Displaying posts published in

2016

Dangerous ‘Safe Spaces’ on College Campuses are Un-American by Michael Cutler

America and its citizens are under attack from outside forces – from terror and criminal organizations seeking to enter the country, wreak havoc and ply their violent and criminal “trades” – and from forces within the United States.

Examples of forces from within are globalists, including organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and, in fact, all who advocate for open borders and other dangerous and wrong-headed goals, including massive legalization programs for unknown millions of illegal aliens.

In the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, I have testified before numerous Congressional hearings and appeared on various television and radio news programs and college campuses to discuss and debate issues relating to the nexus between immigration and national security. Included in what I share is how immigration system failures have enabled criminals to enter the U.S., along with massive – indeed, unprecedented – numbers of foreign workers to displace hardworking American workers.

Within the past several years, however, many television networks no longer provide the opportunities for open and honest discussions about immigration. Increasing numbers of television networks have developed and grown their multilingual subsidiary programming that has proven to provide huge revenue streams. Broadcast networks are focused on profits which are determined by the size of the audience that their programming reaches. Network executives are eager to do whatever they need to do to grow their audience – even if their audience is comprised of illegal aliens.

The Israel That Arabs Don’t Know by Ramy Aziz

When the Israeli Ministry of Exterior invited me to visit Israel as part of a delegation of European-based Arab journalists and media representatives, I accepted without hesitation. The goal of the invitation was to provide us with an opportunity to freely explore the different dimensions to life inside the state of Israel. Located in the heart of the Middle East and one of the region’s central and enduring conflicts, Israel receives a large amount of attention from neighboring peoples curious about the state itself and its management. Although major developments in international communication and accessibility of knowledge have transformed the world into a connected community that now sometimes resembles a small village, Arab media coverage of Israel continues to be characterized by a lack of clarity and misrepresentation, making it difficult for Arab citizens to truly understand the country. The persistent and recurring problems in the West Bank and Gaza are of major concern to many Arabs, but media sources often conflate the State’s controversial foreign policy with life inside the the country itself and produce dystopian visions of life inside its borders.

While not an article or analysis, the following is an honest testimony of what I saw during my visit, without influence by any person or institution. I hope to present an alternative perspective from other Arab media outlets that I have found to exaggerate and mischaracterize the realities of Israeli life.

On my flight from Rome to Tel Aviv on Israel’s El Al airlines, I thought about what awaited me and what I would see. Although I had an idea of what Israel was like and friends who have told me of their experiences working there, memories of the accumulated assumptions about the place that I had gained throughout my childhood in Egypt presented a conflicting counter narrative. I wondered which was the truth: what I now knew, or what had been instilled in us Egyptians as children. Do the “Jews” in Israel actually hate Arabs? If they found out I was Egyptian, would treat me poorly? Would I be verbally or physically abused if Israelis heard me speaking Arabic?

Halting my train of thought, a man sitting next to me with his wife asked me something in Hebrew. In English, I explained that I didn’t understand the language. The man then apologized and asked in English, “Where are you from?” When I answered that I was from Egypt, he and his wife smiled genuinely and welcomingly. These were not the fake smiles our schools, society, television, and film had attributed to Israelis and Jews.

When I arrived in Israel’s financial capital, Tel Aviv, the airport’s clean atmosphere and facilities left me wondering whether I had left Europe. Its modernity left little doubt that I had entered a developed country.

Backgrounder: The BDS Movement

On May 31, Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes joined an estimated 2,000 diplomats, public officials, journalists, and other opinion makers from around the world at a special conference on the delegitimization of the State of Israel at the United Nations headquarters in New York.

The unprecedented nature and size of the conference, entitled “Building Bridges, Not Boycotts,” befits the scope of this growing problem. Founded nearly 11 years ago, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) seeks to lobby governments, companies, universities, artists, and others to sever ties with Israel. Supporters say that Israel alone should be singled out among the nations of the world for its alleged human rights abuses and violations of international law.

Opponents say BDS has nothing to do with actual Israeli transgressions and is “not about helping the Palestinians or bringing peace,” as Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Danny Danon remarked in his address to the conference. Its “only goal is to bring an end to the Jewish state … BDS is the true face of modern anti-Semitism.” As MEF fellows Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky explain, the BDS movement in the West is propelled by “an unholy alliance of far-left organizations and Muslim Brotherhood-backed Islamists,” centered primarily in universities and unions.

According to a new poll, a third of Americans now think boycotting Israel is ‘justified.’

