Displaying posts published in

2016

ADL Allies With Anti-Israel Activists Against Trump Mainstreaming anti-Semitism through anti-Trump alarmism. Daniel Greenfield

The media’s story is that Trump’s win unleashed anti-Semitism on the right. Instead it’s unleashing anti-Semitism on the left. From the elevation of Keith Ellison to head the DNC, despite his ugly history with anti-Semitism, to the mainstreaming of Islamist anti-Semites from CAIR, ISNA and other hate groups with a history of supporting anti-Semitic terror, the atmosphere on the left has only grown uglier.

Equally troubling is the way in which anti-Israel hatred is being mainstreamed within the Jewish community under the guise of a collective front to oppose Trump. The groups taking the lead in these protests include some of the ugliest anti-Israel organizations around, including JVP and If Not Now.

From the beginning they have camouflaged attacks on centrist pro-Israel groups, such as AIPAC and ZOA, in anti-Trump rallies. Their real agenda isn’t opposition to Trump, but to the Jewish State.

And many establishment Jewish groups that claim to be pro-Israel have proven all too willing to mainstream anti-Israel groups and their hostility to Israel to be able to hold anti-Trump events.

Given a choice between supporting Israel and opposing Trump, they have made their priorities clear. They have chosen to attack Trump and give aid and comfort to those working against the Jewish State.

The ADL has been one of the loudest voices against Trump. But while the former Jewish civil rights organization claims that it’s protecting Jewish values, it’s partnering with vocal opponents of the Jewish State. Its new campaign against Trump is normalizing organizations that are hostile to Israel.

While the headlines for ADL events rarely mention them, behind the latest splashy rally or conference vowing to fight “hate” are groups that hate and fight against the rights of Jews to live in Israel.

On a cold day in Boston, the Anti-Defamation League of New England rolled out its “Massachusetts Speaks Out Against Hate” rally. Top Boston political officials were in attendance. The ADL’s partners included the Greater Boston JCC and the JCRC, along with radical leftist groups, and J Street.

In New York City, the ADL convened what it billed as an inaugural summit on anti-Semitism. Its urgent title, and accompanying hashtag, was #NeverisNow. It promised TED Talks and “interactive sessions on the challenges posed by modern-day anti-Semitism.”

Instead it provided a platform for opponents of Israel to spew their hatred at the Jewish State.

The star of #NeverisNow was Ford Foundation CEO Darren Walker. The Ford Foundation not only financed much of the groundwork for the left’s wave of anti-Semitism, but it backed Black Lives Matter and funds various anti-Israel groups.

But it got worse.

Instead of wholly and utterly rejecting delegitimization of Israel, the ADL asked it as a question.

The “Is Delegitimization of Israel Anti-Semitism?” panel gave anti-Israel activist Jill Jacobs and the Forward’s Jane Eisner a forum. Jacobs denounced the Israeli “occupation” and argued that Jews had to stop equating attacks on Israel with anti-Semitism. She defended BDS tactics against accusations of anti-Semitism and criticized the Jewish community for backing legislation opposed to BDS.

The EPA Shows Again That It’s an Affront to Common Sense It’s cooking data to justify costly regulations with disproportionately small benefits. By Henry I. Miller & Jeff Stier

For decades, in administrations Democratic and Republican alike, the Environmental Protection Agency has been a paragon of waste, fraud, and abuse, a corrupt taxpayer-funded Evil Empire. “Science” there is just a tool to be manipulated in order to advance radical anti-technology and anti-industry agendas, even if it means distorting the intent of statutes and affronting common sense.

The EPA is the prototype of agencies that, driven largely by politics, spend more and more to address smaller and smaller risks. In one analysis by the Office of Management and Budget, of the 30 least cost-effective regulations throughout the government, the EPA had imposed no fewer than 17. For example, the agency’s restrictions on the disposal of land that contains certain wastes prevent 0.59 cancer cases per year — about three cases every five years — and avoid $20 million in property damage, at an annual cost of $194 to $219 million.

In his excellent book Breaking the Vicious Circle, written shortly before he was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Stephen Breyer cited another, similar example of expensive, non-cost-effective regulation by the EPA: a ban on asbestos pipe, shingles, coating, and paper, which the most optimistic estimates suggested would prevent seven or eight premature deaths over 13 years — at a cost of approximately a quarter of a billion dollars. Breyer, appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton, observed that such a vast expenditure would cause more deaths than it would prevent from the asbestos exposure, simply by reducing the resources available for other public amenities.

