WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Switzerland: Chocolate, Watches and Jihad by Judith Bergman

Posted By on February 2nd, 2017

Swiss authorities are currently investigating 480 suspected jihadists in the country.

“Radical imams always preached in the An-Nur Mosque… Those responsible are fanatics. It is no coincidence that so many young people from Winterthur wanted to do jihad”. — Saïda Keller-Messahli, president of Forum for a Progressive Islam.

Switzerland is the answer to those who claim that Islamic terrorism is reserved for those countries that have participated in operations against ISIS or other Muslim terror organizations. Switzerland has done neither, yet its flag figured among sixty other enemy flags shown in an ISIS propaganda video.

“Huge sums of money from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey are flowing to Switzerland… There is a whole network of radically-oriented mosques in Switzerland. The Muslim World League is behind it…. The network is a hub for Salafists. The Swiss authorities make a big mistake of not looking into the mosques.” — Saïda Keller-Messahli.

There are around 70 Turkish mosques financed directly from Turkey through the Diyanet Foundation in Switzerland.

The Swiss government appears to give Qatar, one of the primary propagators of Wahhabi Salafism in the world today, extremely special treatment.

In November 2016, Swiss police arrested the imam of the An’Nour mosque in Winterthur, in the canton of Zürich, for calling for the murder of Muslims who refuse to participate in communal prayer. The young imam, who had come from Ethiopia, had been in Switzerland for only a short time. The Zurich Federation of Islamic Organizations (Vioz) declared it was “shocked”, and suspended the An’Nour mosque from the federation until further notice: “We are shocked that an imam in one of our houses of prayer called for violence.”

There is little cause for “shock”. Already in 2015, Winterthur made headlines in Switzerland as an emerging center for young Muslims with jihadi ambitions. Four people from Winterthur managed to travel to Syria to join ISIS and a fifth was stopped at the airport in Zürich.

In November 2015, Swiss journalist and Syria expert, Kurt Pelda said, “The IS has a cell in Winterthur in the vicinity of the An’Nur Mosque in Hegi, there is no longer any doubt.” He also said that in addition to the five known cases, another man from Winterthur had travelled to Syria as well.

The former president of the Islamic Cultural Association of An’Nur, Atef Sahoun, denied all claims at the time:

“If we discover radical tendencies in one member, then the appropriate person will be immediately excluded. We send them away, no matter who it is”.

Atef Sahoun was arrested for incitement in November 2016, along with the Ethiopian imam, but later released.

Saïda Keller-Messahli, Islam expert and president of Forum for a Progressive Islam, says that the arrested imam from the An’Nour mosque is only “the tip of the iceberg”:

“Radical imams always preached in the An-Nur Mosque… Those responsible are fanatics. It is no coincidence that so many young people from Winterthur wanted to do jihad”.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Voter Fraud a Myth? That’s Not What New York Investigators Found Only one fake voter was refused a ballot. The clerk was the mother of the felon he was impersonating. By Larry Levy

Posted By on February 2nd, 2017

President Trump’s promise to investigate voter fraud has drawn predictable responses from Democrats and the media, who insist there is no such thing and have been fighting for years to prevent any inquiry into the matter. But an investigation in Mr. Trump’s hometown shows that the problem is real.

In 2013 the New York City Department of Investigation—the storied law-enforcement arm of city government, which houses and manages all the city’s inspectors general and investigators—decided to test the system. City investigators posed as 63 ineligible individuals still on the city voter rolls. Each ineligible voter had died, moved out of the jurisdiction, or been convicted of a felony at least two years earlier.

The investigators didn’t go to great lengths to hide their attempted fraudulent votes. In five instances investigators in their 20s or 30s posed as voters age 82 to 94. In some cases the investigators were of different ethnic backgrounds from the voters they were impersonating. Yet each was given a ballot and allowed to cast a vote without question.

