should not fall into the deceptively alluring trap of believing that social, cultural and political harmony can ultimately prevail on any imaginable level. Your enemies on the left—the media, the academy, the brainwashed student cohort, the entertainment industry, the Democratic Party—and your enemies on the right—the Republican aristocracy, the Muslim sector, the fringe fascists—will not go away. They will work against you indefatigably regardless of your best intentions. CONTINUE AT SITE

More useless advice from Obama to Trump By J. Marsolo

On Thursday, Obama at a press conference in Germany with German chancellor Angela Merkel again offered useless unsolicited advice to Trump.

Obama spent the last few months ignoring his job as president while campaigning every day for Hillary to win his third term. Now that the voters elected Trump and rejected him, Obama is touring Greece, Germany, Italy, and Peru. While in Greece, he attacked Americans who voted for Trump by labeling them as voting for the “dark side” of populism.

Thursday, Obama said:

He ran an extraordinarily unconventional campaign and it resulted in the biggest political upset in perhaps modern political history[.] … What I said to him was that what may work in generating enthusiasm or passion during elections may be different than what will work in terms of unifying the country and gaining the trust even of those who didn’t support him.

Obama, with his outsized ego, is lecturing Trump on how to act as president. He is lecturing that Trump must unify the country and gain the trust of those who did not support Trump. Obama ignored the separation of powers to bypass Congress by issuing executive orders and agency regulations. He bragged that he had a pen and a phone to issue executive orders. Think of the DREAM Act to defer deportation of illegal aliens brought here as children, passing Obamacare with only Democratic votes on a parliamentary trick by Harry Reid to avoid the filibuster, calling the Iran deal an agreement instead of a treaty to avoid the two-thirds vote in the Senate, and amending Obamacare with waivers and executive orders and agency regulations.

Obama did his best to divide Americans by race and income. He did not attempt to gain the trust of Republicans; he attacked, mocked and ignored them.

He told Republicans that he won, so Republicans need to get in the back of the bus.

He told Senator McCain during the Obamacare debate that he won, the election was over, and that was that.

Obama attacked Trump as a racist endorsed by the KKK and unfit for the presidency. Now Obama is desperate to salvage his legacy, so he attempts to act as a wise and experienced statesman.

Trump is showing class by ignoring Obama. Let him talk – nobody now cares what he says.

Trump ran an “unconventional” campaign because he fought back against the lies of the Hillary campaign and its cheerleaders in the MSM and challenged the debate moderators. He worked much harder than Hillary in the battleground states by making more appearances and rallies than Hillary. He took his message directly to the voters with “yuuuge” rallies and social media.

Trump is in New York at Trump Tower, taking calls from Putin and Netanyahu and meeting with the Japanese prime minister. Trump is meeting with his rivals, such as Cruz and Romney, acting presidential. Meanwhile, Obama is doing a useless overseas trip, craving attention to remain relevant, and alternating between criticizing Trump voters and offering advice to Trump.

Bannon Critics Okay with Sharpton, Ellison By Daniel John Sobieski

The mainstream media, having failed to derail or even anticipate Donald Trump’s victory, have now seized on discrediting one of the architects of his victory, calling Navy veteran, entrepreneur, and Breitbart publisher Steve Bannon a “white nationalist”. They cite as evidence some Breitbart headlines designed to provoke and attract readers as being beyond the pale. Compared to what? The New York Times, perhaps?

Publishers don’t necessarily control every jot and tittle of content in their publications, but if one concedes the point of Bannon’s critics, those who have problems with Bannon advising Trump had no problem with race-baiter Al Sharpton serving as adviser to President Obama on, of all things, race relations: As Politico magazine reported:

A few days after 18-year-old Mike Brown was gunned down in Ferguson, Missouri, White House officials enlisted an unusual source for on-the-ground intelligence amid the chaos and tear gas: the Rev. Al Sharpton, a fiery activist who became a household name by provoking rather than pacifying….