Also, perversely, the very act of removing asbestos from existing structures poses greater risk from asbestos than does simply leaving it where it is: During removal, long-dormant asbestos fibers are spread into the ambient air, where they expose workers and bystanders to heightened risk. When the EPA banned asbestos in 1989, it was already an old product whose risks and benefits were well understood. Nevertheless, political pressures from environmental activists pushed the EPA into making a decision that actually raised public-health risks.

Breyer also addressed the EPA’s counterproductive efforts to eliminate the “last 10 percent” of risk from a substance or activity, noting that it involves “high cost, devotion of considerable agency resources, large legal fees, and endless argument,” with only limited, incremental benefit. Such overly stringent rules are also more likely to be challenged in court and overturned on judicial review. Breyer quotes an EPA official as observing that “about 95 percent of the toxic material could be removed from [Superfund] waste sites in a few months, but years are spent trying to remove the last little bit.”

Hillary’s Actions Deserve a Special Prosecutor President Trump should hand Hillary’s fate to a nonpartisan investigator. By Deroy Murdock

Let her go or lock her up?

Hillary Clinton’s fate is one piece of old business that will sit on President Donald J. Trump’s desk and fester like a warm mackerel.

Trump’s ambitious agenda involves scrapping and substituting Obamacare, cutting taxes, liberating the energy sector, securing America’s southern “border,” and much more — nearly everything controversial.

Congressional Democrats will be unusually obstructive due to Hillary’s upset loss, a unified Republican government in Washington, and the GOP’s strongest position nationwide since 1928, according to RealClearPolitics. Liberal politicians and activists called Trump a latter-day Mussolini for saying in his final debate that he would “keep you in suspense” before agreeing in advance to accept Election Day’s results. Leftist street thugs then fascistically rejected the outcome of a fair and decisive election, trashed personal property, smashed windows, sparked fires, and — like dedicated Brownshirts — physically pummeled Trump supporters.

As such, Democrats on Capitol Hill — and their enraged base — likely will be in no mood to compromise. Despite Republican control of the Senate, incoming Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York is no wallflower. He almost surely will tie Republican leader Mitch McConnell’s shoelaces together at every turn. This probably will include filibustering everything this side of legislation on National Asparagus Month.

Against this backdrop, it must be tempting for Team Trump to blow Crooked Hillary’s dank, lawless stench out the nearest window. Indeed, Trump’s senior adviser Kellyanne Conway told MSNBC Tuesday that “he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges.”

If true, this would abandon the pledge that Trump made to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who chanted “Lock her up!” at his rallies and the 61.9 million voters who sent Trump to Washington to purify Hillary’s ethical Superfund site.

Hillary auctioned off public favors as if the Clinton Foundation were Sotheby’s and abused state secrets so flagrantly that her maid reportedly printed out classified documents for the former secretary of state to read. According to the New York Post’s Paul Sperry, this may have included the Presidential Daily Brief, the most secret document in Washington.

Iran, Hamas and the Dance of Death by Khaled Abu Toameh

It now appears that the Obama Administration’s failed policies in the Middle East have increased the Iranians’ appetite, such that they are convinced that they can expand their influence to the Palestinians as well.

Iran has one goal only: to eliminate the “Zionist entity” and undermine moderate and progressive Arabs and Muslims.

“Relations between Iran and Hamas are currently undergoing revitalization, and are moving in the right direction,” announced Osama Hamdan, a senior Hamas official. He went on to explain that “moving in the right direction” means that Iran would “continue to support the resistance” against Israel.

Hamas and Iran have no meaningful ideological or strategic differences. Both share a common desire to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic empire. Iran expects results: Hamas is to use the financial and military support to resume attacks on Israel and “liberate all of Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.”

As far as Iran is concerned, there is nothing better than having two proxy terror organizations on Israel’s borders — Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south.

The biggest losers, once again, will be President Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

Israel’s presence in the West Bank has thus far thwarted Iran’s repeated attempts to establish bases of power there.

The Iranians and Hamas are exploiting the final days of the Obama Administration to restore their relations and pave the way for Tehran to step up its meddling in the internal affairs of the Palestinians in particular and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general.

The Atrocious Scandal of the UNESCO Vote on Jerusalem by Salim Mansur

It was over the ruins of these sacred Jewish sites, left behind by the Romans, that Arab conquerors of Jerusalem in the seventh century built two mosques, the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa, to lay claim on the City of David for Islam.

