Displaying posts published in

December 2018

SABOTAGE: THE MOVIE ON THE GLAZOV GANG

https://jamieglazov.com/2018/12/07/glazov-gang-

This new Glazov Gang edition features Brannon Howse,
the producer of the movie, “Sabotage.” [Visit SabotagetheMovie.com.]

Brannon discusses his movie, his new book Marxianity, and How Islamists, Marxists & their religious “useful idiots” are destroying America from within.

Don’t miss it!

Also tune in to watch Jamie shed light on how John Bolton Praises My New Book, “Jihadist Psychopath,” where he shares how President Trump’s National Security Adviser has given his work a glowing thumbs up.

As Jamie’s video reveals above, The Glazov Gang is extremely excited to announce Jamie’s new BLOCKBUSTER book: Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us.

Jihadist Psychopath, which is Amazon’s #1 New Release in the “Medical Mental Illness” category, offers an original and ground-breaking perspective on the terror war. Like no other work, it unveils the world of psychopathy and reveals, step by step, how Islamic Supremacists are duplicating the sinister methodology of psychopaths who routinely charm, seduce, capture, and devour their prey.

Jihadist Psychopath unveils how every element of the formula by which the psychopath subjugates his victim is used by the Islamic Supremacist to ensnare and subjugate non-Muslims. And in the same way that the victim of the psychopath is complicit in his own destruction, so too Western civilization is now embracing and enabling its own conquest and consumption.

And as the video above also announces, President Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton says about Jihadist Psychopath:

Hard as it is to believe, many in the West simply will not take the time and trouble to understand the threat posed by radical Islamicist terrorism. James Burnham once wrote of a similar problem with international Communism in his masterful Suicide of the West. Now, Jamie Glazov has written this century’s counterpart to Burnham’s classic work and will doubtless upset those determined not to analyze for themselves the nature of the underlying phenomenon.

With a Foreword written by Michael Ledeen, glowing advance praise also comes from Dennis Prager, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson and many other titans and scholars in the international arena. (See Amazon page for many of the blurbs).

The American Film Institute’s Terrible Top Ten of 2018 By Armond White

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/american-film-institute-top-films-

In a rush to bad judgment, they heap praise on propaganda and scorn on moviegoers.

It’s the first week of December and the nation’s countless, overeager awards groups have already begun parceling out their year-end encomiums. They kowtow to Hollywood, obviously without having seen all the films yet to be released in 2018 — only movies that the big studios from Disney to Netflix have already decided are award-worthy.

The most egregious of these early-starters is the American Film Institute, which rushed the awards race with its 10 Best choices, sprinting out of the gate before a couple of the listed movies have even opened in theaters. The problem is that movies no longer have a chance to register in the culture or to become beloved or reviled by the public. It’s the case of yet another institution, based in Hollywood or D.C. (the AFI has feet in both), making decisions for the rest of us, indifferent to our participation.

The AFI began 51 years ago, after a Johnson-administration call for an organization committed to preserving America’s film heritage. It was originally funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, the Motion Picture Association of America, and the Ford Foundation, so its list sounds official. But the movie awards game is part of the commercialization of pop culture.

Even the debatable idea that the government should finance artists (through any means) is belied by the endorsement of commercialism rather than artistic expression. Be assured, there’s a political component to this: The films that won the AFI’s approval are all politically motivated and represent social-justice precepts rather than moral virtues or aesthetic standards. In other words, they’re propaganda.

Listed alphabetically, the AFI films assume the same values that are promoted in politically biased mainstream media; the list resembles an index for Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Shuhada’ Sadaqat (Sinead O’Connor) Finds “White People Disgusting” Clueless, attention-grabbing adult-onset Islam rises to fever pitch. Hugh Fitzgerald

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272146/shuhada-sadaqat-sinead-oconnor-finds-white-people-hugh-fitzgerald

Shuhada’ Sadaqat (formerly Shuhada Davitt, who was formerly known as Magda Davitt, who was formerly known as Sinead O’Connor) has publicly, and rather noisily, announced to the world that she has now converted to Islam. Much of the Western press seemed to think this example of adult-onset Islam worthy of their attention. It’s unclear why, as Sinead O’Connor has been exhibiting signs of dementia for many years, long before she tore up a photograph of Pope John Paul on Saturday Night Live to express her disagreement with him on the question of abortion.

