Displaying posts published in

September 2018

Are There Really Jihadist Training Camps in the U.S.? By Jeff Sanders

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/are-there-really-jihadist-training-camps-in-the-us/

For years I have seen posters on Facebook and videos telling us that there are dozens and dozens, maybe even hundreds, of terrorist training camps throughout the U.S. I have greeted these reports with a mixture of some belief and a lot of skepticism.

It’s pretty clear from the September 11, 2001 massacre that there were Islamist sleeper cells in the United States. It is also pretty clear that jihadists get their inspiration from such savage organizations as ISIS and al-Qaeda, swear allegiance to them, and carry out terror attacks (such as in San Bernardino, Boston, Chattanooga, New York City, and elsewhere around the world). Why wouldn’t there be actual training camps hidden in the woods or the desert?

However, for the same number of years the press has “pooh-poohed” the ideas that large groups of Muslims are training for holy war against us in camps scattered throughout America. For example, in 2015 Business Insider basically said that all the stories about terrorist training camps run by Islamic groups such as Jamaat ul-Fuqra are just fiction without any hard evidence to back them up.

You can read the same kind of disbelief in these stories by the Dallas Observer,

Buzzfeed News, Vox, and even Fox News. In short, these media outlets are saying that most of the ideas about jihadist training camps come from one source: the Clarion Project. Since the Clarion Project is just a bunch of ultra-right-wing Islamophobes, we cannot take what they say with any kind of certainty.

Kamala Harris Harasses Kavanaugh on Robert Mueller, Charlottesville, ‘White Supremacist’ Terms By Tyler O’Neil

https://pjmedia.com/trending/kamala-harris-harasses-kavanaugh-on-robert-mueller-charlottesville-white-supremacist-terms/

On Tuesday, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of speaking with President Trump’s lawyer’s law firm about the Robert Mueller investigation. She did so without evidence, and while refusing to provide a list of lawyers at the firm. After this, the senator jumped down Kavanaugh’s throat with a question about the white nationalist riots in Charlottesville last year.

“Judge, have you ever discussed Special Counsel Mueller or his investigation with anyone?” Harris asked. After the nominee responded that he had, the senator asked, “Have you discussed it with anyone at Kasowitz, Benson, and Torres, the law firm founded by Marc Kasowitz, President Trump’s personal lawyer? Be sure about your answer, sir.”

Kavanaugh, perplexed, could not remember if he knew anyone at that law firm. “Is there a person you’re talking about?” The senator responded, “I’m asking you a very direct question, yes or no.”

“I’m not sure, I need to know anyone who works at that law firm,” the nominee explained. As the senator continued to push him, he said, “I’m just trying to think, do I know anyone at that firm.” Kamala Harris cut him off, saying, “That’s not my question.”

“I would like to know the person you’re thinking of,” Kavanaugh said. “I think you’re thinking of someone and you don’t want to tell us,” Harris countered. Can she read his mind?!

“Who did you have a conversation with?” Kamala Harris asked, acting as though the nominee’s perplexed face revealed his complicity.

At this point, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) chimed in with a point of order, explaining that Washington, D.C. is full of law firms, that law firms are full of people, and it is not reasonable for Harris to assume Kavanaugh automatically knows everyone who works at this one specific law firm. He joked, “They’re like rabbits, they form new firms.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Atlanta Mayor Announces City Jails Will No Longer Hold ICE Detainees By Jack Crowe

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/atlanta-mayor-announces-city-jails-no-longer-hold-ice-detainees/

Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms signed an executive order Thursday requiring that all Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees be transferred out of city custody immediately.

“Atlanta will no longer be complicit in a policy that intentionally inflicts misery on a vulnerable population without giving any thought to the horrific fallout,” Bottoms said at a City Hall news conference, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. “As the birthplace of the civil-rights movement we are called to be better than this.”

The announcement comes roughly two months after a previous executive order, issued in the wake of the Trump administration’s adoption of a “zero tolerance” immigration-enforcement policy, declared that city jails would not accept any new ICE detainees.

The number of ICE detainees in Atlanta jails has fallen from 205 in June, when the initial executive order was issued, to just five as of Wednesday. Of the 200 detainees removed from Atlanta jails in the interim, some have been released, some have been deported, and some have been transferred to various nearby detention centers.

Georgia secretary of state Brian Kemp, the state’s Republican gubernatorial nominee, issued a harshly critical statement in response to the order.

