Archive for October 24, 2016

Trudeau on anniversary of Ottawa jihad attack: “Diversity makes our country strong”

October 24, 2016

Trudeau on anniversary of Ottawa jihad attack: “Diversity makes our country strong” Jihad Watch

The reality beneath Trudeau’s adulation of diversity is like a festering sore; his misplaced praise diverts attention away from the grave threat of jihadi infiltration and its threat to homeland security, and undermines the real heroes who stopped the jihadists on that fateful day at the Canadian Parliament.

Most worrisome is that prior to carrying out their attacks both perpetrators were known to Canadian law enforcement authorities. In fact, Rouleau was included in the list of 90 Canadian nationals considered at ‘high risk’ for possible involvement in terrorist activities; yet at the time not considered sufficiently serious to warrant tighter surveillance of his activities, surveillance that might have prevented his attack.

The anniversary of the jihadist attack on Canadian Parliament is no occasion to applaud diversity. The West has allowed an indiscriminate form of “diversity,” Islamic supremacism, to undermine democracy and terrorize Western citizens.

The heroic act of Canadian Parliament’s head of security, sergeant-at-arms Kevin Vickers, saved the day.  Vickers risked his life to take down Michael Zehaf-Bibeau in a “dramatic hail of gunfire,” right after Zehaf-Bibeau — an Islamic convert who had joined the Islamic State — shot dead a Canadian soldier. Vickers even “changed my impression of Canada,” according to Josh Marshall, editor and publisher of the far-Left political website Talking Points Memo, which “decreed” Vickers  “Lord High Badass of Canada.”

The humble Canadian hero received global, deserved accolades;  one was in the Israeli Parliament, where he stated: “This is not about me. This is about the team of Commons security services.” He went on:

Safety is community based.

This is not an issue just for security, this is everybody’s issue and how we deal with this is by everybody, all the citizens, working together with their local police, their national police to ensure we have a safe society.

Vickers’ message of everyone working together to ensure the safety of society is important; sincere democracy-supporting Muslims should be at the forefront of facilitating such efforts, not shouting “Islamophobia.”

Israel is a most suitable place for Vickers to have been honored, as it was under jihadist attack long before the modern jihadist incursion into the West. We also know that Israel is a very diverse country, from which Trudeau can take lessons as Prime Minister of a multicultural state; beginning with the facts that Raffa Abu Tareef, a Druze writer, researcher and 25-year veteran of the Israel Defense Forces, points out:

Islamism is a movement that regards the sovereign Jewish state as an existential battle between Islam and Judaism…..

the movement has fostered the “Islamization” of the geography and history of the Land of Israel. In an attempt to provide a framework for dealing with what it sees as the occupation of Palestine by the Jews, Islamists have rewritten the history of the Land of Israel.

Islamic supremacism – through lies about victimhood and “Islamophobia” — has made deep inroads into Europe under the cover of “diversity,” and is well on its way in North America to doing the same, a territory that is perceived by Islamic supremacists as “dar al Harb” (House of War) that must be subjugated under “dar al Islam” (House of Islam). It is a similar premise to the “Islamization” of geography that Tareef describes, in which Western countries are deemed “colonialist victimizers,” a term that corresponds to “the Zionist entity”; but jihadists conceal their own history of bloody conquest, modern day abuses and ongoing slavery of blacks by Muslim Arabs. There is no respect for “diversity” or pluralism in the vocabulary of the Islamic supremacists who have infiltrated us.

As Trudeau denies this reality, he continues to smile and indiscriminately worship “diversity,” even on an inappropriate occasion.

justin-trudeau-4-photo-cijnews

“Trudeau says reaction to Ottawa attack shows that diversity ‘makes our country strong’”, by Jonathan Halevi, CiJ News, October 22, 2016:

Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, issued on Saturday, October 22, 2016, a statement on the two-year anniversary of the attack at the Cenotaph and Parliament Hill with no word on the perpetrator’s motive and ideological affiliation. Trudeau described the attack as “brutal”, “vicious” and “deadly” emphasizing that “Canada will not be intimidated by hatred and violence.”

He further said that the reaction to the attack demonstrated yet again that “diversity and collective love of democracy are what make our country strong and our nation great.”

The following is Trudeau’s statement:

“Two years ago, Canadians were shocked by the brutal attack that took place in and around Parliament that claimed the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and injured others.

“This vicious attack, at the very heart of our democracy, sought to frighten and divide Canadians. Instead it had the exact opposite effect, drawing us closer together and making us stronger. In the wake of this deadly assault, parliamentarians and Canadians united in condemning terrorism and further embracing our diversity.

“The whole country honoured first responders – Senate and House of Commons Protective Services, the RCMP, former House of Commons Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, medical personnel and others – for their bravery and their willingness to put themselves in harm’s way for Canadians of all backgrounds and faiths.

“It showed the world that Canada will not be intimidated by hatred and violence, but will meet these acts with strength and conviction. This also showed me yet again that our diversity and collective love of democracy are what make our country strong and our nation great.

“I join all Canadians today in mourning the loss of Corporal Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent – who was killed two days earlier in an attack in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec.