Palestinian Ambassador Riyad Mansour boasted that conference is an “admission” that Israel is “losing ground at American universities and colleges to BDS,” and he’s right. In fact, the BDS movement has continued to make advances on U.S. campuses, winning 12 of 26 BDS referendums last year, as well as a Middle East Studies Association (MESA) resolution lauding “calls for [anti-Israel] institutional boycott, divestment, and/or sanctions” as “legitimate forms of non-violent political action.”

Qaddafi’s Foresight By Rachel Ehrenfeld

Tents of African migrants that are popping up under bridges in Paris look nothing like Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s tent (pic on the right) that was pitched in the garden of Hôtel de Marigny, the government’s official guest house, opposite the Elysée Palace in December 2007. But Gaddafi’s tent was the foretaste to today’s African illegal immigrants’ makeshift camps littering the French Capital. Their spread forced the Mayor Anne Hidalgo, to announce the creation of the city’s first refugee camp.

In 2010, Qaddafi warned the Europeans of the growing threat of African illegal immigration. On August 30, 2010, as he ended his visit to Italy, the Libyan leader packed his tent and demanded that the European Union pays Libya €5 billion a year “to ensure its co-operation in preventing illegal immigration from Africa.”

Gaddafi warned: “Europe runs the risk of turning black from illegal immigration; it could turn into Africa. There is a dangerous level of immigration from Africa into Europe, and we don’t know what will happen. What will be the reaction of the white Christian Europeans to this mass of hungry, uneducated Africans? We don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and cohesive continent or if it will be destroyed by this barbarian invasion.”

Qaddafi urged the Europeans to “imagine that this could happen, but before it does we need to work together.” But the Europeans, despite the already increase number of African refugees, accused Qaddafi of blackmail. And when Libyan Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated rebels joined the “Arab Spring”, European and American forces intervened militarily in March 2011 to remove Qaddafi.

The Torricelli Solution to the Coming Clinton Implosion Will Joe Biden be the Democrats’ next Frank Lautenberg? By Andrew C. McCarthy

Last week’s shattering report by the State Department’s inspector general drew the conclusion that several of us at National Review have been urging for over a year: Hillary Clinton’s systematic conduct of government business over a homebrew e-mail system resulted in serious violations of federal law.

Mrs. Clinton’s withheld tens of thousands of government records (the e-mails) for nearly two years after she departed the State Department. She failed to return all government-related e-mails upon demand. She destroyed (or at least attempted to destroy) tens of thousands of e-mails without consultation with the State Department. And she did it all malevolently: for the manifest purpose of shielding her communications from the statutory file-keeping and disclosure requirements.

The inspector general euphemistically couches these violations as transgressions against “policies” and “procedures.” Yet his report also acknowledges that these policies and procedures were expressly made pursuant to, and are expressly designed to enforce compliance with, federal law. The State Department still strains to avoid stating the obvious: Mrs. Clinton is a law-breaker.

In an excellent column following release of the inspector general’s report, National Review’s John Fund envisioned the increasingly plausible implosion of Clinton’s candidacy — i.e., a scenario in which Democrats dump her owing to her metastasizing legal woes, coupled with her extraordinarily high negatives (general disapproval, untrustworthiness, unlikability, etc.). The latter are set in stone after a quarter-century’s antics.

Relatedly, on Twitter, I floated the possibility that Democrats could resort to the “Torricelli Solution.”

In October 2002, seeking reelection while beset by an indefensible corruption investigation, Senator Robert Torricelli was badly trailing his Republican rival, Doug Forrester, as the race came down to the wire — no small thing in the blue Garden State. At the eleventh hour (actually, more like after the twelfth hour), Democrats persuaded “the Torch” to step aside. Into his place they slid 78-year-old Frank Lautenberg, a reliably partisan former senator.

The Liberal Hypocrites Fighting the Koch Brothers on Campus They say they want to end the billionaire brothers’ pernicious influence on higher education, but they really just want to banish opposing viewpoints from their orbit. By Ian Tuttle

The success of America’s institutions of higher learning is thanks in no small part to the largesse of America’s most generous citizens — persons with names such as Rockefeller and Carnegie. That tradition continues today. But one of the names has left-wing groups in a fit.