“The City of Atlanta should focus on cleaning up corruption and stopping crime — not creating more of it,” Kemp said.

A number of other localities, including Sacramento County, Calif. and Springfield, Ore. previously discontinued, or chose not to renew, federal contracts that required they imprison ICE detainees.

The Mueller probe’s troubling reliance on journalists as sources By John Solomon,

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/405242-the-mueller-probes-troubling-reliance-on-journalists-as-sources

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has sent a subpoena to veteran writer Jerome Corsi — the first publicly known effort to compel a journalist’s testimony in the Trump-Russia collusion investigation.

Corsi, whose work has been showcased for years in conservative outlets such as Human Events, World Net Daily and the InfoWars conspiracy site, says he will not fight the subpoena and plans to appear before the grand jury on Friday.

The subpoena is a not-so-subtle reminder of just how much prosecutors, FBI agents, and the government’s confidential sources who launched and sustained the Russia probe all targeted, courted and leveraged the news media.

Mueller’s team reportedly wants to question Corsi about his contacts with longtime Trump friend Roger Stone and whether Stone ever asked Corsi to try to get WikiLeaks to release damaging emails on Hillary Clinton before the 2016 election ended. It’s expected that Corsi will tell prosecutors he did not bite on Stone’s overtures, in part because he suspected Julian Assange and WikiLeaks were monitored by U.S. intelligence after their past publications of classified U.S. secrets.

The New York Times Anonymous Op-ed Pushes Electoral Sabotage An attempt to nullify the election isn’t something to celebrate, even if you dislike Trump.By David Harsanyi

An anonymous op-ed published in The New York Times, penned by “a senior Trump administration official,” contends that a cabal of senior staffers have secretly schemed to undermine Donald Trump in an effort to protect the American people. “I work for the president,” claims the purported senior official, “but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”

The problem with the much-discussed op-ed isn’t only that it fails to offer a single example of officials actually “thwarting” the Trump agenda or saving the republic from his capriciousness. It’s that it celebrates the idea of nullifying an election.

While I’m sure much of the op-ed is thematically accurate, it’s difficult to believe the author is a selfless public servant letting us know that our democratic institutions are safe in their nameless hands. Any member of the administration legitimately concerned about reigning in the president’s outbursts—and doubtlessly there are a number of them—would never have sent an article guaranteed to generate more White House chaos and paranoia.

It would make no sense. Trump, after all, is already dealing with interminable leaks. The piece will only further confirm his suspicions that a Fifth Column is undercutting the presidency, which will make him less likely to listen to advisors.

To be fair, if you were informed that a faction of “senior” staffers was actively subverting your “agenda”—not merely your tweeting or hyperbole about the media, but the policy items that you promised the electorate you would pursue—you might have some valid reasons to be suspicious, as well.

MY SAY: REFLECTIONS ON A NEW YEAR IN JEWISH HISTORY

On Sunday night, September 9th at sunset the Jewish New Year begins….5,779 years of Jewish history which is really a miracle. Great and mighty empires have disappeared and despite centuries of pogroms, oppression, dislocation, and genocide we are still here.

Including the expulsion from England in 1290, actually 109 nations have expelled the Jews since AD250. See the list at https://www.biblebelievers.org.au/expelled.htm

If the highest estimates are assumed there are 15 million Jews in the world and their outsize contributions to science, technology, medicine, the arts and charitable institutions are astonishing.

Jewish families blessed by courage and determination still live in Hebron, home of the Patriarchs whence the unbroken chain of faith that binds us to this day was forged.

I reject dwelling on woe and mourning. I prefer the stanza from “I Will Survive “written by Freddie Perren and Dino Fekaris in 1978 and premiered by the great Gloria Gaynor and added to the Library of Congress national registry of recording in 2016. In an interesting choice, the other recording added was a performance of Mahler’s ninth symphony by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, recorded just two months before Germany invaded Austria in 1938, when all of the Jewish musicians were fired and subsequently many were killed.

Edited:

“Weren’t you the ones who tried, to hurt us with goodbye.
You’d think we’d crumble, you’d think we’d lay down and die

Oh no not us. We will survive! We will survive!”