“These two members of the Canadian Armed Forces made the ultimate sacrifice for the country they loved. The most fitting tribute that we can pay them is defending the values that they so personified.”

On October 20, 2014 , Martin Ahmad Couture-Rouleau, a convert to Islam, deliberately drove into two Canadian Forces soldiers in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, near Montreal, killing Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent before he was shot dead after a police chase. Faisal, his Facebook friend, told CBC that Couture-Rouleau was a supporter of the Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL, IS, Deash, Caliphate). He posted on a Facebook page that was allegedly affiliated with him the black flags of the Islamic State. Months before the attack, the Police was aware of Couture-Rouleau’s radical statements on social media and arrested him in July 2014 foiling his plan to board a plane to Turkey, probably in his way to Syria. To watch CBC report on Martin Ahmad Couture-Rouleau click HERE.

On October 22, 2014, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, 32, Canadian born and a convert to Islam, shot dead a soldier and was killed after opening fire inside the Parliament in Ottawa. Zehaf-Bibeau saw himself as a “mujahid”, meaning a fighter in the path of Allah, and said that “Canada’s officially become one of our [Muslim mujahideen] enemies.”

A Short time before he went to the attack at Parliament Hill, Zehaf-Bibeau recorded his last message to the world in which he told his motives:

“In the name of Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful. All praises to Allah, the lord of the universe. We seek his help and ask for his forgiveness. Lord, open for me my chest, ease my task for me and remove the impediment from my speech. In the name of Allah the most gracious and the most merciful.

“To those who are involved and listen to this movie, this is in retaliation for Afghanistan and because Harper wants to send his troops to Iraq.

“So we are retaliating, the Mujahedin of this world. Canada’s officially become one of our enemies by fighting and bombing us and creating a lot of terror in our countries and killing us and killing our innocents. So, just aiming to hit some soldiers just to show that you’re not even safe in your own land, and you gotta be careful.

“So, may Allah accept from us. It’s a disgrace you guys have forgotten God and have you let every indecency and things running your land. We don’t, we don’t go for this. We are good people, righteous people, believers of God and believing his law and his Prophets, peace be upon them all….

Rigged? In What Way Is This Election NOT Rigged?

October 24, 2016

Rigged? In What Way Is This Election NOT Rigged?, PJ MediaRobert Spencer, October 24, 2016

(Please see also, Judicial Watch Will Monitor Virginia Polls on Election Day. — DM)

rigged-trump-sized-770x415xt

The political and media elites are outraged beyond measure by Donald Trump’s charge that the election could be rigged. How dare he suggest such a thing, they say, for the system is as honest as the day is long!

It shows he knows he is going to lose, they say. It shows that he has no faith in the American system, and is really a fascist at heart.

In reality, it shows no such thing, but it does show that a conversation about whether this election — and the political system in general — is rigged is one that the elites most desperately do not want to have.

And that is why we must have it.

And, if we’re going to have it in an honest fashion, the question should be framed not as “Is the system rigged?” but as “In what way is the system not rigged?”

First, there is the media.

Richard Nixon complained of media bias as long ago as 1960, but even he never envisioned the state propaganda machine we have today. Even just a decade ago, conservative media watchdogs were tallying up mainstream media stories that were favorable and unfavorable to conservative politicians and issues, and finding that unfavorable ones vastly outnumbered favorable ones — which did, however, exist.

Now, even the idea that anything or anyone not left-of-center would get even the briefest fair hearing in the mainstream media seems quaint.

Recently, I stopped by the online portals of the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS — all the self-anointed guardians of acceptable opinion — and each one featured story after story showing Donald Trump to be evil, stupid, dangerous, and worse.

How many stories from those sources, and others like them, were favorable to Trump, or negative toward Hillary Clinton? Don’t kid yourself.

Anyone who still trusts those outlets as reliable sources of news — and they are legion — will be bombarded daily with the message presented in a thousand ways: Trump is an ignorant blowhard who got the Republican nomination because of the shocking reservoir of racism and bigotry in America. His plans to build a border wall and limit Muslim immigration are stupid, impracticable, evil and divisive.

Whatever the merits of Trump and his positions, they have never — not once — gotten a fair hearing in the mainstream media.

The mountains of evidence of Clinton’s flagrant corruption, meanwhile, merit barely a mention. Friday I saw, to my surprise, a feature on CNN on Wikileaks: the Podesta friendship with and censorship of supposedly objective reporters? The pay-for-play scandal?

No, not a word about those things: CNN was reporting on how a Wikileaks email revealed, in 2015, that Clinton campaign operatives were worried that Al Gore might not endorse their candidate.

And now we know why all this is happening. We now know that, despite their pretensions to the contrary (which are still believed by all too many people), mainstream media outlets are propaganda arms for the Left and the Democratic Party.

Leftist Soros-funded groups bought favorable coverage of the Iran deal and the Muslim migrant inundation, and also bought hit pieces on foes of jihad terror.

Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta is so chummy with some of the top reporters in the country that he cooks dinner for them; how many conservatives were there?

Politico’s Glenn Thrush ran his article on Hillary past Podesta for his correction and approval. How many conservative politicians are accorded that courtesy?

