Archive for November 16, 2016

Obama tells world ‘My vision’s right,’ warns of dangers of Trump’s populism

November 16, 2016

Obama tells world ‘My vision’s right,’ warns of dangers of Trump’s populism, Washington TimesDave Boyer, November 16, 2016

(These grapes sure are sour. — DM)

obamaairfarcePresident Barack Obama points as he boards Air Force One in Andrews Air Force Base, Md., Sunday, Nov. 6, 2016, en route to Florida, where he will speak at a campaign event for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at Osceola …

Facing rejection of his worldview on both sides of the Atlantic, President Obama doubled down Tuesday on the dangers of populism and declared that Donald Trump’s supporters don’t realize how good they’ve had it for the past eight years.

Declaring, “My vision’s right,” the president said Mr. Trump won the presidential election by exploiting conservatives’ “troubling” rhetoric to play on Americans’ skepticism of globalization and diversity. He accused Republicans of fanning flames of “anger and fear in the American population” over economic uncertainty to help Mr. Trump win, and warned that similar forces are threatening the European Union.

“You’ve seen some of the rhetoric among Republican elected officials and activists and media,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference in Athens, Greece, with Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras. “Some of it [was] pretty troubling and not necessarily connected to facts, but being used effectively to mobilize people. And obviously President-elect Trump tapped into that particular strain within the Republican Party and then was able to broaden that enough and get enough votes to win the election.”

Asked if the election of Mr. Trump and British voters’ decision to leave the European Union amounted to a rejection of his worldview, Mr. Obama pointed to his relatively high approval ratings and retorted, “Last I checked, a pretty healthy majority of the American people agree with my worldview on a whole bunch of things.”

It was a remarkable display of cockiness for a president whose favored candidate just lost the election to succeed him and who failed to persuade British voters last spring to remain in the EU.

Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation, said Mr. Obama was displaying hubris and a lack of understanding of the anti-EU forces rising in Europe.

“He is a president really in denial with regard to the sweeping changes that are taking place both at home and abroad, especially across the Atlantic,” Mr. Gardiner said in an interview. “The biggest development in Europe in the last few years has been growing support for sovereignty and self-determination. He continues to lecture Europe and European politicians about the right path forward. I think it’s a message that is stuck in a time warp.”

The lame-duck president, whose legacy initiatives are imperiled by an incoming Republican president and Republican-led Congress, said Americans will realize eventually how dangerous it is to foment discrimination based on race or religion. He said it’s a lesson that Europeans who favor breaking up the European Union should heed as well.

“My vision’s right on that issue,” Mr. Obama said. “It may not always win the day in the short term in any political circumstance, but I’m confident it will win the day over the long term.”

After eight years of denying that he pays attention to polls, Mr. Obama pointed to his job approval ratings (57 percent in Gallup) as proof that there was a “mismatch … between frustration and anger” among Mr. Trump’s voters. He speculated that voters simply felt a “need to shake things up.”

Mr. Obama also pushed a theme of “You’ll miss me when I’m gone,” predicting that voters in the U.S. and Britain will eventually realize that he was correct in his assessment of the political forces at work. He forecast that Mr. Trump’s supporters will grasp soon, probably before the Republican faces re-election, how good things have been during his administration.

“Time will now tell whether the prescriptions that are being offered, whether Brexit or with respect to the U.S. election, ends up actually satisfying those people who have been fearful or angry or concerned,” Mr. Obama said. “I think that’s going to be an interesting test, because I think I can make a pretty strong argument that the policies we put forward were the right ones, that we’ve grown faster than just about any advanced economy. The country is indisputably better off, and those folks who voted for the president-elect are better off than they were when I came into office, for the most part. But we’ll see whether those facts affect people’s calculations in the next election.”

He said he has pushed an agenda for economic equality over the past eight years but congressional Republicans have blocked him.

The president’s 52nd and final foreign trip was not supposed to become a postelection autopsy. It was planned before the election as part sightseeing tour — Mr. Obama had never been to Greece — and partly to offer a fond farewell in person to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whom Mr. Obama counts as his closest partner over his two terms.

Mr. Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton changed all that. Now Mr. Obama is traveling on a mission to reassure anxious European allies that Mr. Trump will keep the U.S. commitment to alliances such as NATO and will largely preserve the continuity of U.S. foreign policy.

