Displaying posts published in

2016

Time to Draw Lines and Defend Them Caroline Glick

At a certain point, you just have to know when draw a line in the sand.

Sloan and Guy Rachmuth, Jewish parents in Durham, North Carolina, reached that point in 2014 when they opted to walk away from their local Jewish day school and home school their two children.

The Rachmuths pulled their children out of the Lerner School when they concluded the school would not abide by its commitment to assist “all students in developing a positive Jewish identity and pride in their Jewish heritage.”

As committed Zionists, the Rachmuths were dismayed to see that far from fulfilling its commitment, the Lerner school was cultivating a learning environment that questioned the legitimacy of the Jewish national liberation movement and of the State of Israel.

Perhaps the turning point was when the school took down all the maps of Israel from the classroom walls. Perhaps it was when their five-year-old son came home and asked them why the map of Israel hurt some people’s feelings.

Perhaps it was when they discovered that the school had employed a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) activist as a Hebrew teacher. Perhaps it was when they discovered that the school’s development director and former president of the board was an anti-Israel activist whose group, Jews for a Just Peace, had joined forces with the anti-Semitic and rabidly anti-Israel BDS groups Students for Justice in Palestine and the Palestinian Solidarity Movement.

Perhaps it was when the school refused to back Israel during Operation Protective Edge during the summer of 2014.

Or perhaps the Rachmuths felt obliged to draw their line and walk away when they got the sense that the school rejected not only their Zionism, but vigorously opposed their right to defend their values.

According to Andrew Passin’s two-part report on the Rachmuth family’s ordeal published by JNS, in internal memos, the current school board president Tal Wittle referred to Sloan Rachmuth’s repeated complaints about the school’s diffident position on Israel, and the dominant role BDS supporters played at the school as “bigotry.”

The Mullahs Execute Every Man in an Entire Village While the world’s human rights watchdogs continue their romance with the Iranian regime. Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

Where is the professional journalism the mainstream media keeps talking about? While they have been focusing on Iran’s artificial democratic elections, the mainstream liberal outlets seem to have intentionally ignored one of the most heinous and egregious acts that the ruling mullahs of Iran committed during the elections.

The Islamist henchmen of the Islamic Republic executed every man in a village in the province Sistan-Baluchestan, according to the latest report coming from Iran. Shahindokht Molaverdi, the vice president for women and family affairs, called for increased protection for the families of the executed as she claimed to a Persian news outlet that “We have a village in Sistan-Baluchestan (province) where every single man has been executed.”

In addition, while liberal journalists often report on the mass executions that are being carried out by the non-state militia — the Islamic State — they have chosen to ignore larger scale of human rights violations by a powerful Islamist state, Iran.

Iran has surpassed China in the number of executions being carried out per capita, now ranking at the top. The number of executions of juveniles, women, and political prisoners has significantly increased under the government of the so-called moderate president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani.

Teaching Antisemitism at Vassar—and Beyond by Rael Jean Isaac

The anti-Semitic hysteria on many elite American campuses (the veil of anti-Zionism now thrown off) is belatedly becoming the subject of major concern in the Jewish community. As well it should. The young people of this community, in what should be idyllic years, are being exposed, often for the first time in their lives, to unreasoning hatred. Moreover what starts on campus does not stay there. Those whose opinions are shaped in our colleges and universities move on to become the opinion shapers of the broader culture: the journalists, the academics, the professionals, the entertainers, the politicians.

While their children may not be subject to the intimidation and bullying Jews encounter, non-Jews should also be deeply worried. Most would be horrified to see our colleges descend into what Victor Davis Hanson calls places “as foreign to American traditions of tolerance and free expression as what followed the Weimar Republic.” Parents hope their children will be introduced to what Matthew Arnold called the best that has been thought and said, not mired in impenetrable thickets of verbiage, behind which lie ignorance, falsehoods and malice.

Take the lecture on Feb. 3 by Rutgers Associate Professor Jasbir Puar at Vassar College. Under the title “Inhumanist Biopolitics: How Palestine Matters,” the invitation declared: “This lecture theorizes oscillating relations between disciplinary, pre-emptive and increasingly prehensive forms of power that shape human and non-human materialities in Palestine….If Gaza, for example, is indeed the world’s largest ‘open air prison’ and experimental lab for Israeli military apparatuses, infrastructural chaos and metric manipulation, what kinds of fantasies (about power, about bodies, about resistance, about politics) are driving this project? ”

