Displaying posts published in

April 2017

Among Arabs, Diverging Views on Turkey’s Erdogan Amid concerns about democracy in the country, some in Middle East see strong Muslim leader By Nour Malas

ISTANBUL—Syrian merchant Bassel Fouad was once active in the opposition to his country’s president, Bashar al-Assad, and sees him as a tyrant who destroyed Syria with his iron-fisted authoritarian rule.

Mr. Fouad, who now lives in southern Turkey, said he doesn’t understand intensified concerns in his host nation over the growing power of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the wake of Sunday’s constitutional referendum. He called Mr. Erdogan “a reformer who led his country forward.”

His view reflects a paradox on Turkey among its Arab neighbors: Even as Mr. Erdogan’s moves have raised concerns over the direction of Turkey’s democracy, some still see him as a fair and strong Muslim leader in a region largely ruled by dynasties and resurgent autocrats.

The results of the referendum, in which Turks voted by a slim margin to concentrate more power in the presidency, were met with supportive nods in corners of the Arab world, though the vote was marred by allegations of irregularities.

Some of the nods came from citizens of countries led by monarchs, stagnant governments or repressive regimes—a sign of how deeply split the Middle East is over ideas of reform and Islamist rule, and how relative and fluid those notions can be.

“As long as the changes came through the ballot boxes, why all this fear?” said Mohammad Diab, a Syrian refugee in northern Germany. Mr. Diab said he believed the Turkish president “will lead an Islamic awakening in Turkey and the region.”

Barakat Alshamrani, who was visiting Istanbul from Saudi Arabia, said he realized Turkey was divided over Mr. Erdogan and whether to grant the president more power, but he shrugged off the debate.

“What we know is that he is a good, fair, popular Muslim leader,” said Mr. Alshamrani. CONTINUE AT SITE

Trump Joins Criticism of Iran; Questions U.S. Role in Libya U.S. president says Tehran is ‘not living up to the spirit’ of nuclear dealBy Felicia Schwartz and Rebecca Ballhaus

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump, adding to strong criticism of the Iran nuclear deal voiced by his administration, said on Thursday that Tehran is “not living up to the spirit of the agreement.”

His comments, in a joint press conference with Italy’s Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, added to signals from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and others that the Trump administration could back away from the landmark deal reached in 2015 between six world powers and Iran.

“We’re analyzing it very, very carefully and we’ll have something to say about it in the not-too-distant future,” Mr. Trump said. “Iran has not lived up to the spirit of the agreement and they have to do that.”

The Trump administration certified to Congress earlier this week that Iran is abiding by the accord, but senior officials have said they are reviewing whether to stick with the deal.

Mr. Trump’s comments come a day after Mr. Tillerson made a rare public appearance to list U.S. complaints against Iran, complaining about its destabilizing activities in the Middle East, and Next week, Tom Shannon, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, will attend a meeting in Vienna with Iran and the other world powers who were party to the accord in what will be the first session with Trump administration representation.

Mr. Trump on Thursday also questioned another key U.S. policy position in the Middle East—its role in Libya. The Obama administration had carried out strikes against Islamic State and backed the Government of National Accord, which stemmed from a 2015 U.N.-brokered deal. The internationally recognized Government of National Accord has struggled to assert itself since then.

“I do not see a role in Libya,” Mr. Trump said Thursday. “I do see a role in getting rid of ISIS.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Terror Strikes Champs-Élysées Days Before French Vote One police officer killed, two wounded in attack before assailant is killed; Islamic State claims responsibility By Nick Kostov, Matthew Dalton and Joshua Robinson

PARIS—A gunman opened fire on the Champs-Élysées on Thursday, killing a police officer and wounding two others in an assault authorities said was likely a terror attack, just days before France’s presidential elections begin.

French officials said the assault began at 8:50 p.m., when a car pulled alongside a police patrol and the gunman jumped out wielding an automatic rifle. Police returned fire, killing the gunman, who was identified by an official as Karim Cheurfi, a French national.

A spokeswoman for antiterrorism prosecutors in Paris said they had opened an investigation into the assault. French President François Hollande said authorities were convinced it was a terror attack and expressed “great sadness” over the police officer’s death.