According to UnKoch My Campus (UKMC), a group of “students and activists” dedicated to exposing “the Kochs and their vast network of front groups,” the brothers have donated to more than 300 colleges since 2005. Kelly Riddell of the Washington Times estimated the total amount at $68 million as of 2013. UKMC alleges that these donations are intended “to undermine the issues many students today care about: environmental protection, worker’s rights, healthcare expansion, and quality public education, to name just a few.”

Supposedly in the interest of “accountability,” UKMC has been using open-records laws to intimidate professors and administrators involved in any academic work associated with Koch donations.

Last year, Ross Emmett, co-director of Michigan State University’s Center for Innovation & Economic Prosperity, who used Koch money to found a seminar — the Koch Scholars — that studies political economists such as F. A. Hayek and Karl Marx, was forced to release documents to student activists. In 2014, the head of the University of Kansas’s Students for a Sustainable Future filed a state records request demanding a decade’s worth of private correspondence from Professor Art Hall, director of the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas School of Business. Hall, who had received a seed grant from the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation and testified against green-energy quotas before the state legislature, sued, alleging a “fishing expedition.” A year later, he reached a settlement with the university.

Trump’s Intellectuals They’re out there–beyond the Beltway.

Inside the Beltway and along the Washington-to-Boston corridor, #NeverTrump has won the hearts and minds of conservative intellectuals and the high-toned media. The dissenters—yes, there are some—make a lot less noise.

But move away from the East Coast and it’s a different story. Out there, the conservative intelligentsia isn’t aligned against Donald Trump—quite the contrary. Roger L. Simon, the screenwriter, novelist, and former CEO of PJ Media, predicted last August that Trump would win the presidency. Nine months later, in May, he wrote that “it still holds true.”

“Like others, I want things to change .  .  . and Donald seems like the man with the courage and will to do it,” Simon writes. “He’s unafraid. He’s upbeat. He’s funny. He despises political correctness (as anybody with a brain does). .  .  . I can think of no greater antidote to Obama than a Trump presidency.”

Simon is only the most enthusiastic of the conservative highbrows not mired in the East who have grappled with the Trump phenomenon. Their views cover a wide range: from mere opposition to #NeverTrump to mildly pro-Trump to recognition of Trump’s strengths to disclosing they intend to vote for him.

Dennis Prager, the L.A.-based syndicated talk radio host and columnist, said when the presidential debates started “that if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, I will vote for him over Hillary Clinton, or any Democrat for that matter.” Last week, he took on #NeverTrump conservatives.

He disputed their “conscience” argument. “I don’t find it compelling because it means that your conscience is clear after making it possible for Clinton or any other Democrat to win,” he writes. “But if you wish to vanquish the bad, it’s not possible—at least not on this side of the afterlife—to remain pure.”

The most sweeping and impressive appraisal of Trump appears in the spring issue of the Claremont Review of Books, written by its editor Charles Kesler, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate University. Kesler, too, disses the #NeverTrump movement. “Conservatives care too much about the party and the country to wash our hands of this election,” he writes. “A third party bid would be quixotic.”

Fred Upton Should Not Cave on Mental-Illness Bill The two federal agencies focused on mental illness should be headed by medical doctors. By D. J. Jaffe

When it returns in June, house leadership has indicated it may take up a mental-health bill originally proposed by Representative Tim Murphy (R., Penn.), the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (H.R. 2646) as rewritten by Representative Fred Upton (R., Michigan). The well-intentioned Upton rewrite keeps some important provisions of the original bill, but it ignores the core finding of Murphy’s multi-year investigation of the mental-health system. Murphy found that we do not need to spend more money to cut the practice of incarcerating 365,000 seriously mentally ill, or to help the 140,000 seriously mentally ill who today go homeless. What’s required is for Congress to focus already-existing funding streams on treating adults known to have serious mental illness instead of using them to improve mental wellness in all others. It is the most seriously ill — not the worried well — who are most likely to become homeless or incarcerated or violent.

While some think more money is the only answer, the federal government already spends $130 billion annually on mental-health services, yet homelessness, arrest, incarceration, and violence related to untreated serious mental illness are all rising. That’s because the two agencies government charged with setting mental health policy — the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA) and the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS)­­ — moved away from a science-based system that spent mental-health dollars on delivering treatment to adults who were the most seriously mentally ill and who most needed treatment. Tragically, the system today largely ignores science and the seriously ill. Instead it works to improve the “sense of wellness” in the highest functioning. Under this new rubric, anything that makes you feel sad is now a mental illness.

