Displaying posts published in

July 2019

Ruthie Blum: Evan Cohen: Netanyahu’s perfect pick for foreign press adviser Even the prime minister’s enemies at home are fully aware that it takes weeks of bureaucracy to fill public-servant posts, so they had to limit their baseless accusations to the “suspicious timing” of the announcement.

https://www.jns.org/opinion/evan-cohen-netanyahus-perfect-pick-for-foreign-press-adviser/

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Sunday that he had appointed Dr. Evan Cohen—founding chairman of Likud Pride, the party’s LGBTQ caucus—as his foreign press adviser.

Cohen was a wise choice for the role of explaining Netanyahu’s policies to the international media. The 51-year-old tenured teacher of linguistics at Tel Aviv University, who immigrated to Israel from South Africa at the age of 9, has been a vocal and articulate bilingual Likud activist for many years, writing op-eds in Hebrew and English, and participating in radio and television debates in both languages. It was a one-on-one TV interview with i24News on June 6, in fact, which reportedly gave Netanyahu the idea to hire him in the first place. And it’s no wonder, given Cohen’s ability to present the Likud’s worldview with clarity.

This has not prevented detractors from engaging in a campaign to cast aspersions on Netanyahu’s motives and Cohen’s credentials, however, particularly with the Sept. 17 Knesset elections looming so large.

The faulty ammunition being used in the “two-fer” attack is a scandal surrounding statements made by Israeli Education Minister Rafi Peretz on Saturday evening. During an interview with Channel 12’s Dana Weiss, Peretz—an Orthodox rabbi and a member of the Union of Right-Wing Parties—said that it is “possible” for homosexuals to be converted through therapy.

You Don’t Need To Be A Scientist To Know That The Global Warming Alarm “Science” Is Fake Francis Menton

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-7-15-you-dont-need-to-be-a-scienti

If you follow the subject of global warming alarm, you will have read many times that there is a “consensus” of “97% of climate scientists” on — well, on something. I’ve actually never been able to find a precise statement of the proposition on which the 97% supposedly agree. But suppose you can find the statement. And suppose that it consists of some kind of definitive assertion that there has been significant atmospheric warming over the past century, and that most to all of such warming has been caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. Is this real science or fake science? How do you tell?

It seems that the most common approach of most people to this question is to trust the “scientists.” After all, science is complicated. You are not a scientist, so how are you ever going to understand this? And even if you are a scientist in some other field, and you have both the talent and the interest to delve into the details of how this conclusion was reached, you don’t have the time. You are told that 97% of “climate scientists” agree. Really, what choice do you have other than to trust the people who have done the work, and who call themselves the scientists and the experts on this subject? This approach apparently seems reasonable to a lot of people, including many, many seemingly intelligent people.

Noura Erakat Recounts Her ‘Anxiety’ Over Israel’s Existence Israel-hatred threatens Rutgers’ Noura Erakat’s “mental health.”by Andrew Harrod

https://spectator.org/noura-erakat-recounts-

“Ideal with a lot of mental health stuff because of this. I have so much anxiety,” fretted Rutgers University Professor Noura Erakat while discussing her anti-Israel activism at Washington, D.C.’s Busboys and Poets restaurant on K Street. Given Erakat’s ludicrous views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, one might indeed question her mental health. But the like-minded audience of 100 at the June 20 event for her latest book, Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine, found her unfounded, revisionist history to be on the level.

While introducing Erakat, Busboys and Poets founder Andy Shallal noted proudly that the packed event room bore the name of Communist Israel-hater Angela Davis. Moderating the discussion was Khury Petersen-Smith, an Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) fellow and an organizer of the “2015 Black Solidarity Statement with Palestine,” the slogans for which include the trite “Zionism is racism.” Fittingly, Rasha Abdulhadi, a leftist poet and self-described “queer Palestinian Southerner,” read one of her poems.

The audience included a who’s who of anti-Israel leftists, such as Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin and Phyllis Bennis of IPS, an event co-sponsor. James Cobey and Zeina Azzam, well-known activists from Washington, D.C.’s local anti-Israel scene, attended. Erakat gushed that being “in the company of movement family” made this event her book-tour favorite.

MY SAY: THE WHITE HOUSE VERSUS THE LOWER HOUSE

I am beginning to think that Congress is very appropriately named “The Lower House.”

In the latest brouhaha President Trump tweeted that “progressive Democrat congresswomen “should “go back” to their countries of origin to fix the corruption plaguing those nations before they lecture the United States.

If the President’s tweet was lame, Pelosi’s response was more so. She swiftly responded that the issue proved that the President wants to “make America white again.”

The “squad” Ilhan Omar, Ayana Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are the only four Democrats in the House who voted against the border funding bill who provocatively denounce the Democrats who voted for it. Their public remarks are anti-Trump, anti-cauliflower (Cortez) anti-Israel and Jews and not so veiled primary threats against more establishment Democrats. This occasioned critical comments from Nancy Pelosi. The response? Pelosi is a racist.