Ignoring for the moment the verbal sludge, what are Puar’s credentials to hold forth on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs? She teaches Women’s and Gender Studies and “has written widely” (so says the invitation) on such subjects as gay and lesbian tourism, bio and necropolitics, queer theory disability and debilitation, theories of intersectionality, affect and assemblage ; homonationalism etc. etc. Equally mysterious, why should American Studies, the Vassar department which invited Puar, find the Middle East a topic that fits into its bailiwick? The answer lies in a word the reader probably didn’t even notice in the mind-blowing flood of jargon: intersectionality. Richard L. Cravatts, author of Genocidal Liberalism: The University’s Jihad Against Israel and Jews, explains that intersectionality conflates seemingly unrelated instances of oppression so that to know one victim group is to know any victim group. As a result, says Cravatts, “someone who is a gender studies professor, or queer theorist, or American studies expert can, with no actual knowledge or expertise about the Middle East, readily pontificate on the many social pathologies of Israel, based on its perceived role as a racist, colonial oppressor of an innocent indigenous population of Arab victims.”

The Paranoid View of History Infects Oberlin Promoting classic anti-Semitic tropes goes unchecked at one of America’s finest liberal arts institutions. Richard L. Cravatts

“Anti-Semitism,” wrote Stephen Eric Bronner, author of the engaging book A Rumor About The Jews, “is the stupid answer to a serious question: How does history operate behind our backs?” For a wide range of ideological extremists, anti-Semitism is still the stupid answer for why what goes wrong with the world does go wrong. It is a philosophical world view and interpretation of history that creates conspiracies as a way of explaining the unfolding of historical events; it is a pessimistic and frantic outlook, characterized in 1964 by historian Richard Hofstadter as “the paranoid style” of politics, which shifts responsibility from the self to sinister, omnipotent others—typically and historically the Jews.

Long the thought product of cranks and fringe groups, Hofstadter’s paranoid style of politics has lately entered the mainstream of what would be considered serious, and respectable academic enterprise. Witness, for instance, the Facebook posts of Joy Karega, an assistant professor of Rhetoric and Composition at Oberlin College, who wildly claimed that Jewish bankers control the world economy and have financed every war since Napoleon, that Israelis and Zionists were not only behind the 9/11 attacks in New York but also orchestrated the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, and that Israeli fingerprints could be found in the downing over Ukraine of Malaysian Air Flight 17 and also in the rise of ISIS.

Imam Orders Woman in Italy Dismembered for Wearing Swimsuit Daniel Greenfield

Cologne is a warning sign of what is coming to Europe. The Islamic attitude toward women is a Pakistani or Egyptian problem for now. But it’s becoming a European and American problem due to migration.

What was a distant horror in Pakistan yesterday, is a nearby horror in our cities and towns today and a permanent reality tomorrow.

In 2011 in the area of Gardone Val Trompia (Brescia) two Pakistanis were killed because they had violated Islamic law: they had worn swimsuits on the beach. Condemning them was the imam of Zingonia (Bergamo) Muhammad Zulkifal, a member of a cell of Al Qaeda with its operational base in Olbia. Zulkifal has always claimed “the role of moral guardian of the community and the right to inflict exemplary punishment to enforce divine law.”

The double murder was accidentally discovered by investigators, thanks to an interception in 2012. Two foreigners, never identified, had asked a Lodi photographer to extract images from a mobile phone. Once at work, the man had found the photos sought by the two, depicting a young Pakistani woman with her face swollen, her arms amputated at the elbows and legs to the knees. The limbs were placed close to the body, “according to the technique used by the Taliban” the investigators had highlighted.

The imam was only arrested in April last year and today the trial was reopened in Sassari before the Assize Court. The investigations have uncovered that Zulkifal is part of an organization responsible for the bloody massacre in 2009 in a market in Peshawar (Pakistan) that caused the death of 100 civilians. The terrorist cell to which he belongs, despite being based in Olbia, also has great influence in Pakistan.

This took place in Italy. Not Pakistan, not Afghanistan, Europe. This nightmare is inside the West. And it’s getting worse.

In a September 9, 2011 Zulkifal said: “Taking a photo you could better position the throat of the corpse … you had to take pictures so you can see even the chest. This thing is great …. ” And in the next interception, the imam was referring to movements on the territory of Brescia, the “trunk of a car” and to a “corpse placed in the ground.”

Palestinians: We Want Our Own Knesset by Khaled Abu Toameh

Apparently Najat Abu Bakr forgot that she is a member of the Palestinian parliament and not the Israeli one. She and her colleagues have no right to criticize President Abbas or any senior official in Ramallah. Such criticism is considered an “insult” to top officials and even an act of treason.

And so we have two legislators. One is forced to seek shelter within her own parliament for fear of being arrested by the Palestinian security forces. The other receives all the rights and privileges enjoyed by her fellow Arabs inside Israel — in spite of her immensely provocative behavior.

