CNN anchor: Jews carried out terror attacks, should they be barred from entering US?

Anchor asks Trump supporter the question in response to his recent controversial comments about banning Muslims.

In reported cases of terror attacks, should all Jews be barred from obtaining visas in order to enter the United States?

This was a question posed by CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield Tuesday morning during an interview with former Ronald Reagan White House administration official and current Donald Trump supporter, Jeffrey Lord, when asked if his preferred presidential candidate was not applying a double standard to Muslims.

“If you supplant the word ‘Jews’ for ‘Muslims’ in a lot of the rhetoric that we’ve had this morning, I think people would find it sort of cringe-worthy and reminiscent of a really ugly time in our history,” Banfield said. “There have been Jewish terrorist attacks. Should we therefore ask no Jews to please apply for a visa?”

The CNN anchor then provided specifics examples: “From a period of 1980 to 1985 there were a reported 18 terror attacks committed in the United States by Jews, 15 of them committed by the Jewish Defense League,” Banfield said. ‘The head of the Jewish Defense league was in jail awaiting trial…accused of trying to bomb a mosque in Culver City, trying to bomb [US Congressman] Darrel Issa’s office, an Arab-American.”

Trump’s ‘Racist’ Entry Restriction Policy Not Novel, But Response Is Trump’s proposal to ban the entry into US of Muslims is no more racist than similar established policies which raised no outcry by US or anyone else. By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus

With the country, and now, slowly parts of the rest of the world, in a state of outrage over presidential candidate Donald Trump’s controversial statement to cut off immigration and visits by foreign Muslims to the U.S., it is worth noting that Trump is not the first major figure to suggest that a certain class of humans be barred from entry into a country.

Of the following examples, however, there are two significant differences between Trump’s call and that of all the others. See if you can come up with the two differences by the end of this article.

First, what did Trump actually call for? Did he, as some claim, call for all Muslim Americans to leave? No. What he did call for was a halt to Muslim immigration and tourists into the U.S.

TRUMP’S CALL FOR A BAN

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” a campaign press release said.

The ban Trump is seeking is based on what he called “the hatred [which] is beyond comprehension.” It is his view that his proposed ban should remain in place “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Trump called for the ban on Muslim entry into the U.S. in the wake of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino last week by two previously unknown radicalized Muslims who entered the U.S., Syed Farook and his wife, Nashfeen Malik. While few Americans ever met Malik, Farook was accepted as a “normal,” “average American,” and the two were understood to be “living the American dream,” until the moment they began blasting Farook’s co-workers and associates to death in a bloody rampage which claimed the lives of 14 and injured many more on Dec. 2, 2105.

Why Has the Church Abandoned the Christians of the Middle East? by Judith Bergman

Why is the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the symbolic head of 85 million Christians worldwide, expressing shock at yet another terrorist attack perpetrated by the Islamic State?

Had he paid more than just fleeting attention to his fellow Christians in Iraq and Syria, he would know that the Islamic State has been slaughtering Christians in the Middle East since 2006. How much more time did he need?

Without referring by name to the Islamic State, and speaking as if some invisible force of nature were at play here, Pope Francis I deplored “thousands of people, including many Christians, driven from their homes in a brutal manner; children dying of thirst and hunger in their flight; women kidnapped; people massacred; violence of every kind.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, was interviewed recently about the Paris attacks and asked about his reaction. “Like everyone else – first shock and horror and then a profound sadness…” he replied. “Saturday morning, I was out and as I was walking I was praying and saying: ‘God, why — why is this happening?'”

Welby is the principal head of the Anglican Church and the symbolic head of the Anglican Communion, which stands at around 85 million members worldwide and is the third largest communion in the world — after the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is a man with an extremely high public profile, and millions of Christians looking to him for spiritual guidance.

But why is a man who is the symbolic head of 85 million Christians worldwide expressing shock at yet another terrorist attack perpetrated by the Islamic State? Had the Archbishop of Canterbury paid more than just fleeting attention to his fellow Christians in Iraq and Syria, he would know that the Islamic State has been slaughtering Christians in the Middle East since 2006. Between 2004 and 2006, before the Islamic State evolved out of Al Qaeda in Iraq, it hardly showed less zeal to root out Christianity even then.

The Archbishop had eleven years to get used to the idea of people being made homeless, exiled, tortured, raped, enslaved, beheaded and murdered for not being Muslims. How much more time did he need?

The Archbishop of Canterbury had more wisdom to offer in the interview. “The perversion of faith is one of the most desperate aspects of our world today,” he said, explaining that Islamic State terrorists have distorted their faith to the extent that they believe they are glorifying their God. But it is unclear how he is as qualified an expert in Islam as Islamic State “Caliph ” Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, who possesses a PhD in Islamic Studies from the University of Baghdad.

EU Makes Up Bogus Laws to Target — Guess Who? by Denis MacEoin

Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is fully legal under the terms of UN Resolution 242 (1967), which was carefully drafted to guarantee Israel’s rights to remain there until such time as there is a “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

When the EU states that its aim is “to ensure the respect of Union positions and commitments in conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the Union of Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967,” it refuses to recognize the validity of UN Resolution 242, and it gives no proper explanation of what is meant by “sovereignty.”

