Archive for June 2016

Jordan’s enemy within defies US anti ISIS wall

June 22, 2016

Jordan’s enemy within defies US anti ISIS wall, DEBKAfile, June 22, 2016

5

The terrorist attack that ISIS carried out on the Jordan-Syria border on Tuesday, June 21, in which a suicide bomber blew up the vehicle he was driving against a Jordanian border patrol, seriously alarmed Amman, Washington and Jerusalem on five counts:

1. The terrorist, who killed six Jordanian soldiers, came from inside Jordan, not across the border from Syria, meaning that ISIS had succeeded in setting up a terror network or networks inside the kingdom.

Suspicion was first raised after the June 6 attack on Jordanian intelligence headquarters in Ain el-Basha near Amman, in which five intelligence officers were killed, by the absence of any claim of responsibility. It now transpires that the ISIS commanders in Jordan had decided to leave no traces for the national security and intelligence services to follow in their investigation.

2. The jihadists’ success in pulling off two attacks in two weeks in Jordan – one in the center and the other in the north near the Syrian border, attests to several networks in play across a widely spaced-out region.

3. The attack on Tuesday took place tellingly at Ruqban, where a large exercise by a new brigade of the Jordanian military established to fight ISIS has been taking place for the last few days. The brigade, the first of its kind among Middle Eastern armies, is armed and trained by US counterterrorism advisors, and its structure modeled on that of the ISIS military. The entire brigade travels in new Toyota minivans atop which heavy guns are fixed.

The exercise is therefore preparing for both Jordanian and ISIS forces to fight by means of fast-moving armed convoys when they engage in their next battle in the desert areas between Jordan, Iraq and Syria.

But the Jordanians will have the advantage of air cover by attack helicopters.

That ISIS penetrated the site of a joint Jordanian-US military drill with a truck bomb attests to the upgrading of ISIS operational capabilities in the kingdom.

4. DEBKAfile’s intelligence and counterterrorism sources estimate that about 3,000 Jordanians have now joined ISIS and are fighting in its ranks. These homegrown terrorists have the family connections and local knowledge that enable them to move easily around the country. Most ISIS religious leaders and mentors are likewise locals, another advantage for drawing new recruits.

5. The Jordanian military, in cooperation with the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency, is currently completing a $500-million project to build a 442-kilometer defensive fence on the country’s borders with Syria and Iraq as well as around its bases including those hosting American forces (see map). Its purpose is not only to protect the Hashemite throne, but also to transform the 89,000-square-kilometer kingdom into one of the most important US military outposts in the Middle East in the war against ISIS. The fence will also serve as a barrier between Israel and the forces of ISIS, Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Tuesday’s attack, however, raises questions about the entire fence project. Washington and Amman are investing huge sums to keep ISIS out of Jordan when the terrorist peril is creeping up dangerously from within.

Queen Says EU Courts ‘Denigrate’ Britain By Protecting Terrorists

June 22, 2016

Her Majesty The Eurosceptic Queen: EU Courts ‘Denigrate’ Britain By Protecting Terrorists

by Liam Deacon

22 Jun 2016

Source: Queen Says EU Courts ‘Denigrate’ Britain By Protecting Terrorists

Andrew Winning/Getty

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II thinks European courts that protect Islamist hate preachers “denigrate” Britain and has demanded her dinner guests “Give me THREE good reasons” to remain inside the European Union (EU).

The loaded challenge has been widely interpreted as an expression of Euroscepticism since the Royal biographer Robert Lacey made the revelation in a blog post in the Daily Beast.

The EU and the European Court of Human Rights are known for their history of protecting the “rights” of extremists and blocking deportations.

Last night Breitbart London revealed that Islamist hate preacher, terrorist apologist and Caliphate agitator Anjem Choudary supports Remain because “there are certain principles and caveats” in EU law that offer “recourse” to Islamist radicals.

According to Mr. Lacy: “We know from another leaked royal conversation that the European Court of Human Rights has annoyed the Queen as much as many Britons.

“She felt that the Court’s shielding of Abu Hamza, the extremist Muslim cleric whom the Home Office wished to deport in 2012, ‘denigrated’ Britain.”