That is the difference between a law-abiding country and the Palestinian Authority, which has been functioning for many years as a mafia.

Najat Abu Bakr and many Palestinians dream of the day they too will have a Knesset, a true parliament, where leaders are held accountable.

What do Haneen Zoabi and Najat Abu Bakr have in common?

Both women are outspoken members of parliament — Zoabi in Israel and Abu Bakr in the Palestinian territories.

Zoabi, who hails from Nazareth, is a citizen of Israel. Abu Bakr, from the West Bank city of Nablus, is an elected member of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), the parliament that has been effectively paralyzed since 2007, when Hamas expelled the Palestinian Authority (PA) from the Gaza Strip.

Moderate “European” Islam: Stemming Terror with Band Aids by Judith Bergman

The project of a “French Islam” has failed abysmally. A 2,200-page report, “Suburbs of the Republic,” concluded that Muslim immigrants in France were increasingly rejecting French values and identity, and instead immersing themselves in Islam. The report warned that Islamic sharia law was displacing French civil law in many parts of suburban Paris.

The pattern of “importing” imams with no knowledge of the local language and customs is the same all over Europe.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia, where the official form of Islam is Wahhabism, are the main financiers of mosques in Europe. Wahhabism discourages Muslim integration in the West, but actively encourages jihad against non-Muslims. Qatar has financed mosques in France, Italy, Ireland and Spain, among other places, thus spreading Wahhabism across the continent.

Last week Austria ordered the first foreign-funded imam to be expelled when his visa expires. The decision was made under the new provisions of an anti-radicalization law, which Austria passed one year ago under considerable controversy. The main aim of the law is to counter extremism by requiring imams to speak German, and to prohibit foreign funding for mosques, imams and Muslim organizations in Austria. It also stresses that Austrian law must take precedence over Islamic sharia law for Muslims living in the country.

“We want a future in which increasing numbers of imams have grown up in Austria speaking German, and can in that way serve as positive examples for young Muslims,” said Integration Minister Sebastian Kurz, who helped draft the law. Another 65 imams are expected to be deported in the coming weeks, after being informed that their visas will not be renewed. The decision to deport the foreign imam has — predictably — been deemed unconstitutional by Austria’s Constitutional Court, which finds the law discriminatory because it targets only Muslims.

David Flint Super Tuesday and Beyond

The US primaries system is confusing, convoluted and apt to confound those who like their democracy short, sharp and certain. Yet for all it’s flaws and eccentricities, there is much to inspire jealousy in an Australian observer — especially if that spectator happens to vote Liberal and reside in North Sydney
An American presidential election is always of worldwide importance. This is especially true of the 2016 election. In many ways it could well be a turning point, with a series of crucial issues for determination.

Will the US continue the Obama policies and become little different from a European welfare state, gradually relinquishing its leadership role in the world? Will it continue to be ruled to a considerable extent by a committee of un-elected judges who have decided that the Constitution is what they say it is, and not what the nation’s founders intended? Will the federal government continue to be the taxing-and-regulating leviathan it has gradually become, emasculating not only the states but the traditional freedom of individual Americans? Will the borders of the United States be made as secure as they once were, with illegal immigration brought to heel ? In summary, will the United States return to being the constitutional republic it was intended to be and once was?

As in Australia, the election is marred by the mainstream media not so much reporting matters but advancing their political agenda and concentrating on personalities. Their games may be different in the two countries but the agenda is the same – diminishing the chances of any candidate for leadership who is perceived by them, and the political class, to be too conservative. In Australia , the target was Tony Abbott. In the US it is Senator Ted Cruz.

The mainstream media seems to be holding off recalling Trump’s business and personal record, investigating the inconsistencies between his stated policies and his previous positions. Above all, there is scant attention to the question whether he has the gravitas and, above all, the character to be the president and commander-in chief. Some observers even suspect that the mainstream media is holding off subjecting Trump to a rigorous investigation unless and until he becomes the Republican nominee, and then only to ensure a Democratic victory.
Similarly, they have avoided reporting on Senator Marco Rubio’s apparent betrayal of his Republican Tea Party constituency over his attachment to an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Border security and illegal immigration are even bigger issue in the United States than they were in Australia before John Howard and then Tony Abbott resolved the issue.