Now she tells us that not only is she a Muslim, but that she hates all white people. Apparently she is not herself white. Was she ever? Here is her latest crazed tweet:

“I’m terribly sorry. What I’m about to say is something so racist I never thought my soul could ever feel it. But truly I never wanna spend time with white people again (if that’s what non-muslims are called). Not for one moment, for any reason. They are disgusting.” — Shuhada’ Davitt (@MagdaDavitt77) November 6, 2018

But who made her “say” anything “so racist”? Why does she insist on inflicting on the world her remarkably unedifying spiritual journey from Catholic to hater of Catholicism to ordained priest in a Catholic Church not in communion with Rome, and then to Islam, and finally, as a Muslim convert, to being a hater of all “white people (if that’s what non-muslims are called),” whom she finds “disgusting”? Why must she tell the world urbi et orbi, just like one of those Popes she so deplores, the putative “feelings” of her very likely non-existent “soul”? She could just have quietly abandoned all the “white people” she knew, no fuss, no muss. One wonders if, among those “white people” who are “disgusting,” she includes all her musical collaborators, former friends, family members. Will it be possible for them to cease to be white, and thus no longer “disgusting,” if they convert to Islam? And what about her father? Is he “disgusting”? We know that Sinead was delighted, as she let the whole world know, when her mother died. Sinead was 19 at the time, and hated her mother because, she claimed, her mother Marie ran a “torture chamber” at home. That might help explain why Sinead — Shuhada — has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and has been, as it is formulaically put, “struggling with mental health issues” her whole life. I’ll say.

Conservatives Triumph Over Free Speech-Hating UC Berkeley The university has to pay YAF $70,000 and end its unconstitutional campus speech policies. Matthew Vadum

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272160/conservatives-triumph-over-free-speech-hating-uc-matthew-vadum

Conservatives scored a major legal victory against UC Berkeley which has agreed to compensate Young America’s Foundation and Berkeley College Republicans for trampling the First Amendment rights of conservative speakers and students on its campus.

“Young America’s Foundation is thrilled that, after more than a year of UC Berkeley battling against the First Amendment rights of its own students, the University finally felt the heat and saw the light of their unconstitutional censorship,” said YAF spokesman Spencer Brown.

“YAF’s landmark victory for free expression—long squelched by Berkeley’s scheming administrators who weaponized flawed policies to target conservatives—shows that the battle for freedom undertaken by YAF on campuses nationwide is a necessary one.”

The Trump administration previously weighed in on the side of the campus conservatives who argued UC Berkeley’s restrictive policies violated First Amendment free speech rights and the equal protection and due process guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest on behalf of the two groups. The department “will not stand by idly while public universities violate students’ constitutional rights,” Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand said at the time.

UC Berkeley’s hostility toward free speech is well-established. The school appears in the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s (FIRE) annual list of the ten worst colleges for free speech. Berkeley has a “yellow light speech code rating” from FIRE because it restricts speech, denies students accused of misconduct the “right to challenge fact-finders,” and denies students accused of sexual misconduct the right to counsel.

The administration at UC Berkeley only pretended to adhere to the First Amendment’s speech protections. When conservatives have been scheduled to speak on campus, the administration typically didn’t forbid their appearances. Instead, it made the speeches inconvenient to the point of impossibility, for example, forcing students to use venues a mile off campus or at times when students couldn’t attend. Berkeley also often required non-leftist groups to hand over thousands of dollars to defray security costs, a requirement not rigorously or consistently imposed on left-wing speakers or groups.

An aggressive crackdown on non-leftist speech came after Berkeley officials—emboldened by an Antifa mob blocking a Feb. 1, 2017 campus appearance by firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos—decided to formalize viewpoint discrimination in the school’s policy on speakers.

George H.W. Bush and the Failure of American Foreign Policy By Michael Walsh

https://amgreatness.com/2018/12/06/george-h-w-bush-and-the

Amidst the lavish praise for the late president, George H.W. Bush, allow me to offer a contrarian view.

As we learned from the funeral of the non-president, John McCain, the leftist media has rarely met an ineffective Republican politician they didn’t want to celebrate when he passed, no matter what they’d said about him during his time here on Earth. In the interests of “bipartisanship,” “comity,” and “civility,” the years the dearly departed moved among us are seen retrospectively as a kind of Golden Age, when Republicans lost graciously to the designated Democrat, whether as a first-time candidate or (even better) a defeated one-termer sent packing so the Democrat Restoration could be implemented, and the natural order of American politics restored.

In the case of Bush the Elder, however, Poppy’s defeat at the hands (sorry) of Bill Clinton was not only fully deserved—the man was a natural non-politician up against the best campaigner of his generation—but actually welcome. Not only did he—read my lips—betray the legacy of Ronald Reagan in his electorally fatal decision to welsh on his “no new taxes” pledge, not only did he cut the legs out from under the Reagan Revolution by calling for a “kinder, gentler America,” but he also egregiously mishandled the Gipper’s most important legacy: the defeat of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

Don’t argue with me: I was there. I was in Dresden in February of 1985 when Erich Honecker denounced the “Star Wars” missile defense program at the behest of his Soviet masters; I was in the USSR (Leningrad) when Chernobyl blew up in April 1986; I was in Berlin, sledgehammer in hand, when the Wall toppled in November 1989; and I wrapped up my sojourn in the East Bloc during the summer of 1991 in Moscow, just a week or so before the attempted coup against Gorbachev.