In other instances the investigators informed the poll worker that they had moved but didn’t have time to get to their new home on Election Day; all but one was allowed to vote. Only one investigator was flat-out rejected. He had the misfortune of trying to vote at a polling place where the clerk was the mother of the ineligible felon he was impersonating.

Ninety-seven percent of the barely disguised phony voters were allowed to vote unimpeded, and none was referred for criminal charges or officially reported to the Board of Elections. One can only imagine what a sharp operator trying to fix an election could do by flooding polling places with ineligible voters.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Trumpian Shock and Awe Too many political forces are coming to life against the Trump presidency. Dan Henninger see note please

Posted By on February 2nd, 2017

The opposition, namely the media and the “street theater” have no alternative….they are more aw shucks, then anything else….rsk

“Shock and awe,” a term of art from U.S. war doctrine, has been deployed by advocates of Donald Trump to describe the pace of executive actions the past two weeks.

The military originators of this concept, which is famously associated with the Iraq invasion in 2003, said shock and awe was a “doctrine of rapid dominance” whose goal was to affect the will of an adversary “to fight or respond to our strategic policy.”

That is the theory, and it fits the Trump strategic model: Put political actions in motion and force the world to adjust.

The Trump White House believed it was important for the president to fulfill his campaign commitments immediately, whether the border wall or the immigrant ban. Problems or objections could be dealt with later as the details got worked out.

So far, the White House’s shock and awe of executive orders mainly has effected a popular uprising, and not just in the streets.

To be sure, the political system, especially the bureaucracies, needed to be challenged and shaken up. Almost certainly one reason Team Trump didn’t pass the travel order through normal interagency vetting review is they believed—and experience bears them out—that agency lawyers might have tried to dilute or kill it. Instead, the Trump template will dominate their post-order implementation.

But the aftershocks from Mexico and now the executive order on travelers from seven mostly Muslim countries reveal the liabilities in transferring war-fighting doctrine to politics.

A well-understood law of political motion holds that every political act by a U.S. president puts other significant political forces in motion.

Mr. Trump’s partisan opposition, notably the organized squads of street people, was already on hair trigger. But the fallout from the Trump order on immigrant and refugee restrictions may be bringing to life too many disparate forces against him and his young presidency.

MOVIES AND TELEVISION Comments turned off

Why Hollywood as We Know It Is Already Over by Nick Bilton

Posted By on February 2nd, 2017

With theater attendance at a two-decade low and profits dwindling, the kind of disruption that hit music, publishing, and other industries is already reshaping the entertainment business. From A.I. Aaron Sorkin to C.G.I. actors to algorithmic editing, Nick Bilton investigates what lies ahead.
I. The Raindrop Moment

A few months ago, the vision of Hollywood’s economic future came into terrifyingly full and rare clarity. I was standing on the set of a relatively small production, in Burbank, just north of Los Angeles, talking to a screenwriter about how inefficient the film-and-TV business appeared to have become. Before us, after all, stood some 200 members of the crew, who were milling about in various capacities, checking on lighting or setting up tents, but mainly futzing with their smartphones, passing time, or nibbling on snacks from the craft-service tents. When I commented to the screenwriter that such a scene might give a Silicon Valley venture capitalist a stroke on account of the apparent unused labor and excessive cost involved in staging such a production—which itself was statistically uncertain of success—he merely laughed and rolled his eyes. “You have no idea,” he told me.

After a brief pause, he relayed a recent anecdote, from the set of a network show, that was even more terrifying: The production was shooting a scene in the foyer of a law firm, which the lead rushed into from the rain to utter some line that this screenwriter had composed. After an early take, the director yelled “Cut,” and this screenwriter, as is customary, ambled off to the side with the actor to offer a comment on his delivery. As they stood there chatting, the screenwriter noticed that a tiny droplet of rain remained on the actor’s shoulder. Politely, as they spoke, he brushed it off. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, an employee from the production’s wardrobe department rushed over to berate him. “That is not your job,” she scolded. “That is my job.”

News. Hollywood. Style. Culture.
For more high-profile interviews, stunning photography, and thought-provoking features, subscribe now to Vanity Fair magazine.

The screenwriter was stunned. But he had also worked in Hollywood long enough to understand what she was really saying: quite literally, wiping rain off an actor’s wardrobe was her job—a job that was well paid and protected by a union. And as with the other couple of hundred people on set, only she could perform it.

This raindrop moment, and the countless similar incidents that I’ve observed on sets or heard about from people I’ve met in the industry, may seem harmless and ridiculous enough on its face. But it reinforces an eventuality that seems both increasingly obvious and uncomfortable—one that might occur to you every time you stream Fringe or watch a former ingénue try to re-invent herself as a social-media icon or athleisure-wear founder: Hollywood, as we once knew it, is over.

In the mid-90s, the first time I downloaded an MP3, I realized that the music industry was in grave trouble. People who were my age (I wasn’t old enough to legally drink yet) didn’t want to spend $20 on a whole compact disc when all we coveted was a single song on the album. Moreover, we wanted our music immediately: we preferred to download it (illegally) from Napster or eventually (legally) from iTunes without the hassle of finding the nearest Sam Goody. It turned out that this proclivity for efficiency—customizing your music and facilitating the point of sale—was far from a generational instinct. It explains why the music industry is roughly half the size it was one decade ago.

These preferences weren’t confined to music, either. I also felt the raindrop moment firsthand when I began working at The New York Times, in the early 2000s. Back then, the newspaper’s Web site was treated like a vagrant, banished to a separate building blocks away from the paper’s newsroom on West 43rd Street. Up-and-coming blogs—Gizmodo, Instapundit, and Daily Kos, which were setting the stage for bigger and more advanced entities, such as Business Insider and BuzzFeed—were simultaneously springing up across the country. Yet they were largely ignored by the Times as well as by editors and publishers at other news outlets. More often than not, tech-related advances—including e-readers and free online blogging platforms, such as WordPress and Tumblr—were laughed at as drivel by the entire industry, just as Napster had been years earlier.

Of course, the same logic that had decimated music would undermine print publishing: readers didn’t want to travel to a newsstand to buy a whole newspaper when they were interested only in one story or two. And, in so many cases, they really didn’t care all that much whose byline was at the top of the piece. Subsequently, newspaper advertising revenues fell from $67 billion in 2000 to $19.9 billion in 2014. Meanwhile, the same pummeling occurred in the book-publishing world. Many consumers didn’t want hardcover books for $25 when digital versions were available for $9.99. An algorithm generally provided better suggestions than an actual in-store clerk. And consumers never had to leave home to get the book they wanted. Amazon, knowing this, eviscerated the business. While print sales have finally leveled out (largely through a reliance on science fiction and fantasy), the industry has seen sales fall precipitously over the past decade.

“IN MY MIND, HOLLYWOOD IS DYING,” MIKE MORITZ TOLD ME.

Hollywood, these days, seems remarkably poised for a similar disruption. Its audiences increasingly prefer on-demand content, its labor is costly, and margins are shrinking. Yet when I ask people in Hollywood if they fear such a fate, their response is generally one of defiance. Film executives are smart and nimble, but many also assert that what they do is so specialized that it can’t be compared to the sea changes in other disrupted media. “We’re different,” one producer recently told me. “No one can do what we do.”

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

The Real “Muslim Ban” By:Srdja Trifkovic |

Posted By on February 2nd, 2017

After five days of MSM hysteria, President Trump remains justifiably unruffled by the establishment organs’ opprobrium. His January 27 executive order on immigration and refugees is reasonable and legal, and it enjoys strong popular support.

In the medium-to-long term Trump has much bigger fish to fry than a temporary ban on citizens from seven failed, war-torn, or dysfunctional majority-Muslim states, which were singled out by the Obama Administration under the 2015 Terrorist Travel Prevention Act. Prima facie this was no “Muslim ban”; the most populous majority-Muslim countries (Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Turkey) were unaffected. The really important part of Trump’s executive order is contained in its Section 1. Purpose:

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Demanding an aspiring newcomer’s commitment to this country’s core values comes as a breath of fresh air. Without naming it, Section 1 implicitly treats orthodox Islam as a violent ideology inimical to America’s “founding principles.” It can and probably will be used to severely restrict immigration of devout, practicing Muslims to the United States. Its drafters displayed awareness that a person’s Islamic faith and outlook is incompatible with the requirements of personal commitment and loyalty to a pluralistic and democratic society.

The Executive Order was carefully crafted: for a Muslim to declare that he accepts the Constitution of the United States as the source of his highest loyalty is an act of apostasy par excellence; and apostasy is punishable by death under the Islamic law. The Sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the Constitution and laws of the United States, with which it coexists; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah’s authority on the basis of his revealed will, and America is therefore illegitimate ab initio.

Section 1 effectively demands that a Muslim gives up this key tenet of his faith in order to be eligible for admission. Its drafters knew that a foreigner who becomes naturalized has to declare, on oath, “that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”

BOOKS, FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

Leading From Behind: The Obama Doctrine and the U.S. Retreat From International Affairs by Herbert I London (Author), Bryan Griffin (Editor)

Posted By on February 2nd, 2017

The eight years of the Obama Administration represented a dramatic break from the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that had held since World War II: instead of the United States asserting leadership, confronting threats to global piece, and guaranteeing the security of our friends and allies, President Obama placed his faith in multilateralism, international institutions, and in the words of his own administration, “leading from behind” in global crises. The results are evident around the globe as war and chaos engulf Europe, the Middle East, and Africa; anti-democratic forces are resurgent; and Islamic terrorist organizations are emboldened in their efforts to establish a tyrannical Caliphate. In a series of columns and commentaries over the past several years, Herb London has provided an insightful and prescient critique of the Obama Administration’s feckless, even dangerous, foreign policy. This volume collects those works, and combines them into a narrative that not only provides an important history of a president’s failed policies but also shows the incredible challenges facing the United States–and the world–over the coming decade. Leading From Behind is an indispensable resource for students and observers of international affairs.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

THE MONTH THAT WAS JANUARY 2017 BY SYDNEY WILLIAMS

Posted By on February 2nd, 2017

Like the two prior months, January’s news was dominated by Mr. Trump. While the liberal media is obsessed with his habit of tweeting amid claims of “fake news,” what has been newsworthy is how much has accomplished in the twelve days since inauguration. The new President signed five executive orders in the first five days, nine memorandums, and began to unravel regulatory burdens. He met with the British PM, and corporate and union leaders. It has all been in keeping with his campaign promises.

He froze the hiring of federal employees. He removed the United States from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was not supported by Mrs. Clinton and which was not expected to receive Senate approval. He signed a go-ahead for the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines, projects that had been approved by the State Department, before Mr. Obama, bowing to pressure from rail investors like Warren Buffett and environmental groups, put a stop to them. He canceled federal funding to sanctuary cities. He began to undo some of the mandates required of the Affordable Care Act. And, remembering his promise to “drain the Swamp,” he signed a five-year ban on White House officials becoming lobbyists. He ordered the removal of criminal illegal immigrants. On the last day of the month he nominated Neil Gorsuch of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Colorado to the Supreme Court.

In a controversial move, toward the end of the month, he temporarily suspended immigration from seven terror-prone countries. This aroused resistance, much of it feigned; keep in mind, in 2011 Mr. Obama placed a six-month ban on immigration from Iraq, with no opposition and no crocodile tears. Of the roughly 100,000 people entering the U.S. from overseas every day, 109 were detained during the three days ending last Sunday. All had been released by Monday. The ban, which is for 90 days, applies to seven predominantly Muslim nations – nations cited by the Obama Administration as incubators of terrorism. To put the number of seven countries in perspective, there are fifty-six UN member states who are also members of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation. The decision was not Islamophobiac, theophobic or xenophobic. It was aimed at preventing terrorists from entering the United States – protecting Americans is every President’s primary responsibility. Could the ban have been announced and implemented more effectively? Probably. He could have alerted our partners both at home and abroad, but we should not alert our enemies as to our intentions. Regardless of what he did, Mr. Trump would have been criticized.

IMMIGRATION, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Germany: Angela Merkel Faces Challenge for Chancellorship Germany Heading for Four More Years of Pro-EU, Open-Door Migration Policies by Soeren Kern

Posted By on February 1st, 2017

The policy positions of Schulz and Merkel on key issues are virtually identical: Both candidates are committed to strengthening the EU, maintaining open-door immigration policies, pursuing multiculturalism and quashing dissent from the so-called far right.

Regardless of who wins, Germany is unlikely to undergo many course corrections during the next four years.

Schulz has already called for tax increases on the wealthy and for fighting the AfD party. He has also threatened financial consequences for European countries that refuse to take in more migrants.

“The chancellor’s office is worried.” – Der Spiegel.

Martin Schulz, the former president of the European Parliament, has been chosen to challenge Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany’s general election on September 24.

The policy positions of Schulz and Merkel on key issues are virtually identical: Both candidates are committed to strengthening the European Union, maintaining open-door immigration policies, pursuing multiculturalism and quashing dissent from the so-called far right.

Time for a changing of the guard? Pictured: Then European Parliament President Martin Schulz meets with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Brussels, January 30, 2012. (Image source: European Parliament)

Polls show Merkel, who heads the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), slightly ahead of Schulz, the new leader of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD). Regardless of who wins, Germany is unlikely to undergo many course corrections during the next four years.

EDUCATION Comments turned off

Welcome to the “Social Justice” University by Philip Carl Salzman *******

Posted By on February 1st, 2017

Diversity becomes a moral end in itself. If all variations of human beings are not present at an event or in an organization, it is seen as prejudiced and discriminating. But this does not apply to members of the majority, who are increasingly not welcome.

The University of Pennsylvania removed a portrait of Shakespeare, on the grounds that Shakespeare is not sufficiently diverse, and replaced it with a portrait of the black lesbian poet, Audre Lorde.

As capitalism is recognized as a cause of inequality, and thus oppression, it must be replaced. These days, progressives do not usually specify what capitalism is to be replaced by, but presumably they are impressed with [irony alert] the great benefits socialism brought to the people of the USSR, Mao’s China, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, and Cuba.

Hurt feelings are the “social justice” criteria for what is and what is not allowed. You may not say anything that would hurt someone’s feelings; if you do, you must be punished.

Finally, diversity of opinion in the social justice university is forbidden: opposition to social justice is never reasonable opinion, but evil. Disagreement with the principles of social justice identifies such critics as sexist, racist, homo-lesbo-transphobes, xenophobes, and fascists.

Universities used to be fonts of knowledge, charged with disseminating the known and seeking new knowledge. But progressives have brought great progress to the university: progressives know all the answers, and that the problem is not to understand the world, but to change it.

Welcome to the “social justice” university. Its orientation is expressed by the School of Social Work, at Ryerson University in Toronto:

School of Social Work is a leader in critical education, research and practice with culturally and socially diverse students and communities in the advancement of anti-oppression/anti-racism, anti-Black racism, anti- colonialism/ decolonization, Aboriginal reconciliation, feminism, anti-capitalism, queer and trans liberation struggles, issues in disability and Madness, among other social justice struggles.