Racism…. that’s the new meme in the lower House.

On Sunday the intelligence-light Representative Ben Ray Lujan (D- New Mexico District 3) and recently named Assistant House Speaker, was asked about immigration, and Trump, and the hostilities between Pelosi and the squad, and he mentioned racism against “people of color” in all his answers.

And now the squad is invoking the other persistent meme…. impeachment for racism…A new low for the lower house..rsk

FREE SPEECH AND ITS ENEMIES- FROM AUSTRALIA *****

The Tasmanian senator delivered these remarks on June 2 in the red chamber

Freedom of speech, belief and association of freedoms for which our forebears sacrificed. They understood the importance of nurturing these freedoms. These freedoms have allowed us to explore, develop and nuance ideas, philosophical, political, scientific and religious, amongst others.

Today, our society is in grave danger of losing this rich heritage, together with its attendant benefits. That is why I have taken this, the first opportunity the 46th Parliament has afforded me, to make a plea to defend our freedoms. To fail to do so is to squander the legacy bequeathed to us. Of late we have been witnessing elements, some arrogantly—most others I am sure are naively motivated, but to the same effect—silencing, punishing and intimidating people with whom they disagree.

Our universities, which should be the nursery of free speech, are often not only failing their own rich heritage in this regard but actively destroying it. From students to senior lecturers, there’s a growing list of shameful incidents. The contest of ideas and research methodologies should be encouraged, not punished. As Justice Vasta said in the Peter Ridd case:

Incredibly, the university has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom. In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth.

He also said that intellectual freedom:

allows academics to express their opinions without fear of reprisals. … And that, at its core, is what higher learning is about.

We see the same corrosion of standards in sport. Rugby Australia’s unprecedented and unprincipled dismissal of Israel Folau has become the latest ugly example. Mr Folau, our best rugby player, was sacked for taking to social media with a paraphrased quote from the Holy Bible.

Rugby Australia now claims it was the threat of the withdrawal of sponsorship which motivated them. That turns the spotlight onto the corporate bullying, while not excusing Rugby Australia’s cowardice. The abuse of corporate sponsorship to manipulate team selection, especially on religious views, is reprehensible. Trying the same corporate ugliness on Izzy’s wife, a sportswoman in her right, for supporting him, is reprehensible writ large.

In an exercise of Orwellian proportions, these sports stars were targeted for exclusion in the name of “inclusion” and discriminated against in the name of “tolerance”. You don’t have to agree with Izzy to agree with his right to express his religious views, or his wife’s right to back him. Today it’s Izzy’s religious views and his wife’s loyal support.

Yesterday it was the Professor Ridd’s scientific views. Tomorrow it might be somebody’s political view. The next might be someone’s environmental view.

This is a fight for freedom of speech which impacts us all.

Turkey: Out in the Cold by Burak Bekdil

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14549/turkey-out-in-the-cold

The fight for Tripoli has killed more than 750 people – not a stunning number when compared to 9/11, but not small enough to be ignored like a bomb blowing up in Paris, Istanbul or Berlin.

Earlier, during the first signs of the Arab Spring, Erdoğan took to the idea of bringing together Muslims of the Middle East and uniting them under a Turkish empire that was being reborn – with him as the new caliph.

Erdoğan was the rock star in Beirut or Cairo not because poor Arabs were desperately waiting for the return of Turks to lead them — Turkey has serious friction with Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates — but simply because they were programmed to cozy up to any anti-Zionist man, animal or plant.

Add to that picture a rising alliance of all those Arab states with Western states and corporate actors in exploring hydrocarbons in the Eastern Mediterranean, and it becomes hard to find anyone who wishes to play on the Turkish side.

It looks as if Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s will and power to fight all of the world’s infidels – Muslims with different rituals, secular Muslims, Christians and Jews – will never cease.

Earlier, during the first signs of the Arab Spring, Erdoğan took to the idea of bringing together Muslims of the Middle East and uniting them under a Turkish empire that was being reborn – with him as the new caliph.

His violent anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist rhetoric worked well to earn him Arab popularity. But the message he got was wrong.

Erdoğan was the rock star in Beirut or Cairo not because poor Arabs were desperately waiting for the return of Turks to lead them — Turkey has been experiencing serious friction with Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates –- but simply because all of them are programmed to cozy up to any anti-Zionist man, animal or plant.

Facebook: More Government Censorship by Judith Bergman

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14293/facebook-government-censorship

As indicated by the US in its statement, the problem with these government-led drives for more censorship in the name of fighting “terrorist and violent extremist content online” is where one draws the line as to what constitutes “hate speech”, and the extent to which such drives can manage to uphold the rights of citizens to free speech.

In Europe, hate-speech laws have increasingly been used to shut down the speech of citizens who disagree with government migration policies.

The claim of preventing the spread of terrorist content has also been used as an excuse in attempts to shut down political opponents….

At the same time, the different signatories to the Christchurch Call to Action appear to have different views on what constitutes terrorism in the first place, further complicating how one should define ‘terrorist content’.