Nor is Thrush’s hackery anything new. Back in 2010, Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel lost his job — only to be rehired later, of course — after his emails denigrating the conservatives he was assigned to cover were leaked. (What mainstream media reporter has ever denigrated Leftists?) But what is new is that in 2016, the Post and other mainstream outlets don’t even bother to keep up a pretense of objectivity. Back in 2010, the Post had to pretend that Weigel’s Left partisanship was unacceptable. Now he is again a member of their staff in good standing, and no doubt is denigrating conservatives more energetically than ever.

What candidate who dares to depart too far from Leftist orthodoxy can stand a chance against this?

Never will his or her positions be presented fairly in mainstream news outlets. Never will he or she be anything but on the defensive when dealing with “journalists.” The opposition will always be presented as the voice of reason, sanity, and truth.

We see this playing out in innumerable ways. Here’s one: according to the latest Rasmussen poll, “Trump has the support of 78% of Republicans and 15% of Democrats and continues to hold a small lead among voters not affiliated with either major political party. Clinton has the backing of 77% of Democrats and 11% of GOP voters.”

Trump has more support among Republicans than Hillary has among Democrats, and more Democrats support Trump than Republicans support Clinton. Yet the newscasts are full of stories about Republicans jumping off the Trump train, and Republican operatives worrying about how much the coming Hillary landslide will hurt down-ticket candidates.

Then there is the voter fraud.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and their bought-and-paid-for media propagandists feign shock and outrage that Trump would dare question the integrity of the very heart of the political process. Meanwhile, two Democratic Party operatives have now lost their jobs over the damning videos by James O’Keefe that show them cheerfully, openly, and even proudly discussing how to game the system, get innumerable fraudulent voters to the polls, and pull off a foolproof, prosecution-proof rigged election.

That there has been no call for any official investigation, no outcry, but only ridicule and scorn from our guardians of acceptable opinion only underscores the point of the O’Keefe videos, and shows how deeply the rot has set in.

Yet O’Keefe’s videos are compelling enough to have cost two of those featured in them their jobs (ironically, the Washington Post report on this was written by … Dave Weigel).

There’s no telling how many millions will vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8 because they have no idea of her deep, habitual, inveterate corruption. There is no telling how many people are convinced that to guard the border and to limit immigration are racist proposals because that is what they have been told, endlessly, by the most respected news outlets in the nation.

So is the system rigged?

We have more evidence that it is than we have ever had before, and what we know now is likely the tip of the iceberg.

Whether or not Hillary wins on November 8, that knowledge cannot be unlearned. The best outcome we may be able to hope for in these dark days is that the election of 2016 will turn out to be the very last one that is rigged.

Let’s make sure that by 2020, the Leftist stranglehold on the political system and the media is definitively broken, with the revelations of this tumultuous campaign being the first cracks in the edifice.

Judicial Watch Will Monitor Virginia Polls on Election Day

October 24, 2016

Judicial Watch Will Monitor Virginia Polls on Election Day, Judicial Watch, October 24, 2016

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today, as part of its ongoing Election Integrity Project, announced that Judicial Watch volunteer poll observers will monitor polling sites in Virginia on Election Day.

Judicial Watch poll monitors will be in Virginia in response to significant concerns about the integrity of the election process there:

  • 1,046 aliens, or residents who are not U.S. citizens, were on the voter rolls in 8 Virginia counties.  If that rate of non-citizen registration held in the rest of Virginia’s counties, that would mean that about 6,500 non-citizens are registered to vote in Virginia.
  • A September 2016 report by the Public Interest Legal Foundation and the Virginia Voter’s Alliance shows: “In the 8 jurisdictions that provided us with lists of aliens recently removed from their voter rolls, we discovered that 31 non-citizens had cast a total of 186 votes between 2005 and 2015.  The most alien votes were cast in 2012 followed by 2008, the year President Obama was elected to his first term.” There are 133 total Virginia voting jurisdictions, so the number in this report represents a mere fraction of the true total of illegal votes.
  • 19 deceased individuals recently re-registered to vote in Virginia.
  • In 2013, the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program (Crosscheck), which provides a lists of voters who are registered in more than one of the 26 states participating in the program, revealed that 57,923 Virginia voters were registered to vote in at least one other state.  Of course this number would be much higher if the Crosscheck program included every state – including New York, California, and Texas, the most populous states in the country.

Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project leader, Robert Popper, will train Virginia’s poll watchers. He is a former deputy chief of the Voting Section, in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and a veteran poll observer for the Department of Justice.

Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity project began in February 2012. Since that time Judicial Watch has put several state and county officials on notice when they are in violation of federal laws requiring them to clean up their voter rolls. Judicial Watch has also participated in lawsuits defending photo ID and other commonsense election integrity measures. Judicial Watch has also filed successful lawsuits in states like Ohio and Indiana that resulted in cleaner voter rolls and have achieved victories in the United States Supreme Court to stop race-based elections in Hawaii.  Judicial Watch has fought federal electoral laws that have the effect of making it easier for non-citizens to register to vote, and harder to remove them once they are registered.  And Judicial Watch has conducted election monitoring before, for example in New Hampshire in 2014.