In Ferguson, Sharpton established himself as a de facto contact and conduit for a jittery White House seeking to negotiate a middle ground between meddling and disengagement. “There’s a trust factor with The Rev from the Oval Office on down,” a White House official familiar with their dealings told me. “He gets it, and he’s got credibility in the community that nobody else has got. There’s really no one else out there who does what he does.”

Let us be grateful for that. If one wanted to send a sane message about justice and peace, Al Sharpton is arguably the worst person to call. He is an instigator, not a peacemaker, someone who rose out of obscurity by propagating the false Tawana Brawley rape case in which New York city cops were accused of raping a black teenager. As Investor’s Business Daily noted, Tawana Brawley paid for her part in that big lie. Al Sharpton never has.

Sharpton embraced the “hands up, don’t shoot” mantra meant to indict racist cops and police departments after the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri after he committed a strongarm robbery on his way to assaulting Officer Darren Wilson. Blessed are the peacemakers, but Al Sharpton is not one of them.

The Sharptons of the world don’t want to solve the real problems of the black community, preferring to exploit back unrest with clueless race-baiting such as when Sharpton and his National Action Network organized the “Justice for All” March in Washington, D.C. last December:

“You thought you’d sweep it under the rug. You thought there’d be no limelight,” he said. “We are going to keep the light on Michael Brown, on Eric Garner, on Tamir Rice, on all of these victims because the only way — I’m sorry, I come out of the ‘hood — the only way you make roaches run, you got to cut the light on.”

As IBD notes, Al Sharpton has made career of anti-Semitic and racial agitation:

Sharpton has made a career of racial incitement. He once called Jews “diamond merchants” and described whites moving businesses into Harlem as “interlopers.”

Trump Adviser Michael Flynn Plans to Sever Consulting Firm Ties if Tapped for Administration Move comes as Flynn Intel Group scrutinized for relationship with Turkish businessman By Paul Sonne and Brody Mullins

WASHINGTON—Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, a top national-security adviser to President-elect Donald Trump, said Thursday he would sever his relationship with his consulting firm if he is tapped to serve in the administration, amid scrutiny of his company’s relationship with a Turkish businessman.

Trump has offered the job of national security adviser to Gen. Flynn, people familiar with the process said later Thursday.

In a statement released to The Wall Street Journal earlier in the day, Gen. Flynn said: “If I return to government service, my relationship with my company will be severed in accordance with the policy announced by President-elect Trump.”

The announcement comes as Gen. Flynn faces questions about a lobbying registration his company filed to represent a firm founded by Ekim Alptekin. The Turkish businessman says he hired Flynn Intel Group Inc. to help pursue the interests of his client, a non-Turkish energy company considering exports to Turkey.

Gen. Flynn’s statement also reflects what some of Mr. Trump’s senior advisers are facing as they seek to staff the White House while abiding by various rules and campaign promises regarding conflicts of interest and lobbying businesses.

Mr. Trump announced this week that he wouldn’t allow registered lobbyists to work for his transition team. He also said he wants to get influence-peddling out of his administration.

The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Gen. Flynn is a vice chairman of the executive committee of Mr. Trump’s transition team. CONTINUE AT SITE

Donald Trump Offers Michael Flynn Role as National Security Adviser Gen. Flynn previously served as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and has advised Trump on national security issues By Paul Sonne and Michael C. Bender

http://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-flynn-offered-role-as-donald-trumps-national-security-adviser-1479442042

President-elect Donald Trump has offered the job of national security adviser to retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, people familiar with the process said Thursday, a move that would elevate a longtime top intelligence officer who became known for criticizing the country’s counter-terrorism policies from inside the military.