It is often argued that Facebook is a private enterprise and therefore free to censor whatever it wishes.

However, Facebook and the other internet giants, such as Google, YouTube (a subsidiary of Google), and Twitter, have come to control the flow of information on the internet, to such a degree – as virtual monopolies — that they have become the ‘public square’ of our times. That outcome makes them far more than merely private enterprises and endows them with a special responsibility: Those who cannot publish on Facebook or Twitter, effectively no longer have full freedom of speech.

Governments have always known that free speech can be controlled on social media — there is no internet freedom in countries such as China or Russia. For years, however, Western governments have also been controlling the conduct of free speech on the internet – in the name of fighting supposed ‘hate speech’. Controlling free speech has taken the form of ‘cooperating’ with the internet giants — Facebook, Google, Twitter and You Tube — on voluntary initiatives such as the EU “Code of Conduct on countering illegal online hate speech online”, which requires social media giants to act as censors on behalf of the European Union and to remove within 24 hours content that is regarded as “illegal hate speech”.

A Speech That Should Be Punished By Andrew I. Fillat and Henry I. Miller

https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/EsEmmi

Much has been written about the attacks on free speech, especially at universities and colleges. Speakers with conservative viewpoints are routinely banished from important venues, denied attendance, picketed, or subjected to the “hecklers’ veto.” At the University of California Berkeley and other campuses where conservative speech has been met with disorder, activists have justified it because, they claim, “speech is violence.” Gone is adherence to the maxim of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, “If there be time to . . . avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

Speakers must be held accountable for their words, to be sure. But sometimes “accountability” is ideological and unfair. Former Harvard president Lawrence Summers discovered this when, at an academic conference in 2006, he speculated about the preponderance of men working as professors of mathematics and physical sciences at elite universities. Although Summers acknowledged that women confronted barriers such as discrimination and disproportionate family responsibilities, he hypothesized that there might be other factors, like men’s superior performance in tests measuring mathematical ability. Summers was vilified and ridiculed, and eventually resigned.

Another example of caving to mob rule at Harvard was the law school’s decision to strip law professor Ronald Sullivan, Jr., of his position as faculty dean of a college residence hall. The reason? Some students felt “unsafe” because Sullivan represented Harvey Weinstein against charges of sexual misconduct. As Sullivan put it, “Unchecked emotion has replaced thoughtful reasoning on campus. Feelings are no longer subjected to evidence, analysis or empirical defense. Angry demands, rather than rigorous arguments, now appear to guide university policy.”

Trump’s ‘The Squad’ Tweet: The Right Message Said The Wrong Way J. Frank Bullitt

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/07/16/trumps

When President Trump tweeted Sunday that “‘Progressive’ Democrat congresswomen” should “go back” to the countries they came from, the vapors swept through the political class and media. Granted, the tweet was crude. But the delivery should not invalidate the point.

Both parties condemned the tweet. And journalists, who can never find anything a Democrat says to even be mildly objectionable, or untrue, predictably responded as if Trump had hung a portrait of Hitler in the Oval Office, which is how they react nearly every time he opens his mouth or fires off a tweet. The backlash was more overheated than the tweet.

For the record, here’s the tweet in its entirety:

“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

American-Hating Americans Are the Ultimate Ingrates and Hypocrites Once again, Trump stands up for Americans who love their country. Bruce Thornton

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274320/american-hating-americans-are-ultimate-ingrates-bruce-thornton

“As for Trump, once again he has said what many Americans think, but seldom hear from the Republican elite. And he has stood up for those same Americans who love their country, not because it’s perfect, not because they think its history is sinless, but because it has in word and deed shown itself to be the “last best hope” we fallen mortals have in a tragic world. And most of all, we love America because it is who we are, its ideals the unum that allows the pluribus to become a people yet keep its diversity. There’s not much more we can expect from imperfect human beings.”

With his usual flair for hyperbole and indifference to factual details, Donald Trump last week tweet-blasted the so-called “Squad” of female freshman Congressmen “of color” for slandering America as racist, sexist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, and numerous other empty epithets. Though Trump was careless for suggesting, “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came”––since only one, Ilhan Omar, was born abroad––his sentiment is still valid, and has been shared for decades by millions of Americans angry over their homeland being demonized by immigrants and fellow citizens alike.

This sentiment was memorably captured by country singer Merle Haggard in his hit “Fightin’ Side of Me.” Released in December 1969, the song expressed the anger of the “Silent Majority” that had just put Richard Nixon in the White House. And the lyrics identified who Americans were angry at: the free, comfortable New Leftists, college students, bougie hippies, and liberal elite fellow-travelers who burned the American Flag, slandered our soldiers as baby-killers, and called their country “AmeriKKKa.” Haggard especially targeted the antiwar activists who insulted our troops even as they were fighting and dying, and who “love our milk and honey” but “preach about some other way of livin’.” Sound familiar?

But it was one line in the chorus that summed up many Americans’ attitude: “If you don’t love it leave it.”