And on that note, as we always abbreviated in the Bronx…….” A happy and a healthy to you all.” שנה טובה ומתוקה‎

RSK

The British Labour Party’s New Definition of Anti-Semitism by Denis MacEoin

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12965/labour-party-antisemitism

It was clear that the Chakrabarti inquiry, described by the head of a parliamentary committee as a “whitewash”, had ignored a vast swathe of submissions, chiefly from Jewish leaders, writers, and activists.
Clearly, Jeremy Corbyn is betting that in the Britain today, anti-Semitism is quite literally the winning ticket.

The caveat is clearly designed to let anyone accused of such biased criticism (a central feature of Labour anti-Semitism in the past) wriggle out of demands for their removal and allow Labour to dismiss all but the most unspeakable forms of anti-Semitism.

Britain’s Labour Party, which remains the chief opposition to the current Conservative government, has struggled to throw off a reputation for condoning anti-Semitism and harbouring large numbers of anti-Semites in its ranks. Revelation after revelation of anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist, and anti-Israel utterances, resolutions, and internal investigations have brought the party into serious disrepute and given the media and their political opponents endless opportunities justifiably to label the party with charges of racism. Anti-racism is, quite rightly, a value presumably respected by most people. Writing in British Future in April, Sunder Katwala says he spoke to an anti-racism rally for his local Labour group:

“I told the audience that Labour has been a trailblazer on race. That if you looked around the world, it might be difficult to find any other political party that has taken so much pride in having been a pioneer in fighting racism.”

So far, so good. Katwala, however, immediately continued:

“But I also spoke of my sadness that a party with that tradition and that history still has so much work to do today when it comes to tackling antisemitism in the Labour party itself.”

Now, this is really curious: the most anti-racist party standing accused by many of its own members and MPs of being anti-Semitic. How has that happened and how has it recently been reinforced by a decision made this July by the party’s National Executive Committee?

Before that, it might be helpful to quote part of a recent speech made in the House of Commons on April 16 by Ruth Smeeth, a Jewish Labour MP. She spoke during a lengthy parliamentary session devoted to anti-Semitism, when many fine speeches were made, and at the end she received a standing ovation. Her words shocked everyone in the chamber:

Over the past two years, however, I have experienced something genuinely painful: attacks on my identity from within my own Labour family. I have been the target of a campaign of abuse, attempted bullying and intimidation from people who would dare to tell me that people like me have no place in the party of which I have been a member for over 20 years, and which I am proud to represent on these Benches. My mum was a senior trade union official; my grandad was a blacklisted steelworker who became a miner. I was born into our movement as surely as I was born into my faith. It is a movement that I have worked for, campaigned for and fought for during my entire adult life, so it was truly heart-breaking to find myself in Parliament Square just over three weeks ago, standing shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish community against the poison of anti-Semitism that is engulfing parts of my own party and wider political discourse.

If the House will indulge me, I would like to read out a small sample of what I have received on social media…

“Hang yourself you vile treacherous Zionist Tory filth. You are a cancer of humanity.”

Abbas: The Same Mistakes as Arafat by A. Z. Mohamed

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12920/abbas-arafat-mistakes

The question that needs to be asked is: Is it Palestinian public opinion, brought on by decades of incitement, that is pressuring Abbas into embarking on his anti-peace and anti-Israel rhetoric?
Abbas has chosen to endorse a legacy that he himself denounced in 2011. This legacy does not consider the lack of a Palestinian state to be the problem, but the existence of a Jewish and democratic state. It is a legacy that does not believe in peace with Israel but peace without Israel.

The majority of Abbas’s people do not trust him, are dissatisfied with his leadership, and demand that he resign. He is unable and unwilling to help his people abandon nationalist and Islamist delusions and myths representing outdated objectives, beliefs, and rhetoric. At this point, he cannot grow out of them. In short, Abbas has duplicated the mistakes of Arafat.

Why did Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas recently reject an offer to meet with White House advisors Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt?

According to a report in the London-based, Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat, Abbas viewed the reported offer as an attempt by the Americans to push the Palestinians into agreeing to a peace process favorable to Israel.

Abbas and his PA leadership have been boycotting the US administration since President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in December 2017.

Abbas’s refusal to meet with the Trump envoys did not come as a surprise. In fact, in light of his anti-Israel rhetoric in the past few months, the Palestinian leader’s decision was expected.

Consider, for example, what Abbas said in an address to the Central Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in January 2018, in which he approvingly quoted Egyptian intellectual Abdel-Wahab El-Messiri’s denial of the 3,000-year Jewish connection to Israel:

“The functional nature of Israel means that it was evoked by colonialism in order to fulfill a specific function, and thus it constitutes a colonialist enterprise that has nothing to do with Judaism.”