If he accepts Mr. Trump’s offer, Gen. Flynn will become the third person named to the president-elect’s administration, alongside Steve Bannon, selected earlier this week as chief strategist, and Reince Priebus, named chief of staff.
All three are White House appointments that don’t require Senate confirmation. As national security adviser, Gen. Flynn would counsel the president while also overseeing a White House staff of specialists who help formulate policies that are instituted across U.S. security and foreign policy agencies. Though he had been floated as a possible secretary of defense, Gen. Flynn would have required a waiver from Congress to serve in that post, because he hasn’t been out of uniform for seven years. ​

Still Bowing Down Before Mao The Communist Party has officially claimed that the brutal dictator, who brought calamity upon China, was right 70% of the time. By Benjamin Shull

Last year, China Central Television’s Bi Fujian was booted from the state broadcaster after a viral cellphone video caught him mocking Mao Zedong. The star anchor was promptly “condemned by critics online as a traitor and renegade,” write the authors of a new study of Mao’s legacy in modern China. Of course, the punishment for perceived slights against Mao was more draconian in the recent past—in 1989, three would-be protesters received 16 years, 20 years and life imprisonment, respectively, for throwing eggs at Mao’s portrait in Tiananmen Square. But China’s Communist leadership continues to punish any perceived “disrespect” directed toward the Chairman.

To us in the West it seems to defy logic that Mao could attract admiration at all today. The Great Helmsman was a brutal dictator who brought widespread persecution and economic calamity upon China. His nearly 30 years in power were disastrous, culminating in the mass starvation caused by the forced collectivization of the Great Leap Forward and in the deep-seated psychological trauma wrought by the Cultural Revolution, when ideological discipline was policed by the terror squads of the Red Guard.

China and the New Maoists

By Kerry Brown and Simone van Nieuwenhuizen
Zed, 190 pages, $20.95

In “China and the New Maoists,” Kerry Brown, a scholar at Chatham House in London, and Simone van Nieuwenhuizen, of the University of Sydney, don’t mince words. “As an economist, Mao was wholly ineffective,” they write, “sponsoring ludicrous programmes that chased after ideals like complete central state control of the economy and comprehensive plans that resulted in colossal inefficiency, the breakdown of the supplies of the most basic food and commodities, and entrenched poverty.” Even so, the authors observe, Mao has not lost his iconic status in China. The result is a kind of double-think in which past crimes are glossed over for the sake of national continuity. Since Mao’s death, they note, the Communist Party of China has officially claimed that Mao was right “70% of the time” and wrong “30% of the time.”

President Xi Jinping embodies the ambivalence of Mao’s legacy in China. In a 2013 speech titled “Carry on the Enduring Spirit of Mao Zedong Thought,” he exalted Mao’s political vision of a uniquely Chinese brand of socialism. But Mr. Xi’s attitude has not always seemed so forthright. His reformist father had been a fierce rival of party stalwart Deng Liqun, who forcefully pushed the notion that Mao, in the author’s words, had “created intellectual unity, a common framework and a grammar of politics, economics and geopolitics that suited the specific Chinese situation.” (It was even considered a surprise when Mr. Xi attended Deng’s funeral last year.) Mr. Xi’s father, like countless other Communist officials under Mao, was purged during the Cultural Revolution. But Mr. Xi has gradually centralized decision-making powers in his own hands in a way reminiscent of the Chairman himself.

Deng’s body of thought was formed in the wake of Mao’s own death. In the same way, the group of devotees who the authors characterize as “new Maoists” came of age after Tiananmen. They present Mao as a systematic thinker who unified the country in spite of the catastrophic mistakes he made. While “sacralization of Maoism reached its peak during the Cultural Revolution,” the authors write, supporters continue to exist in large numbers: “There were, and still are, firm believers from the highest political echelons right down to the grassroots level” doing battle with those more willing to repudiate Mao’s worst tendencies. A key for these followers is distinguishing Mao Zedong from Mao Zedong Thought—a distinction between “the man himself, at whose hands their nearest and dearest suffered,” and “the man as a source of a body of ideas, tactical wisdom and nationalist messages.” CONTINUE AT SITE