“Judicial Watch will monitor voting places in Virginia to expose and deter any voter fraud,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Election Integrity Project Director Robert Popper added, “Judicial Watch election monitors will be neutral and silent observers at select polling places in Virginia.  We do not oppose or endorse candidates for public office. Our election monitoring in Virginia is wholly independent of any party or candidate.”

Recent polls show that voters are becoming “deeply skeptical” about election integrity. One poll found that 98 percent of people believe that voter fraud occurs: 74 percent believed that “some” or a “great deal” of voter fraud is going on, and 24 percent said hardly any. A poll in The Washington Post found that: “60% of Republicans believe illegal immigrants vote; 43% believe people vote using dead people’s names.”

Virginia residents interested in monitoring a local polling site on Election Day may respond by email to Eric Lee elee@judicialwatch.org

Saint Louis University: Islamic Stronghold

October 24, 2016

Saint Louis University: Islamic Stronghold, Front Page MagazineMatthew Vadum, October 24, 2016

allenwest

Founded two centuries ago, Saint Louis University began as a Roman Catholic institution, but given its antics in recent years, one could be forgiven for believing that it might be better classified as an Islamic university. The most recent example of this transformation took place last month when more than a hundred students, egged on by campus administration, walked out of a speech by black former congressman Allen West because he dared to use the phrase “radical Islam.”

“Radical Islam” is the same expression that Muslim sympathizer President Barack Hussein Obama refuses to say. Obama, who claims to be a Christian, famously waxes poetic on the Muslim call to prayer, describing it as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” With his head firmly planted in the sand, the president is also reluctant to label Muslim terrorist attacks as such, preferring to use the fuzzy abstraction “violent extremism.”

At Saint Louis University the campus administration tried to dictate the contents of the national security-themed speech in late September sponsored by Young America’s Foundation (YAF), but West, an outspoken conservative who represented a Florida district in the U.S. House from 2011 to 2013 as a Republican, refused to buckle under pressure. An SLU administrator told conservative and Republican students promoting the event that advertisements for it could not contain the words “radical Islam.”

SLU president Fred Pestello called West a “provocateur” and said in an email to students that he stood in “solidarity” with them.

Student Claire Cunningham whined to the Riverfront Times about her hurt feelings.

“Our administrator made a request for him to tailor his speech to our community, and in response he made a lot of hateful comments about our students,” she said.

Outraged at the university’s intolerable meddling the retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who served in the Middle East wrote an op-ed asserting that he had been “censored” by the campus administration and labeled today’s college students who seek so-called safe spaces as “little cupcakes.”

West added:

I along with the YAF activists will not back down from this challenge. And if this is just a case of ill-conceived political correctness, we’ll rectify that. But, if this is a case of the influence of stealth jihad radical Islamic campus organizations such as the Muslim Student Association, an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, then you will be exposed. And I recommend to the President of St. Louis University, you do not want it known that a radical Islamic organization is dictating speakers on your campus — that is not the type of PR you really want.

In his speech West discussed U.S. policy failures that have allowed Islamic terrorist groups to penetrate the U.S. and in some cases cover up terrorist attacks by describing them as outbreaks of workplace violence.

The terrorists don’t care about our partisan politics, he said, adding that “during 9/11, no one came in looking for Republicans or Democrats. They came looking to kill Americans.”

A 22-year military veteran who took part in Operation Desert Storm (1991) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003), West spoke of his experiences dealing with Islamic terrorism, explaining that “the greatest enjoyment I had was working with the Afghan army to make sure little Afghani girls could go to school.”

The walkout itself was staged political theater. Students led by the SLU Rainbow Alliance and the terrorist-linked Muslim Students Association (MSA) showed up early for the event on Sept. 29, filling many of the seats in the two-story auditorium where West was to speak. As he mounted the stage they stood up and left.

YAF spokeswoman Emily Jashinsky said SLU’s treatment of West isn’t out of the ordinary nowadays.” This is what happens when students attempt to bring one conservative speaker to a liberal campus,” she said. “Threatened leftists do everything they can to erect obstacles.”

Years ago David Horowitz had been scheduled to headline an event at Saint Louis University called “An Evening with David Horowitz: Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights,” which was put together by the College Republicans and YAF.

In an interview with FrontPage Horowitz recalled how shabbily he was treated in 2009 when he was scheduled to speak at SLU. Ultimately, the campus banned him after bargaining in bad faith over aspects of the event.

SLU wanted to put someone on stage to interpret and counter Horowitz’s message.

“They said okay but only if there’s somewhere there on the stage to explain Catholic teachings and then they withdrew,” he said.

Horowitz told me he agreed to the otherwise ridiculous request but the university canceled anyway.

“It’s the only university that I have not been allowed to speak at and they did it on behalf of the Muslim Students Association.”

“It’s a Catholic school but it’s an Islamic stronghold,” he said.

Founded in 1818 by Archbishop Louis William Valentine Dubourg, the Jesuit university is located in St. Louis, Missouri. Dubourg also served as the first president of Georgetown College, a Jesuit school which later became Georgetown University. Like SLU, Georgetown has embraced Islam with vigor. It is home to the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding and Islam apologist John L. Esposito.