EU courts blocked the deportation of the Egyptian militant Islamist from the UK for eight years, even after he had been found guilty of numerous terror-related crimes.

The Queen is often lauded the model of a responsible constitutional monarch — going to great lengths to remain neutral on big political issues of the day. However, she is said to enjoy “robust” debate and has strong personal views.

The evidence for her majesty’s Eurosceptic tendencies is building. In March, it was revealed that she had spoken out strongly against the EU in a private 2011 discussion with the then Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg – himself a committed Europhile.

A senior source said: “People who heard their conversation were left in no doubt at all about the Queen’s views on European integration.

“It was really something, and it went on for quite a while. The EU is clearly something Her Majesty feels passionately about.”

Why Britain could have a great future outside a broken EU

June 22, 2016

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: If you believe in Britain, vote Leave. Lies, greedy elites and a divided, dying Europe – why we could have a great future outside a broken EU

By Daily Mail Comment

Published: 17:41 EST, 21 June 2016 | Updated: 03:46 EST, 22 June 2016

Source: Why Britain could have a great future outside a broken EU | Daily Mail Online

Throughout this long and often acrimonious referendum campaign, the most striking fact about the Remainers is that they have failed to articulate a single positive reason for staying in the EU.

Instead, they have subjected voters to a barrage of scaremongering, with the aid of a once proudly independent Civil Service, pinning all their hopes on persuading the British people that the dangers of withdrawing from Brussels outweigh the many drawbacks of belonging to it.

In doing so, they have had to seek the support of the likes of Jeremy Corbyn, Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair — from the very party voters rightly rejected at the last election on the grounds that they couldn’t be trusted.

Throughout the campaign Remainers have failed to articulate a single positive reason for staying in the EU 

The European Commission, which proposes European Law, is undemocratic - neither its lawmakers nor its 85,000 bureaucrats (only 3.6 per cent of whom are British) are accountable through the ballot box

The EU has provided the conditions for far-left and far-right parties to thrive. Supporters of the Greek extreme-right ultra nationalist party Golden Dawn in 2012

But then the EU is an edifice built on lies — starting with the blatant untruth, peddled when we signed up to the Common Market in 1973, that we were joining nothing more threatening than a tariff-free trading zone, which would involve no sacrifice of sovereignty.

More than 40 years on, some 50 or 60 per cent of our laws and 70 per cent of regulations are dictated to us by Brussels, whose power is only matched by its incompetence, corruption and hunger to impose ever more statist regulations on 28 utterly diverse member nations.

And though we do less than 10 per cent of our total business with the EU — with 80 per cent of our trade being within the UK — every firm in the country must submit to its throttling red tape.

Then there’s the great lie that the EU is a guarantor of prosperity for its members. In truth, while the economies of other countries have forged ahead, the Continent’s share of global commerce has been shrinking for decades. Meanwhile, the proportion of the UK’s overseas trade that we conduct with our partner nations has actually declined since we joined, from about 55 to 45 per cent.

The irrefutable fact is that the EU is ruled by a secretive, unelected commission, whose diktats are backed by a court able to override elected democracies

As for the 19 countries locked into the catastrophic, one-size-fits-all single currency — the very apotheosis of the European dream of ever closer political and economic union — just ask the jobless young people of Greece, Spain or France if the euro has underpinned their prosperity.

Indeed, in Greece, crushed in bankruptcy by arrogant German intransigence, daily living is a nightmare. In other parts of southern Europe, youth unemployment is a terrifying 50 per cent and more, with half a generation’s prospects of a decent life sacrificed on the altar of EU empire-building.

Or take Italy, a country with an economy roughly comparable in size to our own. Its growth rate over the past eight years has been just 3 per cent. In the same period, free from the shackles of the euro, Britain has grown 35 per cent.

Yet far from realising their mistake and helping those whose lives have been laid waste by the single currency, Europe’s political elites are pressing ahead with the project, determined — in the face of bitter opposition from the people — to achieve ever closer political and economic union.

Next, there’s the lie that the EU is popular with those it governs, spreading peace and harmony between nations. Certainly, this was among its founding fathers’ dreams, when Europe lay ravaged by World War II. The reality has turned out very differently.

A survey earlier this year by Pew, the highly respected U.S. think tank, found that 61 per cent in France had unfavourable feelings about Brussels, as did 71 per cent of Greeks and 48 per cent of Spaniards. Even in Germany, whose exports have benefited from the weak euro, 44 per cent were against the EU.

Jean-Claude Juncker at a Brussels working lunch before he became European Commission president in 2014. At least 10,000 EU employees are staggeringly paid more than David Cameron

Brussels has long set its sights on establishing a European army. Thousands of soldiers in vehicles with EU stickers gathered on Salisbury Plain (pictured) for a two-week military exercise just weeks ahead of the referendum

 Brussels has long set its sights on establishing a European army. Thousands of soldiers in vehicles with EU stickers gathered on Salisbury Plain (pictured) for a two-week military exercise just weeks ahead of the referendum

Unsurprisingly, then, with deep racial and national fissures opening up and barbed wire fences dividing countries, tensions within Europe are perhaps greater than at any time since the War. Witness the alarming rise of far-Right and far-Left parties — Golden Dawn in Greece, the Freedom Party in Austria, AFD in Germany, the National Front in France and Communism resurgent.

We needn’t look far for the explanation. For not only is the euro destroying livelihoods, but the madness that is the free movement of peoples has brought waves of migrants sweeping across Europe, depressing wages, putting immense strain on housing and public services, undermining our security against criminals and terrorists — and making communities fear for their traditional ways of life.

Which brings us to David Cameron’s deceptions over migration. The first was his ‘no ifs, no buts’ pledge to bring numbers down to manageable levels by 2020, promising in his manifesto to aim for a net figure of less than 100,000 a year.

Even as he made that pledge, as his former guru Steve Hilton exposed devastatingly in yesterday’s Mail, he had been ‘directly and explicitly’ warned by civil servants that it would be impossible to keep while we remained members of the EU.

Yet he went ahead and made it anyway. But then who cares, when votes are at stake, if our population is spiralling towards an estimated 80 million by 2039? As for the effects of demographic upheaval, a dramatic 8 per cent increase in just a year in the number of primary school pupils in class sizes over the ‘legal limit’ of 30 has recently been revealed.

Then there is the PM’s second deception on migration — so obviously untrue that he even seems increasingly embarrassed to repeat it. This is his claim that the frankly pathetic ‘reforms’ he secured during his humiliating tour of European capitals will have any impact on numbers.

Indeed, his failed renegotiation demonstrates another unpalatable truth about the EU — that it is institutionally incapable of meaningful reform. After all, if the Brussels bureaucracy refuses to listen to the British public’s concerns with a referendum gun held at its head by its second biggest contributor, what hope can there be that it will mend its ways if we vote to remain?

And reform it desperately needs. Not even the most passionate of Remain campaigners have dared to suggest the 28-member bloc is democratically run.

Neither its lawmakers nor its 85,000 bureaucrats (only 3.6 per cent of whom are British) are accountable through the ballot box to the 500 million people they rule. And how many of us can name our MEP?

For years economies in southern and eastern Europe have struggled with unemployment rates spiralling out of control. A demonstrator clashes with Greek security forces during a protest against the economic policies of the European Union in 2015 

Far-right groups across the EU have grown in number and strength in recent years in response to mass migration across the continent 

No, the irrefutable fact is that the EU is ruled by a secretive, unelected commission, whose diktats are backed by a court able to override elected democracies.

True, we cannot predict exactly what will happen if we pull out (though we can surely be confident that the EU won’t want to inflict damage on itself by erecting trade barriers against the world’s fifth biggest economy and a huge net buyer of its exports). But then nor can we know what the EU will do next if we vote to remain.

But we can make educated guesses. For one, Brussels has long set its sights on establishing a European army (and how significant that so many of our top generals and admirals support Brexit). And it is only for the duration of our referendum campaign that it has shelved policies that threaten serious damage to the City, British ports and our dominance of the global art market.

Indeed, our service industries (which are not subject to the single market) have long been the envy of Germany and France, which crave more of the action for themselves. There can be little doubt that they would take a Remain vote as their cue to seize it.

Our ancestors shed oceans of blood to uphold and defend this country’s right to govern itself

Meanwhile, with Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia set to join, the EU continues its relentless expansion.

Mr Cameron has desperately tried to silence talk of Turkey’s application for membership, which would give its 80 million largely Muslim population the right to free movement.

But how can we trust a Prime Minister who told Turkish journalists six years ago: ‘I will remain your strongest possible advocate for EU membership. This is something I feel very passionately about?’

True, the EU is loved by its greatest beneficiaries — Europe’s political elites, the mighty corporations that spend millions lobbying Brussels, determined to get the bureaucrats to enforce their monopolies. Then there are the unscrupulous banks such as Goldman Sachs and fat cats such as Richard Branson and the egregious euro-supporting George Soros, who made a fortune from almost destroying the Bank of England.

Indeed, it is the EU fervour of these globalised elites, telling democracies how to vote, that has enraged working class communities in Britain who, more than anyone, have had to cope with mass migration and have every right to feel abandoned.

No, if the Remainers have been unable to make a positive popular case for our membership, this is because the task is virtually impossible. But the irony is that there is a wonderfully positive case to be made for withdrawal.

Steve Hilton, former spin doctor for David Cameron, has backed the Leave campaign. He told the Mail on Tuesday how Cameron had been warned by civil servants that it would be impossible to keep the promise to reduce migration to the 'tens of thousands'

David Cameron has deceived the nation over migration. There was a ‘no ifs, no buts’ pledge to bring numbers down to manageable levels by 2020. Migrants and refugees escorted by Slovenian soldiers and police officers in 2015 (pictured)

A vote to leave would enable us to fulfil our destiny as one of the world’s greatest trading nations, free to strike deals with any country we like. It would also give us back our seats on international bodies, instead of being one voice in 28, represented by a bureaucrat without our interests at heart.

Remainers are fond of branding Leavers as ‘little Englanders’. But there is nothing petty-minded about being proud of our traditions and history as a great seafaring country, with enterprise in our DNA, unafraid to reach out to Europe and beyond — especially as that is now where the wealth increasingly lies.

Indeed, it is a sclerotic EU, with its terror of competing with the great economies of the world (to this day, it has no trade deals with America, China, Japan, Brazil or India) which is backward-looking and locked into the past.

Our ancestors shed oceans of blood to uphold and defend this country’s right to govern itself, pass its own laws, raise its own taxes and — most pertinently — get rid of politicians when they abuse our trust. Why on earth should we now want to belong to a dysfunctional club that denies us these rights — a club with an imploding economy, pursuing a frankly mad policy of open borders which, if not checked, will lead to violence between the ugly left and ugly Right across Europe?

This is our one chance. We must seize it

The truth is that no one — apart, it seems, from a plutocratic elite — knows what will happen if we choose Brexit. We do know, however, that as the world’s fifth largest economy we should be able to forge deals with countries keen to sell to our affluent consumers.

We do know that the Germans will still hunger to sell us their cars, the Spaniards to welcome our currency-rich holidaymakers, and the world will want the unique skills of the City of London. And if the pound falls, that will be good for exports, as it was when the Exchange Rate Mechanism collapsed.

It was Tony Benn who said in the last referendum in 1975 that Britain was signing up for something that was undemocratic and run in the interest of elites. ‘I can think of no body outside the Kremlin that has such power without a shred of accountability,’ he declared.

If you believe in the sovereignty of this country, its monarchy, its unwritten constitution and its judicial system; if you believe in the will of the people and don’t want to be ruled by faceless bureaucrats; if you are concerned about uncontrolled immigration; if you wish to control the destiny of the UK; if you want a government you can vote for and in turn vote out of office if it breaks its promises; and if you believe in Britain, its culture, history and freedoms, there is only one way to vote. Brexit.

This is our one chance. We must seize it.

Israel to receive first F-35 fighter jet today

June 22, 2016

Israel to receive first F-35 fighter jet today IDF to take possession of the first F-35 exported from the US this afternoon. Arutz Sheva will have live coverage.