77 years ago, a date that still lives in infamy By Ethel C. Fenig

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/77_years_ago_a_date_that_still_lives_in_infamy.html

On this day 77 years ago, Japan launched a surprise attack against a U.S. naval base in Pearl Harbor in the then-American territory of Hawaii. Over 2,400 Americans were killed, over 1,000 wounded on that day. The countries were not at war at the time. The next day, the U.S. Congress declared war against Japan. Speaking to a joint session of Congress, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) called the day of the attack “a date which will live in infamy.” Three days later, Germany and Italy declared war against the U.S.; the U.S. then declared war against Germany and Italy. Thus did the U.S. enter into what was later called World War ll, which had been raging in Europe and elsewhere for over two years.

The shock of the attack, with not even a trigger warning, to use a modern term, did not send young people then to scurry to safe spaces, as many do today at the first sign of distress, such as, oh, say, their preferred candidate not winning the presidency or hearing ideas that upset them. Enduring hard times during the Depression years preceding that attack, people of all ages rushed to sign up for the military.

One of them was George H.W. Bush. Six months after Pearl Harbor, in June 1942, he celebrated graduating high school and his 18th birthday by enlisting in the U.S. Navy. A year later, three days before his 19th birthday, he became an ensign and one of the youngest Naval aviators. Surviving the horrors of years of war – no safe spaces for him – he married, completed college, and went on to live a life of service to his country, love for his family.

It is hauntingly symbolic that Bush passed away just a few days before another Pearl Harbor anniversary was buried the day prior. Another veteran of that terrible war, former senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole (R), now 95, who was severely injured during that same brutal war but also later led a productive life, struggled to stand in respect at Bush’s casket.

They, and millions like them, rushed to danger to protect us all. Most are gone now; their valor endures.

U.S. Becomes Net Exporter of Oil, Fuels for First Time in Decades Fracking boom briefly propels U.S. to symbolic milestone of ‘energy independence’By Bradley Olson

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-becomes-net-exporter-of-oil-fuels-for-first-time-in-decades-1544128404?cx_testId=16&cx_testVariant=cx&cx_artPos=1&cx_tag=pop&cx_navSource=newsReel#cxrecs_s

The U.S. became a net exporter of oil and refined fuels last week for the first time in decades, a symbolic milestone that would have seemed unthinkable just 10 years ago.

The shift to net exporter from importer, detailed in weekly data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, may be short lived. Still, it demonstrates that America is moving closer to achieving “energy independence” as the shale revolution makes the country one of the world’s top oil producers and reshapes global markets.

Reducing American dependency on oil imports has been an intense focus of executives and presidents from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, none of whom anticipated a renaissance in U.S. drilling.

Since the Arab oil embargo 45 years ago, which sent crude prices up and created painful supply shortages, the problem of scarcity had defined U.S. thinking and strategy around oil, the world’s economic lifeblood. But the fracking boom, which has spurred massive increases in drilling from Texas to Appalachia, has sharply lessened reliance on foreign energy sources.

America is now the world’s top producer of oil and natural gas. This week in Vienna, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is once again weighing whether to curtail production, a decision driven in part by surging American oil output, which has topped 11 million barrels a day.

Canada: Opposition, Protests and a Petition Against the UN Migration Pact A Canadian movement rises against globalist Trudeau.Christine Williams

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272173/canada-opposition-protests-and-petition-against-un-christine-williams

The UN Migration Pact represents a catastrophic dismantling of key components of democratic institutions by the United Nations, a body that has increasingly allied with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The Pact — officially named the “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” — indicates that it “offers a 360-degree vision of international migration and recognizes that a comprehensive approach is needed to optimize the overall benefits of migration, while addressing risks and challenges for individuals and communities in countries of origin, transit and destination.” It also states that “No country can address the challenges and opportunities of this global phenomenon on its own.”

This means (sarcasm warning ahead) that all countries must depend on the competent, just and democratic United Nations to guide them to enjoying the benefits of mass migration. To do this, one would have to turn a blind eye to the globalist vision of open borders that has plunged Europe into crisis, a crisis that has led in turn to the rise of the so-called “populist” movement. Contrary to the media’s labeling of it as “racist” and “Nazi,” this movement supports democracy, supports Israel, and aims to defend free societies, marginalize Islamic supremacists, and stop their incursions into Western countries. So-called “populist” leaders have also sought to protect their citizens from the damage of unlimited, unvetted migration.