SLU hosted a seminar in 2015 by #MyJihad, a group created by Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Chicago office of the terrorist-linked Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The idea behind the presentation was to misrepresent and rebrand the concept of jihad to make it less objectionable to Americans.

Ahmed Mohamed, the young troublemaking Muslim bomb hoaxer called Clock Boy by some, was portrayed at the SLU event as a victim. “What he went through is an example of a struggle,” according to #MyJihad’s account of the event. “Struggles are a human concept, and those can easily be tied into anything that happens.”

Mark Chmiel, an adjunct professor of theology at Saint Louis University, acknowledges that in 2003 he worked with the International Solidarity Movement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. ISM, also known as the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, has been involved with HAMAS and the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades. Chmiel attacked Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel in his 2001 book, Elie Wiesel and the Politics of Moral Leadership.

SLU reportedly hosted a three-day ISM training and strategy event in 2012. According to one account:

These conferences try to pass themselves off as educational discussions about Middle East peace but make no mistake about it: they are training and strategy sessions to enlist more Rachel Corries to go to the Middle East and interfere with anti-terror operations of the IDF as well as to generate support for Hamas as it continues to fire rockets into southern Israel.

If that isn’t enough, a key emphasis will also be placed on training attendees from all over the nation into how to boycotts and divest from the Jews.  Publicly the leaders claim they only promote boycotting Israel’s “occupation” of Judea and Samaria and the “siege” on Gaza, but training sessions also teach how to infiltrate Jewish organizations in the United States and how to boycott businesses run by American Jews.

Elie Wiesel was interrupted and heckled by campus activists when he spoke at SLU in 2009. They shouted “come to Gaza” and see the “devastation” caused by the Israeli “occupation.”

Saint Louis University has also hosted BDS movement events. For example, in April 2011, the Busch Student Center was the site of an event called “An Introduction to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement: Nonviolent Resistance to Stop the Israeli Occupation of the Palestinian Territories.” One of the speakers, Fulbright scholar Sandra Samaan Tamari, was a member of the Saint Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee.

SLU has long had an active branch of the Muslim Students Association. MSA has chapters across the country and functions as a campus-based fifth column in America.

MSA’s parent entity is the Muslim World League (MWL), which is directly funded by Saudi authorities and is tied to al-Qaeda. The League acknowledges on its website that it is “engaged in propagating the religion of Islam” and “elucidating its principles and tenets.” It also engages in strategic lying, known in the Islamic world as taqiyya. The League “is well known for rejecting all acts of violence and promoting dialogue with the people of other cultures,” its website claims, adding that it does “not intend to undermine, dominate or practice hegemony over anyone else.”

The Muslim World League has reportedly taken in more than $1.3 billion since 1962 from the Saudi government to promote Wahhabism. The League, warns Andrew C. McCarthy, is the Muslim Brotherhood’s “principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.”

Quite apart from its support for Islam, SLU is a hotbed of political correctness and anti-Americanism like virtually all institutions of higher learning in the U.S.

Last year the gutless administration at SLU caved to complaints from radical students and relocated a sculpture campus leftists said celebrated white supremacy and colonialism from outside to inside a museum.

The sculpture, named “Where the Rivers Meet,” depicts Jesuit missionary Pierre-Jean De Smet on an elevated platform above two Native Americans, in what critics say could be seen as an attempt to convert them to Christianity. It had stood there for 60 years.

A local newspaper acknowledged that conversion was part of the mission of Belgian-born De Smet who died in St. Louis in 1873 but added “many historical accounts depict him as sympathetic to Native Americans and as working to dispel their reputation as savages.”

Kathryn Kuhn, an associate professor of sociology and anthropology, said at the time that the statue “really is shameful,” adding it has been “controversial for as long as I’ve been here, and I’ve been here for 25 years.”

The same year SLU commissioned a sculpture for display on the campus that “captures the spirit and importance” of a weeklong Occupy SLU protest the previous fall, the College Fix reports.

For six days in mid-October, community activists refused to leave the St. Louis campus in a protest intended as an extension of the summertime riots that had wracked nearby Ferguson over the police shooting of Michael Brown. Three social justice groups – Tribe X, the Metro St. Louis Coalition for Inclusion and Equality, and the Black Student Alliance – took over the campus and lived in tents around its clock tower.

Flying an upside-down American flag, they gave speeches and “teach ins” on topics such as “conscious awakening, systematic oppression, white supremacy, and students’ responsibility to the community,” according to a YouTube video that documented the demonstration.

The demonstrators left only after the university agreed to all 13 of their demands, one of which was a “mutually agreed upon commissioned artwork.”

Of course Saint Louis University gave in to the student radicals.

The Left demands that universities honor depravity and universities like SLU eagerly comply.

Truth-tellers like Allen West and David Horowitz, on the other hand, routinely get the bum’s rush.

And that’s the way left-wingers like it.

Rigging the Election – Video III: Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Was PERSONALLY Involved

October 24, 2016

Rigging the Election – Video III: Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Was PERSONALLY Involved, Project Veritas via YouTube, October 24, 2016

According to the blurb beneath the video,

Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. “In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.” It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.” The first video explained the dark secrets and the hidden connections and organizations the Clinton campaign uses to incite violence at Trump rallies. The second video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years. This latest video takes this investigation even further.

The UN Commissars of Climate Change

October 24, 2016

The UN Commissars of Climate Change, PJ MediaClaudia Rosett, October 23, 2016

Why did the UNFCCC refuse to accredit Rebel Media? Apparently because Rebel Media just couldn’t be relied upon to echo whatever propaganda the UN might put out.

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

It is one of the stock hypocrisies of United Nations climate careerists, that while deploring carbon-emitting travel by everyone else, they have turned the UN into a prodigious generator of long, lavish and frequent “climate-change” conferences, held in enticing or exotic locales worldwide  — in places such as Bali, Rio, Cancun and Paris.

From around the globe, participants board airliners (many of their tickets subsidized by your tax dollars) and carbon-emit their way to the next jamboree. From these grand climate shindigs, UN officials emerge to promise that if we’ll just trust them to allocate a couple of things of ever-expanding scope — for instance, the wealth of the developed world and the energy flows of the planet — they will aim over the next century or so to fine-tune the temperature of the earth to within a few decimal points of where it was on Al Gore’s 60th birthday…or something like that.

It’s the kind of performance that needs a skeptical eye, and full access by an independent press. It should be cause for great alarm when the conference authorities start walling out any reporters they suspect might dissent from UN climate doctrine.

Which is exactly what’s going on. Next month, from Nov. 7-18, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is planning a huge conference in Marrakesh, Morocco. The UNFCCC has approved press passes for some 3,000 journalists who wish to cover this event.

But it seems that dissenters from UN dogma need not apply. The UNFCCC has refused accreditation to a Canadian media outlet, The Rebel Media, home to The Ezra Levant Show (full disclosure: I have been an occasional guest on this show, discussing topics including the UN).

Why did the UNFCCC refuse to accredit Rebel Media? Apparently because Rebel Media just couldn’t be relied upon to echo whatever propaganda the UN might put out. In an interview with Canada’s CBC Radio, UNFCCC spokesperson Nick Nuttall suggested that The Rebel’s cardinal sin was Levant’s dissent from UN climate doctrine. Referring to Levant, Nuttall said: “I don’t see what he’s actually reporting, you know, as being particularly helpful.”

That’s a fascinating standard for media accreditation: to deny access if the reporter is deemed by the authorities to be other than “particularly helpful.”

It becomes all the more fascinating in light of Nuttall’s additional comments to CBC Radio that he sees Rebel Media as advocating certain views, and “advocacy media outlets do not qualify for accreditation.” That’s baloney, as Nuttall himself must surely be aware. Here’s the Toronto Star, which does not always agree with Ezra Levant’s views, but ran an editorial on Friday arguing that “The UN should not bar The Rebel from climate conference.”

A glance at the UNFCCC’s own web site suggests that the objection to Rebel Media has nothing to do with advocacy per se. It has everything to do with what the UN itself does or does not wish to see advocated. Nuttall’s own shop — he is UNFCCC coordinator of “communications and outreach” — is in the business of wholesale advocacy, especially when it comes to soliciting money — lots of money — for projects spawned under the UNFCCC.

This brand of advocacy includes, for instance, a UNFCCC web page showing a “Climate Funding Snapshot” (touted by Nuttall on Twitter, with a request to “help us grow it!”) which apparently aims to encourage contributions by showing how much has already been pledged or received from various quarters. The figures range from millions to trillions, give or take sundry billions — a red flag, one might suspect, for some of the world’s biggest slush funds, with all the accompanying potential, in UN hands, for graft, fraud and abuse (especially if the UN’s climate commissars dole out press passes solely to their select acolytes in the media).

How was this financial “snapshot” compiled? The accompanying text implies it was a public relations process akin to producing compost:

It is, perhaps, refreshing to see the UNFCCC actually disclose in any context that it hasn’t really bothered with analysis. It is horrifying, and disgusting, however, to hear a spokesman for this money-guzzling UN gang trying to justify the decision to refuse access at their Morocco conference to Rebel Media, whose reporters might just do some analysis of their own.

MOSUL: Iraqi Military Displays Shi’ite Flags In Advance on Sunni Region

October 24, 2016

MOSUL: Iraqi Military Displays Shi’ite Flags In Advance on Sunni Region, Counter Jihad, October 24, 2016

huss

Shi’a flags above Iraq’s army as it proceeds into Mosul means that no peace is possible regardless of the outcome of the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS).  This is the endorsement of a sectarian war by the official arm of the Baghdad government.  Even if ISIS loses, the Sunnis will have to fight on in order to avoid being subjugated by a central government that has become their actual enemy.

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

Here are CounterJihad we have been warning for some time about the growing influence of Shi’a militias within Iraq, as they proclaim that their first loyalty is to Iran and its clerical leadership.  The power that these sectarian militas are exercising within Iraq makes it difficult to believe that the government in Baghdad will be able to remain independent from Iran, as the militias are a dagger pressed at Baghdad’s throat.

This story is worse than that.  This story is about the flying of sectarian flags by Baghdad’s own official state military.

Iraqi soldiers fighting to retake the largely Sunni city of Mosul from Islamic State are mounting Shiite flags on their vehicles and raising them atop buildings, stoking the sectarian divisions that Iraq’s government has vowed to repair….  Flying on tanks or over government checkpoints and homes in recently reclaimed Sunni villages, they often dwarf Iraqi flags next to them.

The flags are rankling Sunnis as well as Kurdish Peshmerga fighters taking part in the assault. Sunnis said the display undermines the message of national unity against Islamic State and reinforces their long-held impression that they don’t belong in Iraq’s state and security structure.

Further testing the alliance, Iraqi Shiite militias said Friday they were set to join the battle to dislodge Islamic State from Mosul.

This development underlines just how we got to a caliphate in western Iraq to begin with.  The Sunni forces fighting against the Baghdad government were brought to the peace table out of an outrage with al Qaeda in Iraq’s brutality against them.  They agreed to support the Baghdad government in return for fair treatment, instead of being suppressed as an ethnic minority.

The US military, which in those days had multiple divisions within Iraq, conducted patient negotiation with militants formerly aligned with al Qaeda in Iraq.  The agreements the US military negotiated for the Sunnis were designed to effect a reconciliation between the government and the tribes.  Agreements included promises of jobs, assistance for communities recovering from the war, and many other things that the government agreed to provide in return for the support of these former enemies.  The United States helped to negotiate all these agreements, and promised to see that they would be kept faithfully.

Instead, our Secretary of State — one Hillary Clinton — failed to produce either a new Status of Forces agreement that would permit US troops to remain in Iraq, or an agreement that would allow State Department personnel to move about the country safely to observe whether agreements were being kept.  In the wake of the precipitous withdrawal of US forces, Prime Minister Maliki moved to arrest Sunni leaders in government, and broke all his promises to the tribes.

The result was that the western part of Iraq once again became fertile ground for an Islamist insurgency.

The Baghdad government is responsible for the actions that undermined Sunni faith in the system it represented.  It compounded the problem by allowing these Iranian-backed Shi’a militias to conduct punitive war crimes against Sunni villages that had supported Saddam’s regime.  At least the militias were plausibly acting on their own, however, rather than as agents of the state.

Shi’a flags above Iraq’s army as it proceeds into Mosul means that no peace is possible regardless of the outcome of the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS).  This is the endorsement of a sectarian war by the official arm of the Baghdad government.  Even if ISIS loses, the Sunnis will have to fight on in order to avoid being subjugated by a central government that has become their actual enemy.

Tehran will fight Turkey’s role in Mosul operation

October 24, 2016

Tehran will fight Turkey’s role in Mosul operation, DEBKAfile, October 24, 2016

bashiqa_b

The involvement of Turkish special operations, armored and artillery forces in support of the Kurdish Peshmerga battle to drive ISIS out of Bashiqa, 12 south of Mosul, marks a pivotal moment in the US-led coalition’s anti-ISIS offensive to free Iraq’s second city. The entire Mosul operation hangs in the balance since Turkey stepped into the fighting in Iraq, at the initiative of the US. Instead of fighting ISIS, the coalition’s partners are squaring off to fight each other.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that Turkey was allowed to gatecrash the fighting around Mosul after US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter visited the KRG capital of Irbil Sunday, Oct. 23. He urged Kurdish leaders to bow to President Tayyip Erdogan’s demands for a role in the battle.

The Kurdish leaders succumbed to the pressure with the proviso that Turkey cease its air and artillery assaults on Syrian Kurdish militias in northern Syria.

When Ankara accepted this condition, Ashton set out for the Bashiqa arena, becoming the first US defense secretary to come that close to a battlefront against ISIS in Iraq.

He visited the Turkish military encampment outside Bashiqa and was given a briefing by their commanders. As soon as he departed, Turkish units entered the fray in support of the Peshmerga fighters

According to Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildrim, this involvement was limited to tank and artillery support for the Kurdish forces. Our military sources report, however, that it went much further and included Turkish special operations forces and tanks. By Monday, Oct. 24, Turkish troops were still backing up the Kurdish effort to purge Bashiqa of ISIS fighters.

Tehran’s reaction to this change on the game board was extreme. Our sources report that the pro-Iranian Iraqi Shiite militias assigned to subordinate tasks in the Mosul operation were immediately put on a state of readiness. Commanders of the Bader Brigades, the Population Mobilization Force and the Hashd eal-Shaabi reported that they were standing ready to attack the Turkish forces operating at Bashiqa, whom they termed “gangs of terrorists no less dangerous than ISIS.”

The Iranian government leaned hard on Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister Haidar Al-Abadi to make him redirect Iraqi government forces from the Mosul arena to join the Shiite forces preparing to strike the Turkish troops at Bashiqa.

Al-Abadi had in the past week demanded the removal of Turkish troops from Iraqi soil, a demand Ankara just as steadily rebuffed.

Building up at present is an imminent head-to-head fight between Turkish and Kurdish forces on the one hand and Iraqi Shiites on the other.

In an effort to prevent the long-awaited Mosul operation degenerating into an all-out conflagration among US allies, with the Islamist State no doubt cheering on, the Obama administration Monday turned to Tehran, Baghdad, Ankara and Irbil and asked them back off lest they wreck their primary mission of evicting ISIS from Mosul.

Tehran may decide to give ground on this but the price it exacts will be steep: an overhaul of the Iraqi Shiite militias’ rear position and permission for their direct intervention in the battle for Mosul, including their entry into the city. This permission the US commanders have hitherto withheld.

This would be a big prize. Mosul has been coveted by Iranian strategists as a major transit point on the land bridge they have designed to link the Islamic Republic to Syria and the Mediterranean. This prize would go by the board if the Turks and Kurds were first in the liberated city first and assumed control.

Hillary Clinton: Architect of Disaster

October 24, 2016

Hillary Clinton: Architect of Disaster, Power Line, Paul Mirengoff, October 24, 2016

Many conservatives hold out hope that, as president, Hillary Clinton will be okay on foreign policy and national security issues. A few even plan to vote for her for this reason, seeing Donald Trump as worse than Clinton on these matters.

Keith Kellogg, a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General and adviser to the Trump campaign, demonstrates that hopes for a sound foreign national security policy can only be founded on wishful thinking and dislike of Trump. They find no support in her record.

Kellogg begins with Iraq. Clinton voted for that war. Was this a mistake? Clinton says it was.

It certainly was a major mistake to vote (as Clinton did) against the surge that turned the tide in Iraq, and to ridicule Gen. Petraeus, the surge’s architect. And it was a major mistake to pull out of Iraq when President Obama came to office. (The excuses for the pullout have been debunked by Dexter Filkins of the New York Times).

Kellogg blames Clinton for not being able to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government. The evidence suggests that Obama didn’t want to reach an agreement and I believe that this, not poor negotiating by Clinton, is why we didn’t get one. But Clinton was part of the team that gave away our hard-won gains (gains she tried to prevent by opposing the surge) in Iraq.

Kellogg next considers Libya. There can be no Clinton finger pointing when it comes to the disasters that have occurred there. She was the architect of our Libya policy, which, email traffic shows, her team considered her greatest achievement as Secretary of State.

Some achievement. As Kellogg points out:

When [Qaddifi] was overthrown, there was no plan for follow-up governance. The result was instability, a huge refugee flow into southern Europe and the Islamic State gaining a foothold in Libya.

Worse was the eventual loss of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens in the Benghazi terrorist attack. It was the first killing of a U.S. ambassador in the line of duty since 1979. The response from our secretary of state? She claimed his killing was the result of an anti-Islamic video.

Clinton’s Russian reset began badly. As Kellogg reminds us, Clinton couldn’t even get the translation on the idiotic reset button correct: The Russian word emblazoned on the button actually meant “overload.”

Since the reset, Russia has taken Crimea, invaded main portions of Ukraine, strongly supported Syrian President Bashar Assad, conducted airstrikes against civilians in Aleppo, Syria and significantly increased its military and political presence in the Middle East.

It’s ironic that Clinton is winning the debate over Russia. Yes, Clinton talks tougher than Trump about Russia. But, as Trump likes to say, it’s all talk.

Egypt is a case in point. In 2009, she called Mubarak a family friend. But when he came under attack, she supported his overthrow and then backed the Muslim Brotherhood government. Now, she denounces the U.S. friendly government as “basically a military dictatorship.”

As for Iran, Clinton backs the great giveaway known as the nuclear deal. We can be confident that in a Clinton administration, Iran will get away with violation after violation.

As for Syria, Clinton has tried to distance herself from the disastrous Obama policy. Supposedly, she wanted a firmer anti-Obama stance.

You can believe this if you want to. But the big question is how Clinton will deal with Syria now and, more generally, how she will deal with the next hot spots and crises.

Given her astounding misjudgments about Iraq, Libya, and Russia — indeed, about virtually every hot spot and crisis that arose during her time as Secretary of State — it should be impossible for any fair-minded observer to believe Clinton won’t botch any significant foreign policy issue that comes up.

Kiss Goodbye Your Freedom of Speech

October 24, 2016

Kiss Goodbye Your Freedom of Speech, Center for Security PolicyFrank Gaffney, Jr., October 24, 2016

The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday that Facebook has decided that Donald Trump violated its “hate speech” policies in calling for a ban on Muslim immigration until a way could be found to stop importing more jihadists. Its chairman, Mark Zuckerberg, however disagreed with some employees – including a dozen Muslims involved in censoring content – that Facebook should remove Trump’s comments because he is, after all, a presidential candidate.

Facebook has adopted, though, the European Union’s practice of suppressing so-called “defamation” of Islam. And Zuckerberg’s candidate, Hillary Clinton, supports UN Resolution 16/18 that effectively requires the prohibition of speech that offends Islamic supremacists.

If Mrs. Clinton becomes president, count on your First Amendment-guaranteed freedom of speech not extending to discussion of the global jihadist threat, lest it offend the jihadists.

That’s a formula for getting more of us killed by them.