Mr. Obama praised Greece as one of only five NATO members that spends the advised 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense, despite its heavy debt burden and austerity measures.

Thousands of Greeks protested Mr. Obama’s visit. Riot police fired tear gas Tuesday night at demonstrators marching a few miles from the presidential mansion where Greek leaders were hosting a state banquet for Mr. Obama.

About 7,000 people, among them many hooded protesters and members of the communist-affiliated group PAME, marched through the streets of central Athens holding banners reading, “Unwanted!”

Police clashed with the protesters after they tried to break through cordon lines to reach the parliament building and the U.S. Embassy. Some demonstrators threw two gas bombs at police before dispersing into nearby streets close to Athens’ main Syntagma Square.

In a separate protest in the northern city of Thessaloniki, protesters burned a U.S. flag.

Mr. Obama was visiting two days before the anniversary of a bloody 1973 student revolt that helped topple a military junta that took power in 1967 with U.S. government support.

Before Mr. Obama left Washington on Monday, he conducted an hourlong press conference at the White House, hoping that questions about Mr. Trump’s election wouldn’t follow him overseas. They did.

A reporter for NBC News reminded Mr. Obama of an interview he conducted in January with “Today” show co-host Matt Lauer, who had asked the president if he felt responsible for creating the conditions for Mr. Trump’s candidacy. At the time, Mr. Obama replied, “Talk to me if he wins.”

The NBC reporter asked the president Tuesday if he felt responsible for Mr. Trump’s victory.

“I still don’t feel responsible for what the president-elect says or does,” Mr. Obama said. “But I do feel a responsibility as president of the United States to make sure that I facilitate a good transition and I present to him, as well as the American people, my best thinking, my best ideas about how you move the country forward.”

Mr. Obama warned that “we are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism or ethnic identity or tribalism that is built around an ‘us’ and a ‘them.’”

“I will never apologize for saying that the future of humanity and the future of the world is going to be defined by what we have in common as opposed to those things that separate us and ultimately lead us into conflict,” he said. “Take Europe. We know what happens when Europeans start dividing themselves up and emphasizing their differences and seeing a competition between various countries in a zero-sum way. The 20th century was a bloodbath.”

Mr. Gardiner said Mr. Obama has no real understanding of the forces reshaping Europe.

“I think President Obama remains a figure of tremendous hubris who does not really understand the changes taking place across the world, and whose administration has been incredibly weak-kneed in terms of projection of American influence and power,” he said.

“For a president with such an embarrassing foreign policy record, President Obama’s been an extraordinarily self-confident figure. His record doesn’t match his arrogance,” he said.

⦁ This article is based in part on wire service reports.

Articles: How to Handle Hillary’s Crimes

November 16, 2016

How to Handle Hillary’s Crimes

By Bruce Walker

November 16, 2016

Source: Articles: How to Handle Hillary’s Crimes

There is a danger that President Trump in January may look back on the rage most Americans felt at the clear criminality of Hillary and her toadies as water under the bridge and see the tactical advantage in putting all that raw sewage behind us.  The lesson the left will draw from that is this: the left can persecute Scooter Libby, rig the prosecution of Ted Stevens, bedevil Tom Delay and Rick Perry, convict David Petraeus, and count on conservatives genially forgiving all the left’s misdoings when they gain power.

If Trump does this out of a desire to begin his presidency with the false glow of leftist acceptance, he will rue that day when the left sees a chance to stick the stiletto into his ribs.  There are several related problems with Hillary’s use of a private email service, her pathological lying about it, her conspiracy to thwart justice and oversight with the minions who would do anything to protect her, and the patent corruption of the criminal justice system.

First, the men and women who risk their lives to acquire classified information and for whose protection tough laws have been enacted must see that these laws are enforced and that there are consequences for violating them.  Once the brave men and women who put themselves on the line around the world in dangerous places believe that they are simply disposal units when domestic political interests are involved, then we will stop learning much of what we must learn to be safe.

Second, if the Department of Justice and the leadership of the FBI have proven willing to twist justice for political ends, then these folks are much worse than just “bad cops.”  If they walk away from this with their reputations intact and no sanctions for the very serious collection of crimes that would go with conspiring to exonerate the guilty, then our criminal justice system at the highest level can no longer be trusted.