There can be no dispute about Jewish links with Jerusalem, and Jewish rights to their sacred sites that long pre-date the arrival of Arabs bearing Islam to the City of David. This latest effort by the UNESCO, however to deny the Jewish nature of Jerusalem is much more than a scandal; it is a Stalinist measure to airbrush history by an organization which, according to its own charter, is supposed to be devoted without prejudice to the preservation of historical records.

There is precedent for such a resolution to nullify the recent UNESCO resolution on Jerusalem. In December 1991 the UN General Assembly voted to repeal the UN resolution passed in 1975 that declared, “Zionism is a form of racism.”

When Arabs and Muslims deny Jewish links to Jerusalem they are also then in denial of their own history. Their claim on Jerusalem, or the holy land, on the basis of Islam is simply not found in the Quran.

Their claim on Jerusalem, or the holy land, on the basis of Islam is simply not found in the Quran. On the contrary, the Quran is explicit in addressing Jews as “children of Israel” and speaking of them, as in “Remember those blessings of Mine with which I graced you, and how I favoured you above all other people” (2:47).

Indeed, Muslim denial of the Jewish links to the City of David and their ancestral rights over Judea and Samaria, or Palestine, is ironically contrary to the Word of God in their own sacred scripture.

Gulag, Western Style By David Solway

There are various ways of quashing social and political dissent, some more effective than others. The “Soviet method” practiced in stringently repressive regimes—torture, imprisonment, the ever-expanding Gulag, summary execution—works extremely well in the shorter historical timeframe, until a people rise up in revolt or such demonic societies collapse from their own internal contradictions. Of course, the truly Stygian regimes, closed to the world, indifferent to economic pressures, and under the heavy boot of unbroken military control, such as North Korea, may persist indefinitely or until defeated in war. But generally speaking, the tried-and-true methods of political oppression are sufficient to the task of keeping a population in a state of enslavement for a prolonged historical period.

In the sphere of the liberal West, however, there are other means of subjection to the will of increasingly centralized governments. Because they tend to function gradually and under the radar, these tactics are enormously efficient in their deadening effects, going unrecognized until it is often too late to mount significant resistance. They operate through a process of curricular distortions, social pressure and incremental legislation targeting speech habits, facets of normal behavior, assumptions of what counts as morally legitimate, and financial and job security.

A useful technique for anaesthetizing the individual citizen and rendering him compliant is the erasure of authentic historical knowledge. We’ve remarked the success of this approach in the U.S. with the “history from below” or “people’s history” movement, associated with Howard Zinn, and the foregrounding of a bowdlerized version of Islamic history in American schools. Canada is no different. Eric McGeer, author of Words of Valediction and Remembrance: Canadian Epitaphs of the Second World War, writes: “In my last years of high school teaching I was increasingly infuriated and disgusted at the portrayal of Canada in the history textbooks assigned for use in our courses. There was no sense of gratitude in the textbooks, no empathy with the people of the past or an attempt to see them in their own terms, no sense of the effort people made to create one of the few truly liveable societies on earth. You would have thought that this country was nothing more than a racist, bigoted, this or that-phobic hotbed. My first lesson involved taking the book and dropping it into the waste paper basket and advising the students to do the same.” (personal communication). The study of history, McGeer concludes, is nothing now but a progressive morality tale and a mechanism of social engineering. Sounds a lot like Title IX. Pride in one’s nation, its accomplishments and sacrifices, is contra-indicated. There is more than one way of burning the flag.

Analysts Tally at Least 52 Uses of Chemical Weapons by ISIS “High risk” of ISIS unleashing agents — even potentially a dirty bomb from looted radiological materials — as Mosul falls. By Bridget Johnson,

A threat-monitoring firm in London tallied at least 52 incidents of chemical weapons use by the Islamic State since 2014 and warned of a high possibility that more could be unleashed as Mosul starts to fall.

IHS Markit’s Conflict Monitor said chemical weapons were used around ISIS’ largest occupied city in Iraq, currently under attack by Iraqi and Kurdish forces with U.S. support, at least 19 of those times.

Most of the threat is posed by chlorine and mustard agents, but analysts said ISIS could use a “dirty bomb” — radiological dispersion through a conventional explosive device.

“Medical and industrial sources of radioactive material are present within territory held by the Islamic State, for example, at the Hazim al-Hafid Hospital, a specialist oncology and nuclear medicine facility in Mosul,” said Karl Dewey, a chemical, biological and radiological weapons analyst at IHS Jane’s.

