Displaying posts published in

2016

BOOKS Comments turned off

The Arabs’ Real Grievance against the Jews by Fred Maroun

By on May 7th, 2016

The Arab world still does not today accept the concept of a Jewish state of any size or any shape. Even Egypt and Jordan, who signed peace agreements with Israel, do not accept that Israel is a Jewish state, and they continue to promote anti-Semitic hatred against Israel.

During Israel’s War of Independence, Jews were ethnically cleansed from Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, and in the years that followed, they were ethnically cleansed from the rest of the Arab world.

Jews demand the right to exist, and to exist as equals, on the land where they have existed and belonged continuously for more than three thousand years.

We would rather claim that the conflict is about “occupation” and “settlements.” The Jews see what radical Islamists are now doing to Christians and other minorities, who were also in the Middle East for thousands of years before the Muslim Prophet Mohammed was even born.

The real Arab grievance against the Jews is that they exist.

As Arabs, we are very adept at demanding that our human rights be respected, at least when we live in liberal democracies such as in North America, Europe, and Israel. But what about when it comes to our respecting the human rights of others, particularly Jews?

When we examine our attitude towards Jews, both historically and at present, we realize that it is centered on denying Jews the most fundamental human right, the right without which no other human right is relevant: the right to exist.
The right to exist in the Middle East before 1948

Anti-Zionists often repeat the claim that before modern Israel, Jews were able to live in peace in the Middle East, and that it is the establishment of the State of Israel that created Arab hostility towards Jews. That is a lie.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

So Many Rules, So Few Opportunities A wave of regulation coincides with weak hiring and growth.

By on May 7th, 2016

Friday’s jobs report from the Labor Department brought the latest reminder that the U.S. economy isn’t creating opportunities like it used to. A separate report released this week goes a long way toward explaining why.

On Wednesday Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute rolled out his annual report card on federal regulation, “Ten Thousand Commandments.” Beltway rules are now imposing $1.9 trillion of annual costs on the U.S. economy. That’s the same level as last year, but when combined with on-the-books federal spending, which is $3.9 trillion, the feds are taking a record-setting bite out of private commerce and wealth.

The regulatory burden is staggering for the economy and for all who live and work within it. The annual tab for complying with directives from Washington is now larger than the entire economy of Russia. The cost of federal red tape amounts to nearly $15,000 per U.S. household each year.

And the bureaucratic onslaught will continue, even as we enter the final months of the last year of President Obama’s second term. Mr. Crews reports that regulators spanning 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions have nearly 3,300 regulations still in the pipeline and waiting to be imposed on an unsuspecting public.

Is it any wonder that the government reported modest job growth in April and a shrinking labor force? Or that the U.S. economy wheezed its way to 0.5% growth in the first quarter?

Mr. Crews’s data also show that the regulatory burden falls particularly hard on small firms, which suffer higher compliance costs per employee than larger competitors. This may explain why readings of small-business hiring look even worse than for the economy as a whole.

The Obama Administration was the first in American history to generate more than 80,000 pages of new and proposed rules in the Federal Register in a single year. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
BOOKS Comments turned off

Israel’s Prophetic War A forgotten war in Lebanon anticipated America’s battles in Iraq and Afghanistan.By Bret Stephens

By on May 7th, 2016

From 1985 to 2000, the Israeli military occupied an 11-mile-deep “security zone” in southern Lebanon, in an effort to prevent the area from becoming a staging ground for attacks by Hezbollah into Israel itself. Some 250 Israeli soldiers were killed fighting in the zone and another 840 were injured—numbers that, for a country of Israel’s size, proportionately exceed America’s casualties in Iraq. Yet the campaign was never given a proper name, and the soldiers who fought in it never received a ribbon for wartime service.