The Most Dangerous Countries in Europe for Women Have Large Muslim Immigration Statistics link Muslim immigration in Europe to sexual violence. Daniel Greenfield

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271213/most-dangerous-countries-europe-women-have-large-daniel-greenfield

Sweden has one of Europe’s highest rates of sexual assaults.

At 120.79 violent sexual assaults per 100,000 people, and 56 rapes per 100,000, the otherwise bleak socialist country ranks as having the second highest rate of sexual violence in Europe.

What makes Sweden so exceptionally dangerous for women? Its militant feminism is embedded in its political culture and its educational system. Sweden has boasted of a “feminist foreign policy”, 61% of Swedes in one survey identified as feminists and hold the strongest views on “gender equality” of any Europeans. Swedes are the most likely to believe that it’s okay for men to cry. Only 11% believe that women should take care of the home and only 10% believe that it’s a man’s job to support his family.

A local branch of the Left Party in Sweden even demanded that men urinate while sitting down.

And then there are the Czechs, just 13% identify as feminists, 77% think that a woman’s place is in the home, yet the sexual assault rate is 7.79 per 100,000, a tiny fraction of feminist Sweden.

If the real issues were feminism and toxic masculinity, if sufficient educational indoctrination about the evils of masculinity is needed to “teach men not to rape”, women should be safest in Sweden.

So what went wrong?

Instead of traveling from Stockholm to Prague, let’s take a closer trip over to neighboring Finland.

Finland has a third of Sweden’s rape rates and a quarter of its sexual assault rates. Its numbers are still far higher than most of Europe, but nowhere near those of Sweden.

What could possibly explain the difference?

Liberalism as Imperialism By Yoram Hazony

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/liberalism-as-imperialism-dogmatic-utopianism-elites-america-europe/

The dogmatic utopianism of elites on both sides of the Atlantic is not without its costs.

Editor’s Note: The following excerpt is adapted from Mr. Hazony’s latest book, The Virtue of Nationalism. It appears here with permission.

My liberal friends and colleagues do not seem to understand that the advancing liberal construction is a form of imperialism. But to anyone already immersed in the new order, the resemblance is easy to see. Much like the pharaohs and the Babylonian kings, the Roman emperors and the Roman Catholic Church until well into the modern period, as well as the Marxists of the last century, liberals, too, have their grand theory about how they are going to bring peace and economic prosperity to the world by pulling down all the borders and uniting mankind under their own universal rule. Infatuated with the clarity and intellectual rigor of this vision, they disdain the laborious process of consulting with the multitude of nations they believe should embrace their view of what is right. And like other imperialists, they are quick to express disgust, contempt, and anger when their vision of peace and prosperity meets with opposition from those who they are sure would benefit immensely by simply submitting.

Liberal imperialism is not monolithic, of course. When President George H. W. Bush declared the arrival of a “new world order” after the demise of the Communist bloc, he had in mind a world in which America supplies the military might necessary to impose a “rule of law” emanating from the Security Council of the United Nations. Subsequent American presidents rejected this scheme, preferring a world order based on unilateral American action in consultation with European allies and others. Europeans, on the other hand, have preferred to speak of “transnationalism,” a view that sees the power of independent nations, America included, as being subordinated to the decisions of international and administrative bodies based in Europe. These disagreements over how the international liberal empire is to be governed are often described as if they are historically novel, but this is hardly so. For the most part, they are simply the reincarnation of threadworn medieval debates between the emperor and the Pope over how the international Catholic should be governed — with the role of emperor being reprised by those (mostly Americans) who insist that authority must be concentrated in Washington, the political and military center; and the role of the papacy being played by those (mostly European, but also many American academics) who see ultimate authority as residing with the highest interpreters of the universal law, namely, the judicial institutions of the United Nations and the European Union.

These arguments within the camp of liberal imperialism raise pressing questions for the coming liberal construction of the West. But for those who remain unconvinced of the desirability of maintaining such a liberal empire, the most salient fact is what the parties of these disagreements have in common. For all their bickering, proponents of the liberal construction are united in endorsing a single imperialist vision: They wish to see a world in which liberal principles are codified as universal law and imposed on the nations, if necessary by force. This, they agree, is what will bring us universal peace and prosperity. Ludwig von Mises speaks for all the different factions when he writes: