Archive for June 21, 2016

Crazy Violent Left-Wing Extremists

June 21, 2016

Paul Joseph Watson

Published on Jun 21, 2016

When will Hillary Clinton disavow Omar Mateen?

 

Humor? | What If Our Constitution Were Written Like Campus Speech Codes?

June 21, 2016

What If Our Constitution Were Written Like Campus Speech Codes? The FIREorg via YouTube, June 21, 2016

The Problem with Hate Speech

June 21, 2016

The Problem with Hate Speech, PJ MediaDavid Solway, June 20, 2016

The term “hate speech” is like a kind of verbal spandex taken off the rack that can stretch to fit any intended wearer. . . . The notion of “hate speech” is a convenient, multi-purpose strategy for silencing opposition to the shibboleths of our current political and cultural mandarins, subjecting us to what French philosopher Gilles Deleuze dubbed the “microfascism of the avant-garde.” In the last analysis, it is the broad and malleable concept of “hate speech” itself, which has developed into a license to abuse, that is hateful.

If we do not speak our minds, or prefer to huddle under a canopy of pietistic complicity, as many do, we will awaken one day soon to find our freedom of expression even more severely compromised than it now is—or worse. Indeed, “microfascism” has a way of morphing into microfascism  The upshot is that we will have reaped the bitter harvest of our cowardice, and an ironic form of justice will have been served.

**************************

make_first_amendment_great_again_banner_6-12-16-1.sized-770x415xc

My friend Kathy Shaidle has recently posted a no-holds-barred article on the disaster of “hate speech” legislation, focussing on a proposed Liberal bill to punish “anti-transgender speech” by up to two years in prison. She reminds us that such totalitarian interventions into a presumably democratic society are by no means unique to Canada. As she writes, “bear in mind that New York state, for one, already has similar laws on the books, and they carry fines of up to $250,000. And [an] Oregon ‘transmasculine’ teacher got $60,000 because her colleagues wouldn’t refer to ‘it’ as ‘they.’”

The notion of “hate speech” has begun to infect an entire culture quivering under the aegis of political correctness, with the result that multitudes of subjects are increasingly off limits. But are there not things in this world that are truly hate-worthy? Should we not hate a racially supremacist ideology like Nazism or a totalitarian philosophy like Communism? Should we not hate individuals like Hitler or Haj Amin al-Husseini or Stalin or Pol Pot or Mao or Che Guevara or any mass murderer who comes to mind? Should we not hate tyrants who subjugate entire populations? Should we rather pity or love or labor to make excuses for those who blow up buildings and massacre thousands of ordinary citizens going about their daily lives? Are such movements and people not genuinely hateful? And is there not, as the Preacher exhorts, “A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak?”

When we observe pervasive cultural trends which are based on demonstrable falsehoods, like the global warming boondoggle or the feminist distortion of sound tradition and common sense or the epidemic of dodgy rape claims in a gynolatric culture or the Middle East Studies flagrant revisions of the historical archive or the politicization of the educational system as occurred in the Germany of the 1930s, is this not “a time to speak”?

If we are dismayed by the concerted attack on biological reality that leads to grotesque bodily mutilations and social policies that favor violations of the natural order while stigmatizing the skeptical and, as Robert Reilly cogently argues, promoting “the substitution of pure will as the means for unshackling us from what we are as given,” should we not be permitted to voice our outrage or express our beliefs, however unseasonable? If we object to the “slaughter of the innocents,” aka pro-choice abortion, which has given us the atrocities of Planned Parenthood’s craniotomies-for-profit, why should a free society not allow for debate and discussion?

Why should morally responsible convictions be tarred as “hate speech” and become socially rebarbative or even prohibited by law? It is the very essence of what we are as human beings that will have been rendered offensive or repugnant—a shrivelling of the self that is the signet of despotic societies everywhere. Indeed, where does “hate” enter into the equation? Or if we insist that it does, why should those on the side of repression not be equally accused of “hate speech” or, for that matter, outright hatred against those whom they would ostracize or imprison?

The term “hate speech” is like a kind of verbal spandex taken off the rack that can stretch to fit any intended wearer. If I should make a joke of the inherently preposterous identity category of transgenderism and refer to it as “transJennerism,” would I be liable to prosecution under Canada’s tendered Bill C-16? It’s not beyond the realm of possibility. “Hate speech” has come to mean anything one wants it to mean, just as “sexual assault” in the repuritanized West may encompass nothing more than a flirtatious look or compliment.The notion of “hate speech” is a convenient, multi-purpose strategy for silencing opposition to the shibboleths of our current political and cultural mandarins, subjecting us to what French philosopher Gilles Deleuze dubbed the “microfascism of the avant-garde.” In the last analysis, it is the broad and malleable concept of “hate speech” itself, which has developed into a license to abuse, that is hateful.

If, as the Preacher tells us, there is a time to every purpose under the heaven, then there is also a time for clarification, and the muddle created by the theory and practice of “hate speech” is no exception. The following points should be obvious.

  1. The feeling of hatred is a human attribute as basic as love; it is an emotion that cannot be vaporized out of existence, and which the human mind can subtly manipulate to pass off as a form of love, in the way that an Inquisitor could burn a human being at the stake into order to cauterize his soul for his own eternal benefit. But neither hate nor love nor their various mutations are reified entities; they are ingrained constituents of the human psyche. One can introspect and adjust, but one cannot abolish.
  1. The border between speech and action is admittedly grey and permeable, but speech and action are nevertheless distinct dimensions of human life. Overt incitement to actual violence and direct and unequivocal calls to commit murder—as, for example, we find embedded in the Islamic scriptures—can and should be monitored and curtailed, but they must be explicit and undeniable. Otherwise, curtailment is a breach of the principle of freedom of expression. The physical manifestations of hate—from physical bullying to terror attacks—are another question. They are legitimately punishable and should be rigorously policed.
  1. “Hate speech” is an elastic concept and subject to the vagaries of interpretation. Almost anything can be called “hate speech” by parties interested in pursuing a political or religious agenda, thus shrinking the territory of freedom of expression, criminalizing verbal behavior once considered legal or unexceptional, and eradicating independent thought. Hate itself, as we have noted, is a natural human emotion. This does not make it laudable, only inevitable. Those who seek to criminalize what they view as “hate speech” obviously hate those whom they wish to fine, imprison or destroy.

A culture that has lost the ability to distinguish between what is truly hateful and what is justly objectionable, what is plainly vile and what is reasonably debatable, is a culture no longer worth preserving or defending. It will only compound its degenerative power by what free market conservative and Thatcher ally Keith Joseph called the “ratchet effect,” whereby the state is rewarded for its failures by the accrual of ever greater power. Were it only possible, one would be inclined to retire from the scene, cultivate one’s own garden, as did Candide, and let the culture collapse of its own sickly weight. Unfortunately, the garden would be laid waste with it. “Hate speech” often comes for those who are not hateful but merely sensible.

The consequence of our progressivist momentum toward the suppression of normative speech and unfettered thought is not unlike the “perfect” communities described in much dystopian fiction. As Morris Berman puts it in The Twilight of American Culture, in such sterile conditions “we have a mass society that has lost all genuine diversity and individualism,” resembling “a large mental hospital with everyone required to take a daily dose of tranquilizers and wear bracelet IDs.” This ensures, he continues, “that any creative or independent thinking stays deeply repressed.” Such appears to be our destination.

Writing in American Thinker with regard to the transgender phenomenon, Deborah Tyler remarks that the “sinister campaign” that would have us “believe that new genders, like planets, are being discovered all the time…mentally enslaves a formerly free people, and the malapropism ‘transgender’ is a leap forward in that campaign.” Kathy Shaidle would unapologetically concur. “I have no defense,” she says of her potentially criminal “hate speech,” “I don’t even want one.” Her public defiance of a smug and repressive political culture contrasts starkly with the attitude of the fellow travelers among us—the abettors, the self-deluded, the timid, the tribe of bromidic intellectuals, the safe-spacers. Come and get me is her dare to the real hatemongers and their morally supine appendages.

Shaidle is writing specifically about society’s embrace of transgenderism and the legal crusade against dissenters, but the issue, implicit in her contestation, is larger than that. In subscribing, really or apparently, to the prudish and pharisaic mores of the time, have we secured an exemption from eventual persecution? More to the point, do we want to live in a society in which the government can arrest us at its discretion for our opinions, however neutral, moderate, abrasive or vehemently expressed?

If we do not speak our minds, or prefer to huddle under a canopy of pietistic complicity, as many do, we will awaken one day soon to find our freedom of expression even more severely compromised than it now is—or worse. Indeed, “microfascism” has a way of morphing into macrofascism. The upshot is that we will have reaped the bitter harvest of our cowardice, and an ironic form of justice will have been served.

D.C. Circuit: CAIR Must Stand Trial for Massive Fraud

June 21, 2016

D.C. Circuit: CAIR Must Stand Trial for Massive Fraud, American Freedom Law Center, June 21, 2016

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today unanimously reversed a trial court’s ruling dismissing a fraud case brought against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).  The result of the appellate court’s ruling is that CAIR National, operating out of the District of Columbia, must stand trial and allow a jury to hear all of the evidence of the massive fraud and attempted cover up carried out by CAIR and perpetrated against hundreds of CAIR fraud victims.

In January of last year, Judge Paul Friedman, the federal judge presiding over a five-year old lawsuit alleging that CAIR defrauded hundreds of Muslim and non-Muslim clients, issued a shocking ruling when he summarily dismissed the lawsuit, which was brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Immediately, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) and the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi appealed, asking the D.C. Circuit to reverse Judge Friedman and reinstate the plaintiffs’ claims against CAIR.

The appellate court heard oral arguments in February of this year.  Judge Sri Srinivasan, often mentioned as one of the judge’s on the President’s short list to fill a slot on the U.S. Supreme Court, sat as Chief Judge for the 3-judge panel that also included Judge Robert Wilkins, who authored the unanimous decision, and Judge Douglas Ginsburg.

David Yerushalmi, lead counsel for the five plaintiffs in the two consolidated cases alleging that CAIR hired a fake lawyer who defrauded the CAIR clients, explained the decisiveness of the appellate court’s ruling:

“The Court of Appeals not only reversed the trial court, sending the case back for a jury trial, but it carefully went through each fact we argued Judge Friedman either dismissed out-of-hand or ignored completely to justify his clearly erroneous ruling, explaining further why each fact supports our claims against CAIR.”

CAIR, a self-described Muslim public interest law firm, was previously named as a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the federal criminal trial and conviction of a terrorist funding cell organized around one of the largest Muslim charities, the Holy Land Foundation (HLF).  HLF raised funds for violent jihad on behalf of Hamas, and top CAIR officials were part of the conspiracy.  In addition, several of CAIR’s top executives have been convicted of terror-related crimes.  As a result, the FBI publicly announced that it has terminated any outreach activities with the national organization, which bills itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization.”

The two lawsuits dismissed by Judge Friedman, which were consolidated by the court because they arose out of the same facts, follow an earlier lawsuit that had also alleged that CAIR’s fraudulent conduct amounted to racketeering, a federal RICO crime.  In that case, the court dismissed the RICO counts, concluding that CAIR’s conduct as alleged was fraudulent but not a technical violation of RICO.

The pending lawsuits allege that Morris Days, the “Resident Attorney” and “Manager for Civil Rights” at the now defunct CAIR-MD/VA chapter in Herndon, Virginia, was in fact not an attorney and that he failed to provide legal services for clients who came to CAIR for legal representation.  As alleged, CAIR knew of this fraud and purposefully conspired with Days to keep the CAIR clients from discovering that their legal matters were being mishandled or not handled at all.  Furthermore, the complaints allege that according to CAIR internal documents, there were hundreds of victims of the CAIR fraud scheme.

According to court documents, CAIR knew or should have known that Days was not a lawyer when it hired him.  But, like many criminal organizations, things got worse when CAIR officials were confronted with clear evidence of Days’ fraudulent conduct.  Rather than come clean and attempt to rectify past wrongs, CAIR conspired with its Virginia Chapter to conceal and further the fraud.

To this end, CAIR officials purposefully concealed the truth about Days from their clients, law enforcement, the Virginia and D.C. state bar associations, and the media.  When CAIR did get irate calls from clients about Days’ failure to provide competent legal services, CAIR fraudulently deceived their clients about Days’ relationship to CAIR, suggesting he was never actually employed by CAIR, and even concealing the fact that CAIR had fired him once some of the victims began threatening to sue.

While Judge Friedman agreed that Days and CAIR’s Virginia chapter were liable for fraud, he concluded, after improperly weighing the evidence, that CAIR National in D.C., the named defendant in the lawsuit, was not responsible for Days’ fraudulent conduct.  The appeals court, however, found that Judge Friedman was wrong on each and every fact raised by the plaintiffs, concluding, contrary to Judge Friedman, that each fact supports finding a direct relationship between CAIR National and Days.

David Yerushalmi, who is also AFLC’s co-founder and senior counsel, remarked:

“CAIR engaged in a massive criminal fraud in which literally hundreds of CAIR clients have been victimized.  In his ruling, Judge Friedman inexplicably ignored material facts that establish CAIR National’s liability and then engaged in a transparently disingenuous ‘weighing’ of the factual evidence he did address, which is patently improper when evaluating cross-motions for summary judgment.  We are thankful that the appeals court has rectified the trial court’s errors.  Now, at long last, our clients will go before a jury and get their day in court.”

Robert Muise, co-founder and senior counsel of AFLC, added,

“This ruling is a significant victory.  Not only does it reinstate our claims against CAIR, but it makes plain that we have an incredibly strong case to present to a jury.  In short, CAIR has no way out.  It is a fraudulent organization, and we will get a chance to prove that to a jury.”

Saudi Writer: ‘Mullah Obama’ Provides Iran A Safe Haven To Realize Its Interests; U.S. Administration Now In Service Of Iranian Policy

June 21, 2016

Saudi Writer: ‘Mullah Obama’ Provides Iran A Safe Haven To Realize Its Interests; U.S. Administration Now In Service Of Iranian Policy, MEMRI, June 21, 2016

On June 2, 2016, Muhammad Al-Sa’id, a columnist for the official Saudi daily ‘Okaz, published an article titled “Ayatollah Obama – A Tehran Love Story,” in which he attacked President Obama for supporting  revolutionary Iran and striving to focus U.S. foreign policy on the far east, while abandoning the Middle East. According to him, this view by Obama is disconnected from reality and runs contrary to traditional U.S. policy, which considered Iran a country violating international law and supporting global terrorism. Al-Sa’id argued that Iran is exploiting Obama’s support to realize its own interests, and harnessing U.S. administration circles to operate in its service and against its enemies.

The following are excerpts from the article:[1]

28735Muhammad Al-Sa’id (image: alassr.com)

“The ties between Tehran and Obama run contrary to the history of the relations between the U.S. and Iran, which experienced periods of great difficulty and suspicion over four decades. Moreover, the U.S. has always viewed Iran as a rogue country that violates international law and sponsors terrorism – [terrorism] that has targeted the U.S. in many places around the globe. These inexplicable ties [with Iran] that run counter [to America’s past policy] sum up Obama’s personality, which was shaped by his legal and academic background, and by the resistance of the [black] racial minority to the [white] race that surrounds it…

“The people at the Iranian foreign ministry, who are Islamic Revolution [loyalists], obviously understood this equation and they exploit it by painting themselves as victims and as having adopted values of democracy and [human] rights. However, like all revolutionaries, they will [eventually] fail and carry out the same acts of slaughter against those who collaborated with them and helped them to realize their dream of being accepted back into the global fold by means of the [nuclear] agreement… All the world’s liberals, like Obama… support liberal ideology, yet they turn a blind eye to the hypocrites who use it as a means to seize power…

“Obama believes in revolutionary countries and feels that they are closer to his heart and his conscience than the veteran, stable nations. He believes Iran is a model for a successful revolution that can be improved upon, worked with, and transformed into a democratic revolution, as he sees in his senseless dreams. This is a romantic view that Obama holds from the height of his white throne in his black house. A view akin to an eastern tale filled with the scent of incense, the taste of pistachios, and a celestial carpet bazaar. He believes that he can realize [this dream] based on a document by the American National Security Council, even if it claims the lives of tens of millions of innocent people. At the same time, Obama dreams of implementing his political view… which is based on abandoning the old world – from Casablanca in the West to Manama in the East – and replacing it with the [Pacific Rim] countries – from Korea in the north to New Zealand in the South.

“The relationship of conflict and struggle between Tehran and Afghanistan and the Arabs is ancient… but [there is] another, even more dangerous, link that was born in those same barren deserts between two elements with opposite ideologies – namely the Sunni-Arab Al-Qaeda [organization] and Shi’ite Iran – which is the current key to Uncle Sam’s satisfaction. Thanks to the link between Iran and Al-Qaeda, Iran has managed to fully control this barbaric group’s branch in Afghanistan from 2003 until today by hosting its activists and their families in safe houses and diverting their threat towards Saudi Arabia. We should mention that the violent actions [of Al-Qaeda] against Saudi Arabia began after 2004.

“The Iranian politician did not make do [with helping Al-Qaeda], but also tried to appease the West by providing intelligence on Al-Qaeda and the terrorist organizations tied to it, and even sacrificed the lives of commanders [in the group] who were no longer important [to Iran], turning them into a reward for the U.S. administration – [a reward] that this administration uses occasionally [to show it is combatting terrorism]. And why not? [After all,] Al-Qaeda runs its activity from offices in the eastern neighborhoods of Tehran.

“Naturally, Saudi Arabia was in the crosshairs of Iran, which saw the personality of ‘Mullah Obama’ as a safe haven to realize its interests. The ripeness of the Iranian lobby [in the U.S.] and its infiltration into American media, and especially into the State Department, enabled Iran to do this.

“In the capital of Washington, Iran exploited the rich and influential Iranian diaspora, which numbers tens of thousands, especially second- and third-generation members, and managed to convince them to serve the Iranian nation and set aside their political differences with it. It raised a generation that broke free of the complex of its forebears, who were hunted in their day by the wolves of the Basij. The [Iranian] diaspora devoted its efforts to the Iranian homeland and to realizing its grand interests. This is a message that Iranian youths understood, while Arab youths failed to. [Thus,] U.S. [administration] circles became great engines serving Iran’s policy and striving to destroy its enemies.”

Endnote:

[1] ‘Okaz (Saudi Arabia), June 2, 2016.

How Much of our Culture Are We Surrendering to Islam?

June 21, 2016

How Much of our Culture Are We Surrendering to Islam? Gatestone InstituteGiulio Meotti, June 21, 2016

♦ The same hatred as from Nazis is coming from Islamists and their politically correct allies. We do not even have a vague idea of how much Western culture we have surrendered to Islam.

♦ Democracies are, or at least should be, custodians of a perishable treasury: freedom of expression. This is the biggest difference between Paris and Havana, London and Riyadh, Berlin and Tehran, Rome and Beirut. Freedom of expression is what gives us the best of the Western culture.

♦ It is self-defeating to quibble about the beauty of cartoons, poems or paintings. In the West, we have paid a high price for the freedom to do so. We should all therefore protest when a German judge bans “offensive” verses of a poem, when a French publisher fires an “Islamophobic” editor or when a music festival bans a politically incorrect band.

It all occurred in the same week. A German judge banned a comedian, Jan Böhmermann, from repeating “obscene” verses of his famous poem about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. A Danish theater apparently cancelled “The Satanic Verses” from its season, due to fear of “reprisals.” Two French music festivals dropped Eagles of Death Metal — the U.S. band that was performing at the Bataclan theater in Paris when the attack by ISIS terrorists (89 people murdered), took place there — because of “Islamophobic” comments by Jesse Hughes, its lead singer. Hughes suggested that Muslims be subjected to greater scrutiny, saying “It’s okay to be discerning when it comes to Muslims in this day and age,” later adding:

“They know there’s a whole group of white kids out there who are stupid and blind. You have these affluent white kids who have grown up in a liberal curriculum from the time they were in kindergarten, inundated with these lofty notions that are just hot air.”

As Brendan O’Neill wrote, “Western liberals are doing their dirty work for them; they’re silencing the people Isis judged to be blasphemous; they’re completing Isis’s act of terror.”

A few weeks earlier, France’s most important publishing house, Gallimard, fired its most famous editor, Richard Millet, who had penned an essay in which he wrote:

“the decline of literature and the deep changes wrought in France and Europe by continuous and extensive immigration from outside Europe, with its intimidating elements of militant Salafism and of the political correctness at the heart of global capitalism; that is to say, the risk of the destruction of the Europe and its cultural humanism, or Christian humanism, in the name of ‘humanism’ in its ‘multicultural’ version.”

Kenneth Baker just published a new book, On the Burning of Books: How Flames Fail to Destroy the Written Word. It is a compendium of so called “bibliocaust,” the burning of books from Caliph Omar to Hitler, and includes the fatwa on Salman Rushdie. When Nazis incinerated books in Berlin they declared that from the ashes of these novels would “arise the phoenix of a new spirit.” The same hatred is coming from Islamists and their politically correct allies. We do not even have a vague idea of how much Western culture we have surrendered to Islam.

Theo Van Gogh’s movie, “Submission,” for which he was murdered, disappeared from many film festivals. Charlie Hebdo‘s drawings of the Islamic prophet Mohammed are concealed from the public sphere: after the massacre, very few media reprinted these cartoons. Raif Badawi’s blog posts, which cost him 1,000 lashes and ten years in prison in Saudi Arabia, have been deleted by the Saudi authorities and now circulate like forbidden Samizdat literature was in the Soviet Union.

871 (1)After the massacre of Charlie Hebdo’s staff, very few media reprinted their Mohammed cartoons. Pictured above, Stéphane Charbonnier, the editor and publisher of Charlie Hebdo, who was murdered on January 7, 2015 along with many of his colleagues, is shown in front of the magazine’s former offices, just after they were firebombed in November 2011.

Molly Norris, the American cartoonist who in 2010 drew Mohammed and proclaimed “Everyone Draw Muhammad Day,” is still in hiding and had to change her name and life. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York pulled images of Mohammed from an exhibition, while Yale Press banned images of Mohammed from a book about the cartoons. The Jewel of Medina, a novel about Mohammed’s wife, was also pulled.

In the Netherlands, an opera about Aisha, one of Mohammed’s wives, was cancelled in Rotterdam after the work was boycotted by the theater company’s Muslim actors, after it became evident that they would be a target for Islamists. The newspaper NRC Handelsblad headlined its coverage “Tehran on the Meuse,” the river that passes through the Dutch city.

In England, the Victoria and Albert Museum took down Mohammed’s image. “British museums and libraries hold dozens of these images, mostly miniatures in manuscripts several centuries old, but they have been kept largely out of public view,” The Guardian explained. In Germany, the Deutsche Opera cancelled Mozart’s opera Idomeneo in Berlin, because it depicted the severed head of Mohammed.

Christopher Marlowe’s “Tamburlaine the Great,” which includes a reference to Mohammed being “not worthy to be worshipped,” was rewritten at London’s Barbican theater, while Cologne’s Carnival cancelled Charlie Hebdo‘s float.

In the Dutch town of Huizen, two nude paintings were removed from an exhibition after Muslims criticized them. The work of a Dutch Iranian artist, Sooreh Hera, was yanked from several Dutch museums because some of the photographs included the depictions of Mohammed and his son-in-law, Ali. According to this disposition, one day London’s National Gallery, Florence’s Uffizi, Paris’ Louvre or Madrid’s Prado might decide to censor Michelangelo, Raffaello, Bosch and Balthus because they offend the “sensibility” of Muslims.

The English playwright Richard Bean has been forced to censor an adaptation of Aristophanes’s comedy, “Lysistrata“, in which the Greek women hold a “sex strike” to stop their men from going to war (in Bean’s script, Muslim virgins go on strike to stop suicide bombers). Several Spanish villages stopped burning effigies of Mohammed in the commemoration ceremony celebrating the reconquest of the country in the Middle Ages.

There is a video filmed in 2006, when the death threats against Charlie Hebdo became worrisome. Journalists and cartoonists are gathered around a table to decide on the next cover for magazine. They speak about Islam. Jean Cabu, one of the cartoonists later murdered by Islamists, puts the issue this way: “No one in the Soviet Union had the right to do satire about Brezhnev.”

Then another future victim, Georges Wolinski, says, “Cuba is full of cartoonists, but they don’t make caricatures about Castro. So we are lucky. Yes, we are lucky, France is a paradise.”

Cabu and Wolinski were right. Democracies are, or at least should be, custodians of a perishable treasury: freedom of expression. This is the biggest difference between Paris and Havana, London and Riyadh, Berlin and Tehran, Rome and Beirut. Freedom of expression is what gives us the best of the Western culture.

Thanks to the Islamists’ campaign, and the fact that now only some “crazies” still venture in the exercise of freedom, are we now going to be just fearful? “Islamophobic” cartoonists, journalists and writers are the first Europeans since 1945 who have withdrawn from public life to protect their own lives. For the first time in Europe since Hitler ordered the burning of books in Berlin’s Bebelplatz, movies, paintings, poems, novels, cartoons, articles and plays are literally and figuratively being burned at stake.

The young French mathematician Jean Cavailles, to explain his fateful involvement in anti-Nazi Resistance, used to say: “We fight to read ‘Paris Soir’ rather than ‘Völkischer Beobachter’.” For this reason alone, it is self-defeating to quibble about the beauty of cartoons, poems or paintings. In the West, we have paid a high price for the freedom to do so. We should all therefore protest when a German judge bans “offensive” verses, when a French publisher fires an “Islamophobic” editor or when a music festival bans a politically incorrect band.

Or is it already too late?

Paul Ryan’s Treason

June 21, 2016

Paul Ryan’s Treason, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 21, 2016

paul_ryan

In an awkward interview with the Huffington Post, House Speaker Paul Ryan threatened to sue Donald Trump if he were to ban Muslim immigration or build a border wall with Mexico. Considering the current track record of suing Obama over abuses of power, this is little more than a confession of impotence.

And yet it’s deeply troubling that a top Republican is willing to go to such lengths to fight for Muslim migration or for that matter illegal immigration in general.

Paul Ryan insists that he will continue to “speak up in defense of our principles, in defense of not just our party’s principles, but our country’s principles”, but it’s telling that these principles seem to involve illegal immigration and Muslim migration.

Since when are either of these representative of our party’s principles or our country’s principles?

And yet they are indeed core principles for Paul Ryan.

Paul Ryan had complained that a Muslim ban was, “not reflective of our principles not just as a party but as a country.” Like Obama, Ryan speaks of “our principles” without actually referencing specifics. While a constitutional conservative, speaks in terms of the Constitution, Ryan uses the “values” language of the left which references no laws, only general sentiments attributed to no specific law or document.

Though Paul Ryan claims that he wants to maintain the traditional separation of powers, and quotes the exact basis for it, he seems reluctant to do so when he claims that a Muslim ban would be wrong. Ryan knows quite well that his opposition to a Muslim migration ban is not based on the law. Like his support for illegal alien amnesty, it is based on the values construct of the left and not on the Constitution.

Paul Ryan was a longtime supporter of illegal alien amnesty. Back when amnesty was still being disguised as “immigration reform”, Ryan was a key player in pushing it forward. Ryan was so notorious for his support for illegal alien amnesty that he had to promise not to move forward on it under Obama in order to gain enough support to become Speaker. And yet despite this Ryan continues to sound amnesty notes.

Like most of the left, Paul Ryan describes illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants.” Last year, he once again endorsed some measure of legalization for illegal aliens. Even now his website’s top 5 issues includes a call for “immigration reform” which remains a euphemism for illegal alien amnesty.

As is typical of stealth amnesty bids, up front are a raft of security measures and at the very back is a plan for more guest workers and finally a call to “give people a chance to get right with the law”.

That is yet another amnesty euphemism.

Paul Ryan’s amnesty pledge expires when Obama leaves office. That means that, if we take his website at its word, he would like to push amnesty measures under the next administration. A few years ago he was anticipating a move on “immigration reform” in 2017. And so it is not surprising that he remains less than fond of any calls to crack down on illegal immigration.

While Paul Ryan has currently been fairly quiet about amnesty, there was a time when he was one of the more vocal national legislators throwing out amnesty talking points about a “broken immigration system” and “de facto amnesty”. Ryan was certainly not the only prominent Republican to climb on board the amnesty express, but he remained aboard it long after it was leaving the station.

Despite the general shift in the GOP, there is no sign that Ryan has abandoned it. Instead he views Obama’s divisive tone as having poisoned the wall on amnesty. He’s still the same politician who complained two years ago, “People say, ‘amnesty!’ No, it’s taking a problem that’s intractable, that’s been around forever, and trying to fix it in a way that as best guarantees as you can that we’re not going to be in the same [situation] ten years from now.”

Trump’s victory has made it quite clear that Ryan’s view of amnesty, once mainstream in the GOP, is now on the outs. If Trump were to win a national election, then the country would have ratified a rejection of amnesty. The thing that Ryan once fought so hard for, turning illegal aliens into guest workers, was thoroughly rejected by Republican voters.

But there is no sign that Ryan is willing to give up or give in. And that is the problem.

Paul Ryan insists that a ban on Muslim migration would be wrong because, “Muslims are our partners.” That would come as news to all the Americans killed at home and abroad by “our partners” from Saudi Arabia to Muslim refugees and terrorists operating in the United States. And yet even after the latest Muslim terrorist attack in Orlando, Paul Ryan shows no sign of being willing to reconsider his position.

And that’s not surprising.

Paul Ryan doesn’t represent any kind of national Republican consensus. Instead he is a vocal and effective spokesman for the point of view of his backers and sponsors. That is why Ryan not only supports illegal alien amnesty, but also backs “sentencing reform”, a euphemism for freeing criminals.

Despite the anti-establishment election, Paul Ryan continues to represent a particular strain of elitist establishment politics which is concerned with the advocacy of very specific and specifically destructive policies without regard to their consequences, whether it involves criminals, illegal aliens or Muslim terrorists. These principles are often put forward as conservative, but in fact they are a particular species of libertarianism that has very little regard for national interests and none for their victims.

Ryan’s support for illegal immigration and Muslim migration is treasonous. And yet the deeper treason is his treason to the ordinary Republicans whose views and interests he simply does not seem to care about. This is a problem that did not begin with this election and is not likely to end with it.

And yet it is a problem that must be confronted.

The GOP came dangerously close to endorsing amnesty because special interest agendas mattered more than national interests and community interests. And we are not out of the woods yet.

Paul Ryan represents everything wrong with allowing a handful of special interests to set the agenda for the GOP. The agenda has been repudiated at the polls, but it will take far more work to repudiate it in the GOP.

[UPDATED] USAF Vet Forcibly Removed from Flag-Folding Ceremony for Mentioning God

June 21, 2016

[UPDATED] USAF Vet Forcibly Removed from Flag-Folding Ceremony for Mentioning God, PJ MediaDebra Heine, June 20, 2016

(I seem to recall that the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag includes the words “One nation under God. Here’s a thought experiment: What would have happened if an Iman had spoken at the ceremony and mentioned Allah? One nation under Allah? After all, Allah is the only god and Obama Mohammed is His messenger.– DM)

Air-Force-veteran-Oscar-Rodriguez.sized-770x415xc

The Obama administration has in recent years aggressively forced an anti-religion ideology on the military and law enforcement throughout the United States.

******************************

See below for an update to this post. 

A USAF veteran who has for years delivered a stirring “flag-folding speech” at military and civic events was recently forcibly removed from a retirement ceremony  because his speech mentions “God.” As  Senior Master Sergeant Oscar Rodriguez, Jr. (ret.) was about to begin his remarks, several uniformed airmen got up, surrounded him, assaulted him, and dragged him out of the room.

This is Obama’s military now:

First Liberty Institute is representing Rodriguez and its lawyers are demanding that the U.S. Air Force apologize and punish those responsible or face a federal civil-rights lawsuit.

Master Sergeant (MSgt) Charles “Chuck” Roberson is a USAF veteran who retired on April 3, 2016 at Travis Air Force Base. A month before his retirement, Roberson saw Rodriguez perform the flag-folding speech at a friend’s retirement ceremony. Moved by the speech, Roberson personally asked Rodriguez to give the same speech at his own retirement ceremony. Rodriguez readily agreed. Read a script of the speech.When Roberson’s unit commander discovered that Rodriguez would be delivering the flag-folding speech, which mentions “God,” during the ceremony, he attempted to prevent Rodriguez from attending. After learning that he lacked authority to prevent Rodriguez from attending, the commander then told Roberson that Rodriguez could not give the speech. Rodriguez asked Roberson what he should do, and Roberson responded that it was his personal desire that Rodriguez give the flag-folding speech as planned. Watch Roberson tell his story.

Roberson and Rodriguez tried to clear the speech through higher authorities at Travis Air Force Base, even offering to place notices on the door informing guests that the word “God” would be mentioned. They never received a response from the authorities. As an Air Force veteran himself, Rodriguez stood firm on his commitment to Roberson.

When Rodriguez stood up to perform his speech as requested by Roberson, a uniformed airman approached him and warned, “You’re really going to do this?” — as if Roberson was about to something offensive like burn the flag or give a profane, anti-American speech.

Here is a video of Rodriguez delivering his flag-folding speech during an event in 2013. This is the speech that the Travis Air Force Base officials couldn’t abide:

After he was dragged out of the ceremony, Travis Air Force Base officials threw Rodriguez off the base.

Rodriguez says he is shocked and humiliated by what happened at the retirement ceremony.“To even imagine that I would be removed while the American flag is being unfurled and open—the flag which represents freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press…it’s horrifying.”

Rodriguez filed a complaint with his Congressman, Jeff Denham (R-CA), who launched an inquiry into the incident.

As Rodriguez recalls the experience, he says it was “one of the most humiliating experiences” of his life.

“I have given more than three decades of service to the military and made many sacrifices for my country,” said Rodriguez. “To have the Air Force assault me and drag me out of a retirement ceremony simply because my speech included the word ‘God’ is something I never expected from our military.”

The Obama administration has in recent years aggressively forced an anti-religion ideology on the military and law enforcement throughout the United States.

During the course of an Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief on extremism in 2013, evangelical Christianity, Catholicism, ultra-Orthodox Jews, and the Church of Latter Day Saints were listed among Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Ku Klux Klan, Sunni Muslims, and the Nation of Islam as examples of religious extremism. Oddly enough, “Islamophobia” was also listed as a form of religious extremism, and the Westboro Baptist Church was excluded altogether by the instructor, who said she got her information from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

A soldier who attended the briefing said “there was a pervasive attitude in the presentation that anything associated with religion is an extremist.”

An LEO training session in La Junta, Colorado, in April of 2013, which was hosted by the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) and funded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), painted Bible-believing Christians as serious threats to national security. While the training focused on sovereign citizens and outlaw motorcycle gangs, also on the agenda was the subject of Christians who believe the U.S. was founded on godly principles and who interpret the Bible literally. The trooper who conducted the training said he got his training materials from the DHS.

A former DHS employee told Fox News last December that a year into his investigation into a terrorist group (linked to the San Bernardino terrorists), DHS shut the case down because the employee had been unfairly “profiling” Islamists.

It’s probably impossible to calculate how many people Obama’s politically correct, left-wing ideology has killed, but the death toll of terrorism around the globe has jumped nearly 800 percent in the past five years, according to an exhaustive report from the nonprofit Investigative Project on Terrorism. 

UPDATE: A spokesman from the reserve said that the confrontation stemmed from “an unplanned participation” at the event.

“Rodriguez ignored numerous requests to respect the Air Force prescribed ceremony and unfortunately was forcibly removed,” a Travis official said in a statement to FoxNews.com.

According to an official with the United States Air Force, flag-folding scripts that are religious in nature can be used for retirement ceremonies.

“I can’t speak to the specific incident,” Ann Stefanek, an Air Force spokeswoman, told Fox News. “[But] Air Force personnel may use a flag folding ceremony script that is religious for retirement ceremonies.”

“Since retirement ceremonies are personal in nature, the script preference for a flag folding ceremony is at the discretion of the individual being honored and represents the member’s views, not those of the Air Force.”

Rodriguez was using an old version of  the “Flag Folding Ceremony Air Force Script,” which was scrubbed in 2006 because of religious references. That is what supposedly prompted his ouster. (But as the AF spokeswoman said, the older version was still permitted during retirement ceremonies.)

Post-Orlando, CAIR Issues New “Islamophobia” Report

June 21, 2016

Post-Orlando, CAIR Issues New “Islamophobia” Report, Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, June 21, 2016

(Please see also, Meet the ‘Islamophobes’. –DM)

AntiIslamophobia report

Instead of announcing a program to teach young Muslims why they should reject the understanding of Islam held by the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and other jihad groups, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) held a press conference Monday to unveil its latest cynical and deceptive report on “Islamophobia” in the U.S.

The whole “Islamophobia” enterprise is designed to intimidate people into thinking there is something wrong with opposing jihad terror, and this new report is no different. A few seconds of thought would expose the deceptiveness of it to anyone, but Hamas-linked CAIR is banking on the fact that most people, especially on the Left but not limited to it, will not give the report even that much thought, but will take it at face value, anxious to avoid being stigmatized themselves with the “Islamophobe” label.

For those willing to consider the facts, however, here are some of the problems with the new report:

1. According to an NBC report on CAIR’s latest “Islamophobia” salvo, “thirty-three Islamophobic groups had access to $205 million between 2008 and 2013 to spread fear and hatred of Muslims.” Are these groups part of one umbrella organization? No. Are they collaborators? Some are and some aren’t. Do they share funding? No. So $205 million (if that figure is even accurate, which it probably isn’t) over six years spread out among 33 different and quite disparate organizations actually averages out to a bit over a million a year per organization — a figure that is actually not a large operating budget for a major organization, and doubtless much smaller than that of Hamas-linked CAIR itself. (And for the record, Jihad Watch has never had anything close to a million dollars in any given year.)

2. “…to spread fear and hatred of Muslims.” That is not my objective, and I would venture to say it is not the objective of any of the other people or organizations mentioned in Hamas-linked CAIR’s report. CAIR’s entire premise is false: that to call attention to jihad terror activity, and to call for effective lawful responses to it, is tantamount to spreading “fear and hatred of Muslims.” Hamas-linked CAIR and its allies have spread this Big Lie so insistently for so many years that it has entered the American mainstream, but that doesn’t make it any more true than it was when they first advanced it. If Hamas-linked CAIR had ever provided even one example of a foe of jihad terror who was simultaneously not an “Islamophobe” in their eyes, this charge might have more credibility. But they never have. As far as Hamas-linked CAIR is concerned, any opposition to jihad terror at all is “Islamophobic” and spreading “fear and hatred of Muslims.”

3. “Attacks on mosques have increased, with 78 recorded incidents in 2015.” Have I or any of the others mentioned in this report ever called for attacks on mosques? No. Have any of the people who attacked mosques ever invoked any of us to explain why they attacked the mosques? No. Have Muslims faked “hate” attacks on mosques? Yes. Which is more likely: that any actual attack on a mosque by a non-Muslim vigilante idiot was provoked by our reporting about jihad terror, or by jihad terror itself, against which the mosques in the U.S. have not acted in any strong fashion? Hamas-linked CAIR would have you believe that this alleged cabal of “Islamophobic” individuals and groups is responsible for Americans’ suspicion and distrust of Muslims, when in reality the people who are responsible for any actual such suspicion and distrust are Omar Mateen, Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Nidal Malik Hasan, etc.

5. In an introduction to the report itself, Hamas-linked CAIR’s Nihad Awad says: “This report makes a case that those who value constitutional ideals like equal protection, freedom of worship, or an absence of religious tests for those seeking public office no longer have the luxury of just opposing the U.S. Islamophobia network’s biased messaging.” But I don’t oppose “equal protection, freedom of worship, or an absence of religious tests for those seeking public office,” and again, I’d venture to say that none of the others mentioned in the report do, either. This is a straw man designed to demonize opponents of jihad terror, and opposition to it in general. In reality, we’re just trying to do all we can via legal means to stop jihad activity in the U.S. But Hamas-linked CAIR cannot acknowledge that, as to do so would reveal its actual agenda. So it has to mischaracterize our aims.

6. The report says: “Islamophobia is a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure. It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat through the maintenance and extension of existing disparities in economic, political, social, and cultural relations, while rationalizing the necessity to deploy violence as a tool to achieve ‘civilizational rehab’ of the target communities (Muslim or otherwise).” Cut through this pseudo-academic gobbledegook and you will see that it is saying that “Islamophobia” as a “contrived fear or prejudice” fomented in response to a “real Muslim threat.” So Hamas-linked CAIR admits that there is a “real Muslim threat,” but claims that the “Islamophobic” individuals and groups in its report have a wrong response to it, and indeed are representatives of the “existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure.”

The idea that the “global power structure” today is anything but fully in line with Hamas-linked CAIR’s point of view today is wildly absurd. But even aside from that, nowhere does Hamas-linked CAIR bother to explain what a proper response would be to this “real Muslim threat.” Apparently it would be nothing more or less than to surrender to it, since its “Islamophobia” report is designed to defame and discredit those who are standing against it, thereby clearing the field so that the jihad can advance unopposed and unimpeded.

Brexit: Welcome, Britain, To Our Revolution

June 21, 2016

Brexit: Welcome, Britain, To Our Revolution, The Federalist, June 20, 2016

(America will have her own “Brexit” to vote on this November. Many of the same issues are involved in both. — DM)

As an American, the Brexit — Britain’s upcoming referendum on whether to exit the European Union — does not directly affect me, nor do I have a vote on it. But from the perspective of American history, I think I can offer some relevant context and advice.

The Brexit is a good opportunity to welcome the mother country to our revolution, because the fundamental issue in the Brexit is exactly the same as the one that impelled us to separate from Britain more than two centuries ago.

I recently took the kids to Colonial Williamsburg, a reconstruction of Virginia’s colonial capital that has been turned into a kind of living museum of revolutionary era America, where you can see re-enactors take the stage in the personae of Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the rest of that crowd, and debate the big political issues relating to the Amerexit.

Oh yes, and we also got together in a mob outside Raleigh Tavern and hanged Lord North in effigy. See the photo at the top of this article. Most of you, I suspect, will not know who Lord North was or why we were (symbolically) hanging him. But it’s entirely relevant today.

Lord North was His Majesty’s Prime Minister during the crucial years of the American Revolution, from 1770 to 1782. The specific infractions for which he was subjected to mock trial and hanging in effigy were the Intolerable Acts, a series of punitive measures against Boston that were widely interpreted as a declaration of war against colonial America.

Today, we tend to think of the American Revolution as a war against King George III. But it was just as much a war against the British Parliament and its leadership, which was increasingly regarded by Americans as a “foreign” body that did not represent them. We already had our own, long-established legislatures (Virginia’s General Assembly, for example, will soon celebrate its 400th anniversary and is one of the oldest in the world), and we considered them to be our proper representatives, solely authorized to approve legislation on our behalf.

That was the key issue of the American Revolution: the consent of the governed. The question was whether we were to be subject to laws passed by representatives elected by and accountable to us or whether we were to be subject to the decisions of an institution that was not answerable to the people it governed. So it’s not just about rejecting the sovereignty of a hereditary monarch. It’s also about rejecting control by a distant and unaccountable bureaucracy.

Which, in an interesting historical irony, is precisely the issue Britain faces in its relationship with the European Union.

The Telegraph‘s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard puts the issue succinctly and in terms that are totally recognizable to a student of American history

Stripped of distractions, it comes down to an elemental choice: whether to restore the full self-government of this nation, or to continue living under a higher supranational regime, ruled by a European Council that we do not elect in any meaningful sense, and that the British people can never remove, even when it persists in error.

The effect of the European Union, as currently organized, is to send the mother of parliaments to a rest home. As Evans-Pritchard has recently pointed out, Britain’s judicial system has already been put into an impossible position, forced to issue a warning to the European Court that it will resist its mandates if they conflict with such ancient guarantees as the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights.

The key issue — the breaking point — is the European Union’s practice of seeking to validate its authority through popular referendums then ignoring them when they don’t get the result they wanted.

The EU crossed a fatal line when it smuggled through the Treaty of Lisbon, by executive cabal, after the text had already been rejected by French and Dutch voters in its earlier guise. It is one thing to advance the Project by stealth and the Monnet method, it is another to call a plebiscite and then to override the outcome.
He is referring to the 2005 attempt to push through the European Constitution, which was resoundingly rejected by France and the Netherlands, only to be substantially resurrected as the Lisbon Treaty in 2008.

The whole premise of the EU has become the idea of a bureaucratic clerisy holding power beyond the reach of the people. It’s the great dream of the party of big government here, too. They want to impose their policies on every issue — global warming, immigration, gun control, transgender bathrooms, and on and on — by way of regulatory rulings by an entrenched civil service, without ever having to put anything up for an actual vote by the people’s representatives. The European Union takes that idea farther, placing the bureaucratic aristocracy at an even greater remove from its subjects.

The pro-EU side of Britain’s debate makes it sound as if the Brexit would be an act of destructioncarried out in a fit of irrational anger. But this is not about destroying institutions. It’s about preserving them.

It was no different for America. After I recently defended the idea of the right to depose tyrants, a friend of mine who is an historian sent me an interesting, minor correction. The Founding Fathers, he told me, described the creation of America as a “revolution,” not a “rebellion.” It’s a distinction that has largely been lost today, but they viewed a rebellion as an insurrection against legitimate authority, while a revolution was a legitimate exercise of the people’s right to change their government and its leadership, in this case by firing their “chief magistrate,” the king. But they viewed this as a way of re-establishing and reforming the legitimate authority of their own, long-established colonial legislatures.

And when you think of it, we were just following the British example. Britain had faced its own conflicts between the authority of Parliament and the overreaching ambitions of its kings, and they had already set the example of removing the king to preserve the power of Parliament. Before we did it in the 18th century, they did it in the 17th century — twice. Britain itself had established the precedents of the rule of law and the consent of the governed. I don’t know why they would want to throw that away now.

British citizens shouldn’t fear that leaving the EU will cause Britain to be “isolated.” The American example is instructive. After a little more unpleasantness (let’s not mention that unfortunate incident with the White House in 1814), Britain and America eventually settled down into our “special relationship.” Our common bonds of commerce and culture were too strong and deep to be disrupted permanently. The same will be true of Britain and Europe, only more so, since its departure will be on friendlier terms. There is no reason Britain cannot do as other European nations have done and remain part of a common market without submitting to the authority of the European Union.

That’s the choice Britain faces: to maintain the legitimate authority of its own government or to turn the country into a mere colony of Brussels. If the British want to preserve their ability to govern themselves, they will vote to leave the European Union.