This was the Jewish state’s forgotten war. Yet as Matti Friedman notes in “Pumpkinflowers: A Soldier’s Story,” the fighting anticipated the kind of conflicts the U.S. would soon find itself waging in the Middle East—conflicts in which a modern army, technologically sophisticated but weakly supported by public opinion at home, gets bogged down in a failed state trying to hold the line against primitive but cunning adversaries motivated by religious zeal and determined to sustain the fight for decades, even generations. It’s the kind of war the West has yet to figure out a way of winning.
Pumpkinflowers

By Matti Friedman

Algonquin, 256 pages, $25.95

Mr. Friedman, a Canadian-born Israeli writer, served in Lebanon in the late 1990s at an exposed Israeli outpost called “the Pumpkin.” (His title comes from Israeli military jargon, where “flowers” mean wounded soldiers and “oleander” means a dead one.) This superb book is partly a history of the war, partly a personal memoir, and partly a work of political analysis. But mainly it is an effort to tell the story of the young men who fought to defend something “the size of a basketball court”—not all of whom survived.

“At the outpost were several dozen young men isolated to a degree exceptional in the modern world,” Mr. Friedman recalls. “Mail arrived in the same way the soldiers did, on convoys rendered unpredictable by the threat of bombs. There were no women. There was nothing feminine, nothing unnecessary to the purposes of allowing you to kill, preventing you from being killed, and keeping you from losing your mind in the meantime. Nothing was soft or smelled sweet.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

Trump Voters: Not So Irrational The political scientist who applies the ‘rational choice’ theory of economics to voters says there was a method to the GOP’s primary madness.By Allysia Finley

By on May 7th, 2016

Shortly before the May 3 Indiana primary, a video of a Donald Trump supporter accosting Ted Cruz went viral. Surrounded by a throng of Trump fans shouting “career politicians have killed America,” the Texas senator tried to engage the man in a mock debate—without much success. Mr. Cruz made several attempts to discuss Mr. Trump’s record, then finally gave up and told the man that Mr. Trump “is playing you for a chump,” adding: “Ask yourself . . . why the mainstream media wants Donald Trump so desperately to be the Republican nominee?” The Trump supporter—whose favored candidate reportedly has enjoyed $2 billion in free media coverage—replied: “They’ve backed you every chance they get.”

Episodes like that, combined with Mr. Trump’s romp through the Republican presidential primary season, have shaken many people’s faith in the American electorate. But what if Trump voters, however uninformed, are still making a rational decision by backing him?
That is the contrarian argument advanced by political scientist Samuel L. Popkin of the University of California, San Diego, who has studied public opinion and elections for half a century. A native of Superior, Wis., the 73-year-old Mr. Popkin has also served as a consultant for the presidential campaigns of George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Mr. Popkin is perhaps best known for applying the rational-choice theory of economics to voting.

His seminal 1991 book “The Reasoning Voter” argues that voters are public investors who “expend effort voting in the expectation of gaining future satisfaction.” They “combine, in an economical way, learning and information from past experiences, daily life, the media, and political campaigns” to make reasoned judgments about politicians.

One of Mr. Popkin’s favorite examples of how “low-information voters” use “cues” to form logical conclusions is Gerald Ford’s eating an unshucked tamale, which signaled to many Latino voters that the president didn’t understand their culture. History repeated as farce this week when Mr. Trump on Cinco de Mayo tweeted a photo of himself eating a taco bowl: “The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!”

Mr. Popkin, who was in New York City visiting family, sat down to talk on Wednesday afternoon, interpreting the often bizarre-seeming Republican primary season by using his political theory of low-information rational voting. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

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

By on May 6th, 2016

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?

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

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

By on May 6th, 2016

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.”

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

IMPORTING TERROR: JOSEPH KLEIN

By on May 6th, 2016

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.”

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

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

By on May 6th, 2016

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.”

Continue reading →
WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

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

By on May 6th, 2016

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.

Continue reading →
WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

The Failure of the Swedish Establishment by Nima Gholam Ali Pour

By on May 6th, 2016

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.

Continue reading →