Many universities are not as candid as Ryerson, but often their positions are much the same. Many have established “equity and inclusiveness” committees to oversee “just practice,” to disseminate “correct” views through literature, posters, and re-education workshops, in some cases mandatory. They also sanction faculty members who express unacceptable views. Schools of education ensure that their graduates will be inculcating their school pupils in the principles of “social justice,” and in identifying the deplorable “multiphobes” in their families and communities. American schoolchildren have been taught by teachers determined to discredit America, that slavery was an American invention and existed exclusively in America — a staggeringly counter-factual account.

What do progressives intend under the label of “social justice”? What theories and policies have they made the central task of the university to advance?

The first goal to be advanced is equality, by which they mean equality of result, as opposed to equality of opportunity — which is often inadequate and needs to be addressed. Thus, to advance economic equality, progressives advocate redistribution of wealth, taking money from those who have it and giving it to preferred others. (“The problem with socialism,” as the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher pointed out, “is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”)

Progressives also recognize that equality of result contradicts individual freedom, and that individual freedom will have to be suppressed supposedly for the collective good. Coercion is necessary to enforce social justice goals. A social justice friend recently argued that cars should be replaced by public transport, and that people should live in central cities rather than suburbs. When it was pointed out that housing and transport choices indicated North Americans seem to have a strong preference for suburbs, and that they prefer driving cars to taking public transport, he replied that they will have to be forced to live in cities and use public transport. This is an actual the plan of the United Nations, known as Agenda 21.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Turkish Jails: Packed with Kurds, Only Seven Members of ISIS by Uzay Bulut

Posted By on February 1st, 2017

According to a recent public statement by the HDP, 1478 Kurdish politicians — including 78 democratically-elected mayors — have been arrested since July 2016.

The co-heads of the HDP party, Selahattin Demirtas and Figen Yuksektas, are also in jail. Prosecutors seek up to 142 years in jail for Demirtas and up to 83 years in jail for Yuksekdag. One of the charges directed to Demirtas is “managing a terrorist organization.”

According to a recent report by Turkey’s Platform for Independent Journalism (P24), 151 individuals are in prison for being journalists or for being employed in the news media. Dozens of TV stations, news agencies, newspapers, magazines, and radio stations have been closed down by the Turkish government.

In Turkey, it seems, ISIS members are freer than journalists and peaceful, democratically-elected Kurdish politicians.

According to the Turkish ministry of justice, only seven members of the Islamic State (ISIS) have been convicted of crimes and jailed in Turkey in the last year and a half.

The data was made public when Bekir Bozdag, the Turkish justice minister, was asked in Turkey’s parliament the number of ISIS convicts in Turkish jails.

One of the many ISIS members in Turkey that has been released by Turkish courts is Abdulsamet C., arrested on September 2 of last year on charges of being a member of a terrorist organization.

Abdulsamet C. confessed that he had travelled to Syria to join ISIS in 2014. He added that an Azeri man with the code-name “Ammar”, who spread ISIS propaganda in an Istanbul mosque, provided him with contact information that enabled him to go to the Turkish city of Gaziantep, through which he entered Syria, where he joined ISIS.

Abdulsamet C. said that he went to the Syrian town of Jarabulus with a group of people, received religious education in the town of Manbij for a month, and then traveled around to Iraq and Syria before returning to Turkey in July 2015.

Seeking to benefit from the “Active Repentance Law,” he was released by a Turkish court on probation. Yet he continued to be in contact with ISIS even after returning to the Umraniye neighborhood in Istanbul, where his family resides.

An indictment drafted for Abdulsamet C. by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office includes evidence showing his connections with ISIS, such as banners, photographs, videos and songs. During a raid on Abdulsamet C.’s house, police also found a book entitled, “44 Ways of Supporting Jihad,” which is banned in Turkey.

Despite all the evidence at hand, Abdulsamet C. was released by an Istanbul court on probation on the grounds that he has a permanent residence in Istanbul. The newspaper Hurriyet contacted the lawyer of the ISIS member, who said he was surprised at the release of his client.