Canada, in contrast, has offered to “lead the charge” on the UN Migration Pact.

As a concerned, patriotic Canadian citizen and Royal Canadian Air Force F18 retired combat pilot, Major Russ Cooper — co-founder of the group Canadian Citizens for Charter Rights and Freedoms — wrote a summary of his concerns about the UN Migration Pact:

Objective 2 which commits destination nations to the elimination of poverty and social inequity in originating nations;
Objective 5 requirement to assist migrants with identifying the best host country for their needs;
Objective 7 stipulation that calls for “irregular” status migrants to be considered for “regular” status;
Objective 16 direction to accommodate family reunification programs thereby expanding, exponentially, the flow rate of migration;
Objective 17 requirement to eliminate “all forms of discrimination” in the host population including those that call into question the political opinions of migrants. Here we can see Motion M-103 as a precursor for a larger, more comprehensive Global Compact initiative;
Objective 17 direction to tightly control criticism of migrants and migration programs;
Objective 17 restrictions on media outlets and professionals to ensure they are properly “sensitized” and “educated” in matters pertaining to migration;
Objective 20 stipulations that faster, better, more efficient remittance programs be developed to funnel monies out of destination and into originating nations; and
Objective 22 requirement to make all migrant-gained social benefits and pensions portable to any other jurisdictions of his or her choice.

Italy Adopts Hardline Immigration Law by Soeren Kern

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13392/italy-immigration-law

Under the new law, the Italian government will only grant asylum to legitimate refugees of war or victims of political persecution. Asylum seekers may now lose their protection if they are convicted of crimes including: threat or violence to a public official; physical assault; female genital mutilation; and a variety of theft charges.

“I wonder if those who contest the security decree have even read it. I do not really understand what the problem is: it deports criminals and increases the fight against the mafia, racketeering and drugs.” — Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior Matteo Salvini.

Italy will not sign the United Nations Global Compact for Migration, nor will Italian officials attend a conference in Marrakech, Morocco, on December 10 and 11 to adopt the agreement. The Global Compact not only aims to establish migration as a human right, but also to outlaw criticism of migration through hate crimes legislation.

The Italian Parliament has approved a tough new immigration and security law that will make it easier to deport migrants who commit crimes and strip those convicted of terrorism of their Italian citizenship.

Italy’s lower house of parliament, the Camera dei Deputati, voted 396 to 99 on November 28 to approve the new law, which was sponsored by Interior Minister Matteo Salvini. The law had previously been approved by the Italian Senate on November 7. The measure was promulgated by President Sergio Mattarella on December 3.Also known as the “Security Decree” or the “Salvini Decree,” the new law includes several key provisions:

Eliminates Humanitarian Protection. A primary objective of the new law is to limit the number of migrants granted asylum in Italy. To achieve this aim, Article 1 of the decree abolishes residence permits for so-called humanitarian protection, a form of security available to those not eligible for refugee status.

Refute Palestinian Lies to Promote Mideast Peace There’s no ‘occupied’ territory, and the Jews have been in Israel for thousands of years. Max Singer

https://www.wsj.com/articles/refute-palestinian-lies-to-promote-mideast-peace-1544139570

‘Our demand for fairness for Israel is actually a demand for peace,” declared Nikki Haley in July. It’s important for the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations to stress fairness, and above all truth, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because Palestinian rejection of peace frequently hides behind falsehoods. Ending the acceptance of these falsehoods is critical to putting Middle East diplomacy on a path toward peace.

The U.S. has already acted to gain recognition of three key truths that had long been diplomatically ignored: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; very few of the Palestinians that the U.N. Relief and Works Agency supports are actually refugees; and the U.N. has been unacceptably biased against Israel.

Now the U.S. can tip the political balance toward peace and stability by insisting on two other truths. First, despite widespread use of the term in diplomatic documents and debate, there is no such thing as “occupied Palestinian territory” because there has never been a Palestinian territory to occupy. As some Palestinians point out, they have never had a state of their own. This is far more than a game of semantics. If the land was Palestinian, then Israel could have stolen it. If the land isn’t Palestinian, then Israel couldn’t have stolen it. It’s critical that the U.S. actively combat the falsehood that Israel exists on stolen Palestinian land.

The second falsehood is married to the first. The Palestinians not only claim that all the land is theirs, they also deny any Jewish connection to it. During the failed Camp David talks in 2000, Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat stunned President Clinton by asserting the Jews had no connection to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the place where the first and second Jewish temples stood.

Mr. Clinton may have been surprised, but the Palestinian denial of any historic Jewish connection to the land is nothing new, and it continues. Since the Palestinians know that hardly anyone outside the Arab who would agree with them, they rarely say it in English.