Islamic State claimed responsibility for the suspected terror attack, said SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors the extremist group’s communications. “We can’t exclude whether there’s one or several accomplices,” Pierre-Henry Brandet, the Interior Ministry spokesman said.

The attack sent immediate ripples across the political landscape as the closely fought election was entering its final stretch. France 2, the state TV channel, briefly interrupted a live broadcast in which the 11 presidential candidates were outlining their platforms to broadcast footage showing the Champs-Élysées in lockdown. CONTINUE AT SITE

Europe: Making Itself into the New Afghanistan? by Giulio Meotti

“Those (migrants) who come to seek freedom in France must participate in freedom. Migrants did not come to seek asylum in Saudi Arabia, but in Germany. Why? For security, freedom and prosperity. So they must not come to create a new Afghanistan,” said Algerian writer Kamel Daoud. Right. But it is the European mainstream that is letting them turn our cultural landscape into another Afghanistan.

The West used to be proud of being the land of the free. European museums, instead, are rapidly submitting to Islamic correctness. The exhibition “Passion for Freedom” at the Mall Gallery in London censored the light box tableaux of a family of toy animals living in an enchanted valley.

“The Louvre will be dedicating a new section to the artistic heritage of Eastern Christians”, then President Nicholas Sarkozy announced in 2010. But the project was scrapped by the museum’s new management, with the approval of President Hollande’s culture ministry. So today, the Louvre has a section dedicated to Islamic art, but nothing on Eastern Christianity.

Maastricht, in the Netherlands, is the picturesque city that gave its name to the famous treaty signed in 1992 by the twelve nations of the European Community at the time, and which paved the way for the foundation of today’s European Union and the single currency, the euro.

Maastricht, however, is also the home of “Tefaf”, the most important art and antiques fair in the world. The art work “Persepolis” by the Italian artist Luca Pignatelli was already scheduled when the commission ordered it removed. The work, built in 2016, combined a Persian Islamic rug and a female head. “We are all humbled and speechless”, Pignatelli declared, pointing out that his work had initially aroused the enthusiasm of the commission. The fair’s explanation was that Pignatelli’s work was “provocative”.

The officials of fair presumably did not want to offend Islam and possible Muslim buyers with Pignatelli’s combination of the mat (used by Muslims for prayer) with the woman’s face. “We are shocked, this is the first time this has happened and I think it is legitimate to talk about it”, Pignatelli said. “If in Rome it can happen that you decide to veil art works to avoid offending foreign visitors, well, I do not agree”. The reference is at the Italian government decision to veil the antique Roman statues to avoid offending Iran’s visiting President Hassan Rouhani.

If Europe wants a future, it should be less ideological about Maastricht’s treaty and more against Maastricht’s capitulation to fear. The brave Algerian writer Kamel Daoud said:

“Those (migrants) who come to seek freedom in France must participate in freedom. Migrants did not come to seek asylum in Saudi Arabia, but in Germany. Why? For security, freedom and prosperity. So they must not come to create a new Afghanistan”.

Right. But it is the European mainstream that is letting them turn our cultural landscape into another Afghanistan. The Taliban have killed artists and destroyed art works. The West used to be proud of being the land of the free.

U of Alaska: We Won’t Take Down Painting of Beheaded Donald Trump By Jillian Kay Melchior

The University of Alaska at Anchorage is refusing to remove a professor’s graphic painting depicting a decapitated Donald Trump, saying it was important to protect even objectionable artistic expression.https://heatst.com/culture-wars/u-of-alaska-we-wont-take-down-painting-of-beheaded-donald-trump/

The painting shows a nude Captain America (as portrayed by liberal actor Chris Evans) standing on a pedestal and holding Donald Trump’s head by the hair. The head drips blood onto Hillary Clinton, who is reclining provocatively in a white pant suit, clinging to Captain America’s leg. Eagles scream into Captain America’s ear, and a dead bison lies at his feet.

The painting, created by Prof. Thomas Chung, hangs on campus as part of an art exhibition this month.

But it became controversial after a former adjunct professor, Paul R. Berger, posted the image on Facebook, saying he was “not sure how I want to respond to this.” On one hand, he posted, “first thing that comes to mind is freedom of expression,” but he also noted the university’s exhibit was publicly funded.

Berger’s post soon prompted outrage, including several calls for the university to remove the painting. By deadline, neither Chung nor school officials responded toHeat Street’s request for comment.

But in an interview with the local NBC affiliate, the chair of the University of Alaska Anchorage’s fine arts department defended his decision to keep the painting up.

“If [students] were taking a class at the university and made art that was considered controversial, no matter what their political or religious bent is, we would do our best to protect them and protect their rights to make that kind of work in the institution, whether it would be a student or a faculty,” he said.

The University of Alaska Anchorage has at least one policy in place that “clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech” on campus, according to theFoundation for Individual Rights in Education.

And in recent years, art has also been censored at the university a handful of times. Nude sketches were covered to avoid offending a church group a few years ago, the Alaska Dispatch News reported, and offended parents also moved a sculpture of a penis, damaging it.

But the university also has a recent history of defending controversial expression. In the early 2000s, administrators defended a professor after a Native American grad student claimed her poem “Indian Girls” was racist. The statement issued by then-president Mark Hamilton is still cited on campus today.

In it, Hamilton wrote: “Opinions expressed by our employees, students, faculty or administrators don’t have to be politic or polite. However personally offended we might be, however unfair the association of the University to the opinion might be, I insist that we remain a certain trumpet on this most precious of Constitutional rights.”

— Jillian Kay Melchior writes for Heat Street and is a fellow for the Steamboat Institute and the Independent Women’s Forum.

French Presidential Campaign: Part 3 by Nidra Poller

Part 1 can be found here – click.

Part 2 can be found here – click.

The outstretched hand

The hagadah that is read during the pesach [Passover] seder is an intensely concentrated treatise on the subject of freedom. Something similar is happening in France today. The issues are dramatized by reality, realities that were deliberately kept out of sight have suddenly burst into the discourse and cannot be ignored. An intense concentrate of the issues that have been playing out since the end of September 2000* will reach a conclusion on the night of 23-24 April 2017 when the votes are counted and we will know what French citizens have decided to do about jihad conquest. The future of Europe, of the free world hangs in the balance. [* see my latest release, Troubled Dawn of the 21st Century]

Back then, deaf to the alarms of anti-Jewish violence triggered by the al Dura blood libel, French society stumbled from willful blindness to cozy antizionism until the rude awakening of the Charlie Hebdo executions, followed by the November 13th 2015 mass jihad murders. Again, today, the murder of a 67 year-old Jewish woman thrown out the window like a piece of garbage by her Muslim neighbor did not move the media or intrude on a presidential campaign that keeps veering away from the crucial issue of survival.

And now, 18 April, a thunderbolt strikes: Mahiedine Merabet and Clément Baur are arrested in Marseille, suspected of preparing an imminent jihad attack on “the campaign.” They had the full kit: ski masks,koranic verses, a go-pro camera, explosives, nuts and bolts, loaded assault weapons, and a hunting knife for good measure. British intelligence detected their allegiance to Daesh video and informed French authorities. François Fillon is the designated target, “talion law” is spelled out in bullets, and photos of Muslim children killed in bombings are displayed as justification. Mujahidin do not attack civilians…except in retaliation for crimes committed against Muslims.

Four days before the close of the campaign, Islamic totalitarianism pounces on us like a man-eating tiger on a forest path. Doesn’t that change everything? The danger to our democracy is not the employment of family members as parliamentary assistants! Two men of French nationality, one born into Islam, the other a convert, two lowlifes of no particular dimension, two flagged security risks like thousands of others, could have assassinated one of the four leading candidates and an untold number of supporters. Two common ordinary men loyal to the caliphate could have derailed the democratic process. A little monkey wrench thrown into the mechanism brings it to a halt.

How to Talk Like a Social Justice Campus Crybully Daniel Greenfield

We spent the second half of the last century in a long war with a bunch of leftists who wore funny clothes and shouted a jargon of incomprehensible slogans.

These days you can only find them in North Korea and on your local college campus.

As free speech disappears from campuses faster than beer during Hell Week, here’s your guide to understanding what the people taking away your free speech are saying while they pepper spray you.

Free speech is actually not at all endangered on campus, according to the Wellesley News which defines free speech as any speech that protects the underprivileged. The only free speech is left-wing speech. Any other speech is a form of oppression against the underprivileged who have the privilege of calling it out by harassing anyone who engages in it to protect their existence from your existence.

That includes lying down in the middle of freeway traffic so as to impede white supremacy by preventing teachers from getting to work, kids from getting to schools and ambulances from transporting dying patients to the hospital. This calls attention to the plight of angry African Studies majors who almost read “Between the World and Me” and named their gerbils after wanted terrorist Assata Shakur.

All non-social justice forms of speech are hate speech. These include supporting Trump, quoting the Bill of Rights or refusing to check your privilege. Checking your privilege determines how much free speech you really have. The privileged have the least free speech because of their burden of privilege and the underprivileged are privileged with the widest latitude of free speech.

This includes bursting into the library and shouting racial slurs while everyone is studying for their finals.

Objecting to racial slurs, death threats, fake hate crimes, machete attacks, pepper spray and/or arson is “tone policing”. Policing the tone of angry left-wing minority hooligans who have Tumblr pages full of clips from The Boondocks is deeply wrong and you need to check your privilege. They are already performing enormous amounts of “unpaid emotional labor” by just existing in white spaces and then trying to educate you about your privilege and their agony by yelling racial slurs in your face.

It doesn’t help when you refuse to be educated about your privilege and instead whitesplain, mansplain, hetsplain or cisplain to them about the challenges you have overcome. If you aren’t enduring daily “microaggressions” when people fail to use the correct personal pronoun that reflects your agender identity (Zer or Ler are both acceptable) then you have no idea how privileged you are.

Existence is resistance. The mere existence of an agender Muslim Eskimo Lesbian who is differently abled on account of Zer’s learning disability is an act of resistance against a system of white supremacy filled with unthinking privileged cis and het normative people like you.

Every time that Zer encounters anything from a bathroom sign to a wedding cake that normalizes heterosexual and cisgender people who are racist enough to love the opposite sex and believe that they’re still men and women, it is triggered and must defend its existence. This requires it to perform enormous amounts of unpaid emotional labor from which it must retreat into self-care mode where it binge watches a season of Orange is the New Black while shoveling pints of Ben & Jerry’s into its maw and then demands class credit and a grant for all that unpaid emotional labor.

Failure to accede to its demands is also a microaggression.

Unpaid emotional labor is any emotional friction resulting from Zer fighting back against being marginalized, triggered and bloated. Social justice crybullies will often demand to be paid for their emotional labor. The emotional labor they demand to be paid for includes yelling at people on Twitter, posting social justice cartoons on Tumblr and reporting people for offensive Halloween costumes.

Shattered Illusions A new book reveals that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was way more dysfunctional than we realized. By Jim Geraghty

Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign, the new book by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, is absolutely gripping reading, chock full of juicy, revelatory reporting about the Democratic nominee’s campaign that you really wish you had read during the actual campaign. Alas, Allen and Parnes had to agree to save their best material for the book in order to receive the extraordinary access they were given.

The authors are blunt about how what they observed of Team Clinton behind the scenes was completely different from what most of the public saw:

Over the course of a year and a half, in interviews with more than one hundred subjects, we started to piece together a picture that was starkly at odds with the narrative the campaign and the media were portraying publicly. Hillary’s campaign was so spirit-crushing that her aides eventually shorthanded the feeling of impending doom with a simple mantra: We’re not allowed to have nice things.

Wouldn’t it have been nice to know there was a “feeling of impending doom” inside the Clinton campaign last year?

It’s not that there was no coverage of the campaign’s infighting and stumbles. There just wasn’t much to suggest that the dysfunction of Clinton’s team would prove fatal, or even that it was worse than the usual clashing of egos in a high-stakes national race. The Trump campaign was usually portrayed as an out-of-control clown car, with feuding egos, bumbling incompetence, and campaign managers changing as regularly as Spinal Tap drummers. The Clinton campaign, by comparison, was perceived to be an experienced, well-funded, well-organized, well-oiled machine brimming with dozens of campaign offices in swing states and a proven ground game.

Except privately, the people running the machine had their doubts, and weren’t shy about sharing them with Allen and Parnes.

In Shattered, we learn that ten speechwriters, consultants, and aides had a hand in writing Clinton’s announcement speech, which unsurprisingly turned out to be a long, muddled mess. Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau, briefly brought in to help, concluded that the speech (and by extension, the whole campaign) “lacked a central rationale for why Hillary was running for president, and sounded enough like standard Democratic pablum that, with the exception of the biographical details, could have been delivered by anyone within the party.”

Quite a few people knew that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was a paper tiger.

Apocalyptic Progressivism Instead of overcoming challenges, progressive politicians exploit them to expand government. By Victor Davis Hanson

Shortly after the 2008 election, President Obama’s soon-to-be chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, infamously declared, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

He elaborated: “What I mean by that [is] it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Disasters, such as the September 2008 financial crisis, were thus seen as opportunities. Out of the chaos, a shell-shocked public might at last be ready to accept more state regulation of the economy and far greater deficit spending. Indeed, the national debt doubled in the eight years following the 2008 crisis.

During the 2008 campaign, gas prices at one point averaged over $4 a gallon. Then-candidate Obama reacted by pushing a green agenda — as if the cash-strapped but skeptical public could be pushed into alternative-energy agendas.

Obama mocked then-Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s prescient advice to “drill, baby, drill” — as if Palin’s endorsement of new technologies such as fracking and horizontal drilling could never ensure consumers plentiful fuel.

Instead, in September 2008, Steven Chu, who would go on to become Obama’s secretary of energy, told the Wall Street Journal that “somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

In other words, if gas prices were to reach $9 or $10 a gallon, angry Americans would at last be forced to seek alternatives to their gas-powered cars, such as taking the bus or using even higher-priced alternative fuels.

When up for reelection in 2012, President Obama doubled down on his belief that gas was destined to get costlier: “And you know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices.”

Yet even as Obama spoke, U.S. frackers were upping the supply and reducing the cost of gas — despite efforts by the Obama administration to deny new oil-drilling permits on federal lands.

New York Times Exonerates Palestinian Arch Terrorist The ‘paper of record’ attempts to turn a Jew killer into the new Nelson Mandela.

Reprinted from Mida.org.

The New York Times published an op-ed by arch-terrorist and convicted murderer Marwan Barghouti on Sunday. A respectable international newspaper giving a terrorist and a murderer an outlet to spread his venom and lies is detestable, but it’s also an affront to all those fighting terrorism worldwide. What the New York Times did to Israel is comparable to an international newspaper providing an outlet to Osama Bin Laden to spread his hatred and lies towards America.

But who is Marwan Barghouti and why is the New York Times’s willingness to publish his lies so repulsive?

Barghouti was the leader of the military wing of the Al-Aqsa Brigades, which between September 2000 – April 2002 carried out thousands of terror attacks against Israel, including suicide bombings. Furthermore, he served as Secretary General of Fatah in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, head of the Tanzim, and the founder of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades – a designated terror organization by the U.S. – which has carried out a large number of deadly terrorist attacks killing scores of Israelis and wounding hundreds. Barghouti received large amounts of funds from different sources both inside and outside Israel to finance terror attacks. Among these sources was the Palestinian Authority and the specific allocations of these funds were authorized by Yassir Arafat. In addition, Barghouti provided weapons and logistical support for many terrorist attacks.

Barghouti was arrested during Operation Defensive Shield on April 14, 2002. In 2004, Barghouti was sentenced to five consecutive life terms and 40 years for the murders of of Greek Orthodox monk Tsibouktsakis Germanus; a shooting spree at the Tel Aviv Seafood restaurant killing Eli Dahan, 53, Yosef Habi, 52, and Salim Barakat, 33, and wounding 31; the killing of Yoela Hen, 45, gunned down at the entrance to the town of Givaat Zeev.

According to the IDF, the following are some of the more heinous terrorist activities which Barghouti is responsible for between the years of 2001 and 2002:

– Shooting attack during a Bat Mitzva celebration at a banquet hall in which six Israelis were killed and 26 injured.

– Shooting attack in the center of Jerusalem killing two Israelis and wounding 37.

– Shooting attack in the Jerusalem residential neighborhood of Neve Ya’acov, killing an Israeli policewoman and wounding nine.