Thus, whenever Cruz referred to Rubio’s role in the “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill or his indication that as president he would not immediately revoke Obama’s executive amnesty, Rubio’s reaction has been positively Trump- like. Instead of answering the charge, he has unleashed the all-purpose mantra, ”That’s a lie!” This has been reported by the mainstream media, but without any investigation as to whether Cruz’s allegations are true. So the constant themes have been that Cruz is accused of being a liar, or that Cruz is indeed a liar. Rubio’s other tactic has been to allege that Cruz even supported his amnesty bill, whereas on all the evidence it is clear that Cruz was one of its strongest opponents. This again was reported but rarely investigated.

In the meantime, it seems likely that the Democratic nominee for the general election will be Hillary Clinton, subject to there being no proceedings against her concerning alleged breaches of official secrecy laws, or that the Clinton Foundation received money from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State. The authorities seem reluctant to act in either case, in marked contrast to the speed with which they moved against General David Petraeus, a person of some eminence and achievement, for having revealed classified information to his biographer, who also happened to be his mistress.

John O’Sullivan The Year of Pitchforks and Brands

Americans have seen living standards stagnate, habits of neighbourhood co-operation undermined, job opportunities reduced and their sense of moral equality with the new American educated class decline. The establishment grasps as much, but only Donald Trump stands poised to exploit it.
Australians and New Zealanders, like most people outside the United States, have been gazing with a kind of bafflement, amused or horrified according to taste, at the early results in America’s season of primaries and caucuses. Donald Trump’s dominance in the Republican early primaries, though shaky, seemed to be spreading to more and more groups in the broad Republican coalition; and Senator Bernie Sanders won the first primary and tied in the first caucus against the well-funded but scandal-haunted favourite, Hillary Clinton, by drawing high levels of support from white progressives and young voters with a campaign rooted in undiluted socialism.

Both party leaderships (or “establishments”, as it has become fashionable to call them) have been rattled and undermined by these results. Mrs Clinton enjoyed the barely concealed backing of the Democratic machine, but it was unable to deliver the votes it once did. It modestly compensated for this failure by giving her most of New Hampshire’s Democrat office-holders as “super-delegates” to the Convention. Having been beaten better than sixty-to-forty by Sanders, Clinton left New Hampshire with more delegates.

Carnage was far greater on the Republican side. Most of the establishment’s starting candidates—governors, senators, CEOs—did so badly that they pulled out of the race before and after New Hampshire. The most establishment candidate, Jeb Bush, who is also the best-funded one, struggled to remain fourth or fifth in the polls and has now called it quits as well. And the two self-proclaimed anti-establishment candidates, Trump and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, between them have about the same support as all the other candidates put together.

All this could change, of course, as different states hold primaries. But the big picture remains a kind of stable instability. Sanders is pulling even with Clinton nationally, buoyed by polls that show his supporters and half the Democrats believing in socialism. Trump seems to be consolidating his lead (and Cruz his second place) in a field divided among too many moderate opponents for any single one to challenge the leaders effectively. And political certainties are crashing with every poll release:

• Does money dominate US politics? Candidates in both parties who spend the least are winning the most. Clinton is embarrassed by her ties to Wall Street and high lecture fees. And the moderate GOP candidates who stuck with liberal immigration reform in obedience to “the donor class” (another variant of establishment) watched helplessly as Trump soared past them by responding to long-ignored voter concerns on the scale and illegality of immigration. Money has insulated the political class from the voters.

Coburn: Trump ‘Threatens to Undo and Reverse’ Tea Party Gains By Bridget Johnson

“Coburn said he was picking Rubio because “America desperately needs a president who will appeal to people’s highest aspirations rather than their deepest fears; a president who will model servant leadership rather than self-promotion; and a president who will cast a vision and unite the country instead of denigrating dissenters as second-class citizens.”

A populist former senator who famously chronicled government waste and set the conservative austerity agenda blasted Donald Trump as “a populist without portfolio” in his endorsement of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) resigned at the conclusion of the last Congress to focus on his fight against cancer.

Rubio had already been endorsed in early January by Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe (R).

“Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, ‘Cowardice asks the question – is it safe? Expediency asks the question – is it politic? Vanity asks the question – is it popular? But conscience asks the question – is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right,'” Coburn said in a statement today.

Coburn said he was picking Rubio because “America desperately needs a president who will appeal to people’s highest aspirations rather than their deepest fears; a president who will model servant leadership rather than self-promotion; and a president who will cast a vision and unite the country instead of denigrating dissenters as second-class citizens.”

“…Marco is the only candidate in this race who is in the mold of President Reagan. While some are offering a message of victimization and helplessness against Washington, Marco understands that ‘We the People’ are the establishment and the elites in American society. We need a president who will reawaken our belief in the American idea and not merely complain about how things are but challenge us to dream of what could be.”

Coburn added that Rubio “has been an extremely effective Tea Party senator” in Washington.