By Kobi Finkler

First Publish: 6/22/2016, 9:13 AM

Source: Israel to receive first F-35 fighter jet today – Defense/Security – News – Arutz Sheva

F-35 Lightning II                                   US Air Force

The IDF will become the first country outside of the United States to possess the groundbreaking F-35 Lightning II fighter jet, which it will call the Adir.

The first two planes will reach Israel in about six months, with another 17 arriving by the end of 2017. At that point, the IDF’s F-35 squadron will begin operations.

The jet is so innovative that a senior Air Force officer was quoted as saying that it could even serve as a first-rate intelligence plane due to its information processing systems and sensors. It can decrypt any enemy radar signal long before it is recognized, allowing it to operate far from Israeli territory without fear of discovery.

A senior official in the Air Force noted that all classified communications systems used in the jets will be produced in Israel. The United States has even given a special exception allowing the IDF to use its own electronic warfare systems.

Israel will take possession of the first jet at 6:00 p.m. (Israel time) today. Arutz Sheva will provide live coverage of the event.

Daniel Horowitz: There Is a Fifth Column in the American Government

June 22, 2016

Daniel Horowitz: There Is a Fifth Column in the American Government

by Dan Riehl

21 Jun 2016Washington, DC

Source: Daniel Horowitz: There Is a Fifth Column in the American Government – Breitbart

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

Asked by Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon if there is “essentially a fifth column in the national security and homeland security apparatus of the United States,” Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review, said, “Oh yeah, this is nothing new. It started pretty much in the second term of the Bush administration.”

Horowitz continued:

There’s something called CVE, Countering Violent Extremism. It’s not just an Orwellian term to expunge any mention of Islamic terror and make it about a kind of generic extremism, including so called Right Wing extremism; it’s a term of art. It is a very specific term concocted by the Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR. They have successfully introduced this lexicon in our DHS [Department of Homeland Security]. These people are most commonly found in the Homeland Security Advisory Council, as well as the civil rights and civil liberties division of DHS.

Breitbart News recently highlighted the issue with a piece drawn from a Horowitz item at Conservative Review, “The GOP’s Muslim Brotherhood-Inspired Post-Orlando Agenda”:

Next, Republicans could bring legislation to the House and Senate floors, finally designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, thereby freeing up law enforcement do [sic] expunge them from our government and go after the mosques controlled by Brotherhood front groups. This would cut to the foundation of the radicalization problem inside Muslim communities in this country. It would also remove the Muslim Brotherhood foxes guarding the hen house within our sensitive counterterrorism advisory boards for the FBI and DHS. The bill designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terror group [H.R. 3892] already passed the House Judiciary Committee in February.

But no. Republicans will have none of that. Instead, Republicans plan to package a bunch of nothingburger bills that, in best-case scenario, completely distracts from the core problem, and in the worst case, actually promotes the Muslim Brotherhood agenda.

Horowitz’s interview on Breitbart News Daily Tuesday also highlighted:

If you had a situation where there’s rampant, ubiquitous arson all over the country, and you find out it’s the firefighters committing the arson, and they’re everywhere, and they’re being cheered on, and then a group of people who are cheering them on successfully say, “You know what: we need to ban fire in your  kitchen.” And they successfully make the narrative all that. This type of fire. What about fire for someone who’s mentally ill? And nobody is talking about the issues. We literally had a debate all of yesterday, and we’re going to have it all of today, probably for the rest of the week, about how much … how many people do we want to ban from getting a gun. Meanwhile, we are bringing the problem to our shores. A) Through immigration. Then once they’re here – and some of them have been here for several decades – we have the Muslim Brotherhood radicalizing them, writing their textbooks in their schools, obviously sympathizing with the terrorists, making these guys want to identify with them in the mosques and all the community centers. And then most importantly, or most egregiously, they are in every level of our counterterrorism and Homeland Security apparatus: DHS, FBI, State Department.

Republicans, as their response to Orlando, they crafted legislation using the term Countering Violent Extremism, giving them more resources to further the goals and objectives of CVE. So they basically empowered Obama and legitimized this program.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

 

Guns, Islam and Orlando

June 22, 2016

Guns, Islam and Orlando, Bill Whittle Channel, via YouTube, June 21, 2016

asfd

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.”