ISIS acquired nearly 90 pounds of low-grade nuclear material from the University of Mosul soon after sacking the city in 2014, the company noted.

“Although the uranium compounds would only be of very limited utility for [radiological dispersal device] fabrication, comments made by Islamic State supporters suggest that members have at least thought about the idea,” Dewey said.

There has been a noted decline in chemical weapons use by ISIS in the run-up to the Mosul offensive, now in its sixth week.

But Columb Strack, senior analyst and leader of IHS Conflict Monitor, warned that as ISIS loses ground “there is a high risk of the group using chemical weapons to slow down and demoralize advancing enemy forces, and to potentially make an example of — and take revenge on — civilian dissidents within the city.”

Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook told reporters Tuesday that Iraqi forces “continue to make progress while exercising commendable care to avoid civilian casualties” as “they’ve been dealing, among other things, with vehicle-borne IEDs and the use of human shields by ISIL.” Defense officials have refused to say whether American advisers are in Mosul.

Strack noted that Mosul had been the home base for ISIS’ chemical weapons production, “but most of the equipment and experts were probably evacuated to Syria in the weeks and months leading up to the Mosul offensive, along with convoys of other senior members and their families.”

isis chemical weapons

Asked about the report at Tuesday’s State Department briefing, press secretary John Kirby said he couldn’t “confirm the veracity” of the findings.

“What I can tell you, though, is that we have, ourselves, talked about our view that in the past Daesh has proven capable of trying to use chemical agents, whether it’s mustard and/or chlorine,” Kirby said. “And DoD has spoken to their view that they have at least attempted to do that in the past. So this is very much in keeping with a methodology we’ve seen out of these terrorists.”

The United Nations has also presented evidence of ISIS chemical weapons use. Kirby called the State Department’s refusal to confirm any ISIS chemical weapons usage yet an abundance of caution “because you don’t want to levy such a charge unless you know you’re 100 percent sure about it.”

“It’s not about reticence. I mean, clearly this is a group we’re not afraid to talk strongly about it and to act strongly against. I think it’s really about information and wanting to be careful,” he added. “But obviously, I mean, if they did, it would certainly be in keeping with their methodology. I think we’re just — we’re telling you what we think we know when we know it.”

The State Department’s travel alert for Europe issued Monday warned that “credible information indicates the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or Da’esh), al-Qa’ida, and their affiliates continue to plan terrorist attacks in Europe, with a focus on the upcoming holiday season and associated events” and “terrorists may employ a wide variety of tactics, using both conventional and non-conventional weapons and targeting both official and private interests.”

Trump changes mind on waterboarding, global warming By Ed Straker

Donald Trump, after stating that he was going to reinstate waterboarding “and worse” for terrorists, now says he is against waterboarding. He also says global warming, which he once said was a hoax created by the Chinese to make U.S. manufacturing uncompetitive, may be caused by man-made activities.

Donald Trump seemed to acknowledge that humans contribute to climate change Tuesday in a meeting with New York Times reporters, moving closer to widely held scientific opinion but away from the Republican Party line.

He is keeping an “open mind” when it comes to climate issues, he said.

“I think there is some connectivity” between human activity and climate change, Trump said[.]

There is no way any person who is informed about the “theory” of global warming can believe that. The theory of global warming is that human-produced carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. But human-produced CO2 is only 3% of all CO2 (most is produced naturally), which in turn is only 3% of all the chemicals in the atmosphere. Common sense would tell anyone that human CO2 production has no bearing on so-called global warming.

It’s sad that Donald Trump believes this, and worrisome. Will he reverse Obama’s Clean Power Plan rule, which is shutting down important power plants because of the myth of CO2 production?

As for the “climate change” treaty Obama agreed to in Paris, Trump said:

On climate change, he refused to repeat his promise to abandon the international climate accord reached last year in Paris, saying that, “I’m looking at it very closely.” But he said “I have an open mind to it[.]”

An open mind to it? To locking the U.S. into mandatory CO2 reductions, which, like Obama’s Clean Power Plan, will also shut down power plants, make electricity much more expensive, and kill jobs?

Hassan Rouhani: Iran’s Executioner By Heshmat Alavi

As we begin to wind down to the end of Hassan Rouhani’s term as president of the regime in Iran, it is time to take a look back at the past four years. We all remember how the West joyfully welcomed his election — read selection — as a change of gear in Iran aimed at moderation. However, what the world witnessed ever since has been anything but. An atrocious rise in executions, continued public punishments and an escalating trend of oppression has been Rouhani’s report card during his tenure. With a new administration coming into town, Washington must make it crystal clear to Tehran that human rights violations will no longer be tolerated.

Unprecedented executions

Despite pledging to hold the “key” to Iran’s problems, Rouhani has failed to provide even an iota of the freedoms the Iranian people crave and deserve. His record has revealed an unrelenting loyalty to the regime establishment in regards to social oppression and continued crackdowns. Iran sent 18 to the gallows last week alone, according to official reports.

As the international community continued its policy of appeasement, Rouhani and the entire regime used this opportunity to launch an execution rampage. Over 2,500 people have been sent to the gallows ever since Rouhani came to power, shattering all records held by this regime itself in over two decades.

In 2015 alone, Iran was executing an individual every eight hours, as reported by Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, former United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in Iran.

Vast social crackdown

Rouhani’s commitment to regime supreme leader Ali Khamenei and the ruling elite has rendered a wide-ranging, escalating crackdown. In addition to the executions mentioned above, state-sponsored social oppression has resulted in horrific scenes of public hangings, floggings, and even limb amputations.

The prisons are overwhelmed with inmates, leading to intolerable and inhumane conditions. Political prisoners, specifically, are subject to horrendous treatment by the authorities. Renowned human rights organization Amnesty International has recently issued an Urgent Action call expressing major concerns over the case of Maryam Akbari Monfared, a Green Movement organizer still in prison two years after her family put up her bail.

James Allan :Trump, Turnbull and the Turning Tide

The pundits were wrong, so wrong, in predicting that Hillary Clinton’s ascent to the White House was an inevitability. No surprise there, though, as the same homegrown solons and star columnists were no less convinced that Tony Abbott was ballot-box poison and had to go

The exit poll that caught my eye from the US election was the one in which those who ticked ‘we detest both candidates’ then went on to break 69% for Trump. That would be me too. I think the US voters got this right. Each party nominated the only person who could have lost to the other party’s candidate, but Hillary was worse by far. As for talk of ‘role model’ deficiencies with the Donald, well Hillary attacked the women who accused hubby Bill not of lewd talk but of actual rape. On what planet is that better role-modelling?

And here’s another surprise: it turns out that when East Coast comics insult Midwest voters, as they have done for decades, those voters couldn’t give a fig what comedians and chat-show hosts think about the election. Same with Hollywood stars such as Robert DeNiro ( as per below) and all the other Tinseltown tossers who condemn Trump for his attitude to women.

Regular voters can see that these people are hypocritical morons, the sort who denounce the president-elect in one breath and gush with praise for fugitive molester Roman Polanski or Woody Allen, who couldn’t keep his aged hands of his stepdaughter. Give me the last 30 years of phone and email records for JayZ, Charlie Sheen, DeNiro and the rest and I will personally guarantee that there will be comments a lot worse than Trump’s. So maybe they should have the self-awareness to butt out. Every time some Hollywood halfwit supported Clinton, Trump got more votes. The post-election ‘sore loser’ protests have been enough to make me puke, such are the hypocrisies of the Left these days.

And, just by the way, it’s worth noting that Trump got more of the black vote than Romney or McCain. He got less (yes, LESS) of the white vote than Romney. So the whiny left should shut up about “racism” — except it wouldn’t have anything else to say, so it won’t. Trump also got more of the Latino vote than Romney (who speaks Spanish) or McCain (who has a child married to a Latino). Turns out wide open immigration is not popular with all sorts of groups, including some Latinos.

On substance I hate Trump’s attitude to free trade. I hope Paul Ryan blocks that in the House, though much of this sits in the realm of executive power. Meanwhile, I think Trump will be miles and miles and miles better on appointing Supreme Court judges, given Hillary’s pledge to nominate candidates who are, once you cut through her rhetoric, left-wing pseudo-politicians, much like all of Canada’s top Supreme Court judges and more than a few here in Australia. I like Trump on seeing that if China and Russia do nothing on carbon emissions — and the reality is that they’re not — then carbon taxes and trading schemes and massive subsidies of renewables are idiocy. If we now don’t change direction here in Australia we are going to go from comparatively low cost energy to some of the world’s most expensive, with all of the massive renewables subsidies driving low cost production into the ground. Those disconcerting sounds you hear are jobs, lots of jobs, leaving the country.