National Review, the Wall Street Journal, and leading experts such as Dr. Sally Satel at the American Enterprise Institute, Dr. E. Fuller Torrey of the Treatment Advocacy Center, as well as my own organization Mental Illness Policy Org have extensively documented how SAMHSA and CMHS drive federal dollars away from the core mission of helping the most seriously ill. SAMHSA promotes prevention in spite of the fact that there is no known way to prevent serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression. “Preventing mental illness” is a great sound bite but lousy science. They use funds to address “trauma.” But everyone loses a parent and many people experience a trauma at some point. That is not a mental illness. It is part of life. Because SAMHSA and CMHS have no doctors at the top — or even on staff — they certify ineffective programs as being evidence-based. Virtually the only people who support SAMHSA or CMHS are those who receive SAMHSA and CMHS funds. That is not who Upton should listen to.

FROM AUSTRALIA…WITH HATE

And as we see, the Israel-haters from the “Australia Palestine Advocacy Network”are on the campaign trail:AIJAC, meanwhile, has posed thirteen questions a-piece to current prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and his main rival, ALP leader Bill Shorten, regarding their respective policies regarding Israel.

As will be seen by clicking this link, both parties are broadly similar on most issues. There is nothing that can be considered over-the-top hostile or alarming from either of them. Nevertheless, there seems to be little doubt that the ALP is worse from a Jewish communal perspective, especially if we read between the lines.

For unlike the Coalition the ALP is increasingly dependent on the Muslim vote, especially in western Sydney and in north Melbourne. It also is dependent on the Greens, who are openly hostile to Israel. The ALP also has various left-wing anti-Israel activists.

Reading the answers to the questions, there are several areas of concern:

– Counter-terrorism”: The ALP emphasises “early intervention and community engagement” and quotes that “we can’t arrest our way to success”. These are cop-outs, and suggest that terrorists won’t be monitored and stopped as effectively under an ALP government as under the Coalition.

-Schools: There is little between the two parties, but the ALP purely needs-based policy should be looked at closely for its possible impact on Jewish day school funding.

– The ABC (Australia’s equivalent of the BBC): The Coalition hasn’t been great, not with Turnbull as Communications Minister, but it seems clear that an ALP government would adopt a hands-off policy towards the ABC, even if (as it is) it is blatantly controlled by the Left and is hostile to Israel.

– 18C: This legislation can be used, and has been used, by leftists to silence conservative columnist Andrew Bolt and others, and should be repealed or modified. It is an open invitation, under an ALP government, to silence anti-Muslim blogs. It should have been repealed by Tony Abbott, who chickened out, but at least it is not being used as a left-wing weapon.

– UN Votes: An ALP government would obviously be more critical of Israel at the UN than a Coalition government.

So, leaving aside other policy issues, it seems clear that the ALP is at least marginally worse across the board.

Meanwhile, from the BDSers in Adelaide, who are a persistent bunch indeed, a singularly amateurish piece of work kicks of a new campaign of theirs:

MAY 2016-THE MONTH THAT WAS BY SYDNEY WILLIAMS

From a personal perspective, “lusty” is not an adjective I would have used, but some things in May did go “blissfully astray,” and a few provoked smiles: The man in New York’s Times Square, with a sign “Free Hugs,” who punched a woman in the face for naively believing the sign meant what it said. India reported that it was doing its bit for global warming; they are developing a feedstock that will make cows and other ruminants less flatulent. President Obama, claiming equality for transgenders, demanded that public high school bathrooms and showers be available to students based on gender identity, rather than gender at birth. (The Sidwell Friends School in Bethesda, I am sure, will be exempt.)

But these are not really funny. The first reflects a lack of civility necessary for society to function smoothly. The second, a questionable government expenditure in a country that is home to the world’s largest population of poor. And the third, identity politics substituting for common sense.

On the other hand, Boris Johnson’s winning limerick about Turkish President Recap Tayyip Erdogan’s fictional love affair with a goat was funny. London’s mayor had submitted his poem to The Spectator’s “President Erdogan Offensive Poetry contest.” The limerick, which cannot be repeated in this PG publication but which will elicit a smile from all but the most politically correct, can be found by googling “Johnson,” “limerick,” “Erdogan” and “goat.” Mr. Erdogan had asked German Chancellor Angela Merkel to allow a lawsuit under some dusty 19th Century law that forbade German citizens from insulting foreign leaders. With eyes focused on Turkey’s large number of refugees and not wanting to upset its authoritarian leader, Ms. Merkel permitted the suit against German comedian Jan Bohmermann.