As only Israeli armed forces will be required to withdraw in the event that such boundaries are created, the presence of Israeli settlements there will remain legal under the terms of the original League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which stipulates that there should be close Jewish settlement in all areas. Those Mandate provisions were incorporated in the UN Resolution 181, which established a Jewish and an Arab state.

The European Union has never demanded that China, Morocco, Russia, Pakistan or India — all with territories under dispute — label goods in ways like those demanded of Israel.

“The EU does not have a general set of rules for dealing with occupied territories, settlements or territorial administrations whose legality is not recognized by the EU. Rather, the EU has special restrictions aimed at Israel.” — Law Professors Eugene Kontorovich (Northwestern University) and Avi Bell (University of San Diego).

EVELYN GORDON: HOW ISRAEL PROTECTS THE WEST

Two news items over the past two weeks provide timely reminders of why Israel’s willingness to take military action in its own neighborhood makes it an unparalleled strategic asset for the West – including those Westerners who deplore military action and prefer to rely exclusively on diplomacy. At first glance, neither report has anything to do with Israel. Yet both underscore its vital role in Western security.

The first was a New York Times report on the Islamic State’s efforts to obtain red mercury – a material that, “when detonated in combination with conventional high explosives,” is rumored to “create the city-flattening blast of a nuclear bomb.” Proliferation experts all say red mercury is a hoax, but it’s a hoax widely believed in many corners of the globe. The terrorist group was therefore willing to pay ‘‘whatever was asked’’ to procure it, as one Islamic State official told the arms dealer he tasked with the mission. Nor was this a passing fancy: The official “kept inquiring about red mercury for more than a year … pressing for results” until he disappeared (presumably because he was killed).

Brendan O’Neill: The wretched reason why Israel became Europe’s whipping boy by Brendan O’Neill, Editor of Spiked-Online.com

The right-on are always raising concerns, and raising the political heat, over what they refer to as the Siege of Gaza by Israel. But what about the siege of Israel by Europe?

It might not be a military siege – although many a supposedly peacenik European dreams of Israel having its knuckles rapped by external powers – but it’s a siege nonetheless.

What we have today is a moral, intellectual siege of Israel, by the academic and media elites of Europe’s chattering-class citadels. They’ve turned Israel into Global Enemy No1, the source of all the world’s sorrow, a nation to be railed against more than any other on Earth.

My dictionary says a siege is the “surrounding of a place” with the intent of making its inhabitants surrender. Could there be a better description of European progressives’ myopic singling out of Israel for invective, and their shunning of its wares, books and even people via the BDS movement? People in Israel feel this moral siege, this intellectual blockade, very strongly.

When I visited last month, almost everyone I met asked me: “What the hell has happened to Europe? Why do they hate us?” During a dinner debate, a woman whose son was killed by terrorists asked the assembled European hacks why our media is more angry about Israel than any other nation. In soft, wavering tones, she accused us of anti-Israel bias. A spokesman for the Israel Foreign Ministry wrung his hands over Europe’s dodgy double standards on Israel. He was especially exercised by the EC’s recent decree that things made in Israeli settlements must be branded as such, lest some pure PC person in Europe unwittingly eat an olive made in a disputed bit of the Golan Heights and become morally compromised as a result. The EC doesn’t make other nations that are embroiled in conflict over territory – the Ukraine, say – stick such moral warnings on their produce. Just Israel.

‘ISIS-supporting Ohio hospital worker who called for US soldiers to be beheaded in their homes’ is arrested

An Ohio man who prosecutors say was sympathetic to the Islamic State posted the names and addresses of 100 members of the military on social media, calling for them to be killed, according to a federal indictment issued on Tuesday.

A grand jury charged 25-year-old Terrence J. McNeil of Akron with three counts each of solicitation of a crime of violence and threatening military personnel.

Mike Tobin, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Cleveland, said prosecutors are not aware of any attacks on the service members named.

Assistant U.S. Attorney General John Carlin said McNeil ‘solicited the murder of members of our military by disseminating violent rhetoric, circulating detailed U.S. military personnel information, and explicitly calling for the killing of American service members in their homes and communities.’

David Isaac -Rescue at Entebbe Review: Saul David, ‘Operation Thunderbolt: Flight 139 and the Raid on Entebbe Airport, The Most Audacious Hostage Rescue Mission in History’

Operation Thunderbolt, in which Israeli commandos stormed a Ugandan airport terminal in 1976 to rescue hostages hijacked on an Air France flight, remains what Max Hastings calls “the high water mark of Israel’s standing in the world.” In hisnew book on the rescue mission, Saul David provides a fast-paced, suspenseful account of those tense summer days. While there have been several books (and movies) about the operation, this one draws on new sources and explores the motivations of the terrorists more deeply than earlier efforts.

Each chapter covers a single day over an eight-day period, from hijacking to rescue. Within each chapter the events are organized down to the hour, quarter-hour, and sometimes to the minute.

The rescue itself began when four C-130 Hercules aircraft, crammed with 91 commandos and paratroopers from Sayeret Matkal, otherwise known as “the Unit,” flew a hazardous 2,500 miles from Israel to Entebbe Airport. As the first Hercules landed, the ramp lowered and out drove Israeli commandos. They made their way past the cordon of Ugandan soldiers using a black Mercedes and Land Rovers—the typical vehicles used to shuttle around high-ranking Ugandan government officials. Once they reached the terminal where the hostages were held, they shot the terrorists, freed the hostages, and blew up 11 Russian MiGs.

Pete Reiser :The Greatest Baseball Player Nobody Knows by Richard Baehr

Baseball has been overtaken by other professional sports in terms of fan interest. The recent World Series — a competitive one, including a New York team from America’s largest media market — had trouble competing for TV viewers against an NFL Sunday night football game. It is therefore not surprising that few people could identify the Major League Baseball player who set the record for most times stealing home in a single season (7), and most times carried off the field in a stretcher in his career (11), not including similar events while playing ball in the Army during World War II.

That player, who enjoyed a season and a half of extraordinary performance until the first of many head-on collisions with an outfield wall short-circuited his career, was Pete Reiser, sometimes known as the original “Pistol Pete.”

In his first full season as a starting outfielder with the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1941, Reiser won the National League batting title (.343) while leading the league in doubles, triples, runs scored, number of times hit by a pitcher, and slugging percentage. He was named a starter in the All-Star game, finished second in MVP balloting, and helped the Dodgers make it to the World Series for the first time in 21 years (where of course they lost to the Yankees in the first of five head-to-head defeats at the hands of the “Bronx bombers” during the next 13 seasons). The next season, Reiser was having an even better year, hitting .350, getting voted onto the All-Star team again, and pushing the Dodgers into a 6-game lead over St. Louis in the National League pennant race.

The Great Pumpkin of Islam :Edward Cline

The Great Pumpkin of Islam was carved out of the hallucinatory imagination of a certified imbecile, illiterate, brigand, rapist, murderer, and tyrant.

A “Peanuts” TV special in 1966 had Linus, the blanket-clinging tot in the cartoon series, concocting a kind of “religion” or “cult” around the Great Pumpkin rising out of a pumpkin patch on Halloween night. Linus spends that night in the pumpkin patch, to witness its appearance. It never manifests itself, neither in form nor in echo-chamber voice. Nor even as a burning pumpkin. Linus falls asleep, clutching his blanket. I guess. I was never a fan of the cartoon strip and I certainly didn’t watch the TV special. Story details can be read here.

In Islam, the Great Pumpkin can be likened to Allah, and Linus to Mohammad. The “prophet” imagined he was getting the Koran directly from Allah (the name of an already existing pagan god) via the angel Gabriel, and rode to Paradise on a horse sporting a woman’s head, but all that and more, if the Koran is to be taken literally as a record of true events, must have been the result of delirium, hallucinations, dehydration, starvation, or sunstroke. He was living in a cave near Mecca, ostensibly to meditate, but actually to escape the ridicule and wrath of his Meccan neighbors. One can imagine him passing his days subsisting on goat jerky and imbibing essence of distilled mimosa, or the local version of Kickapoo juice.

Of course, I don’t take any of it literally, the Koran and its companion texts too likely having been works-in-progress over centuries, cadging from the Christian, Judaic, Zoroastrian, and pagan religions and liturgies. Robert Spencer torpedoes the existence of Mohammad himself in his rigorously researched book, Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origns.

In short, Allah was Mohammad’s Great Pumpkin. Or, if you prefer, his dancing, grand pink elephant, a deity greater than the Hindu Ganesha. Allah, who shares the metaphysical impossibility of all deities, together with the contradictory attributes of omniscience and omnipotence, has never manifested himself to Muslims or infidels, either. He is, to put it tactfully, reality-shy. He exists only in the delusional minds of those who wish to believe in such an entity. A figment of one’s mysticism-inebriated imagination can’t be conjured into spatial existence no matter how earnestly or often one prays, hopes, or wishes.

A Facebook friend of mine, whom I shall refer to for security reasons as “Lois Lane,” conducted a four-year poll and survey of Muslims, largely over the Internet using an avatar or pseudonym to disguise her identity, testing Muslims’ knowledge of the Koran and the Hadith, an anecdotal compilation of Mohammad’s sayings and “exploits.” She compiled about 3,000 responses and reports some revealing information about our “peaceful” Muslim neighbors, friends, and overseas pals. She focused on asking them about whether or not they adhered to or agreed with the abrogating violent verses or with the earlier “peaceful” ones. Here is a handy, short explanation of those verses on YouTube, “Three things you probably don’t know about Islam.” Lois Lane wrote:

Three thousand sounds like a lot, but over four years that’s less than half a Muslim a day. Some days I’d have quite a few conversations, and during vacations, none. Almost all was done online and under screen names, so there was no reason for the Muslims to hide what they really thought. They came from all over the world. They had internet access, meaning access to other ideologies. I have to be careful with my identity as I get a lot of death threats.