Third, if Trump cannot be tough with these folks, then his own credibility will inevitably begin to corrode among those very Americans who trusted him to “drain the swamp.”  While that may not affect his presidency today or tomorrow, it will definitely begin to erode that trust over time, and when he needs it most, many conservatives will have to wonder if they can trust him.

Does this mean that Trump should reopen the criminal investigation by Jim “Inspector Clouseau” Comey and convene grand juries to interrogate the suspects?  Well, if Obama issues a general pardon, then no crimes will be prosecutable for offenses committed before the pardon, and Obama may well do just that.

But what our nation requires is not so much criminal convictions as slobbering confessions of wrongdoing before the nation by miscreants who infested Hillary’s organization and the Justice Department.  In gaining this vital purgative, President Trump and the Republican Congress have several key weapons.

Trump ought to offer a general pardon to everyone involved in these scandals, given the following.  (1) Each person, under oath and penalty of perjury, must offer complete written confessions of all bad conduct the individual committed or knew about.  (2) The individual pardoned testifies before a joint congressional investigative committed and, because of the pardon, cannot take the Fifth Amendment – here, as with the sworn statement, any false or misleading testimony would be cause for instantly seeking indictments for perjury and obstruction of justice.  (3) Every one of these unsavory characters who is also an attorney (which is to say, almost all of them) must submit, at a minimum, to a public reprimand and in egregious cases with suspension of his license to practice law.  (4) Those holdouts who angrily protest their innocence even as everyone around them provides details of bad deeds, including many we will just have learned about, must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

What might happen with this approach?  Well, those suspects involved may decide to get together and work up a common front to stonewall.  If that happens, then the very meetings and discussions are a new and serious felony, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and that is true even if nothing planned was itself technically illegal.  The panoply of the FBI – wiretaps, informers, etc. – could be quite properly used to prove this criminal conspiracy.  What would happen is the small fry, first, at least, would crack, and then those fissures would creep up through the whole rotten structure.

So what if, knowing this, these folks confess their grave wrongdoings before the nation?  The left would probably never try this sort of shenanigans again, and the left would pay a dear political price for its corruption of the federal criminal justice system, which is what we really want.

Palestinians: The Message Remains No and No

November 16, 2016

Palestinians: The Message Remains No and No

by Khaled Abu Toameh

November 16, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: Palestinians: The Message Remains No and No

  • The position of the two Palestinian leaders, Arafat and Abbas, is deeply rooted in the Palestinian tradition and culture, in which any compromise with Israel is considered an act of high treason. Abbas knows that concessions on his part would result in being spat upon by his people — or killed.
  • Hence the PA president has in recent years avoided even the pretense of negotiations with Israel, and instead has poured his energies into strong-arming the international community to impose a solution on Israel.
  • The French would do well to abandon their plan for convening an international conference on peace in the Middle East.
  • Declaring a Palestinian state in the Security Council only makes them look as if their actual goal is to destroy Israel — and they know it. They would be fooling no one.
  • Many in Europe, particularly France, seem be aching to do just that — as a “present” to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to show how submissive they can be; to encourage more “business” with Muslim states, and, they might hope, to deter more terrorist attacks. Actually, if the members of the UN Security Council declare a Palestinian state unilaterally, they are encouraging more terrorist attacks: the terrorists will see that attacks “work” and embark on more of them to help the jihadi takeover of Europe go even faster.

Last week, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas tipped his hand concerning his ultimatum on any revival of the peace process with Israel.

“I’m 81 years old and I’m not going to end my life drooping, making concessions or selling out.”

Thus declared a defiant Abbas at a rally in Ramallah, marking the 12th anniversary of the death of his predecessor, Yasser Arafat.

Abbas in this way relayed to the hundreds of Palestinians who gathered in Ramallah to commemorate Arafat: “I have no intention of going down in history as a leader who compromised with Israel.”

Like Arafat, Abbas would rather die intransigent than achieve a peaceful settlement with Israel.

Yet the position of the two Palestinian leaders is deeply rooted in the Palestinian tradition and culture, in which any concession to or compromise with Israel is considered an act of high treason.

Upon returning to Ramallah in the summer of 2000, after following the botched Camp David summit, Arafat explained his decision to reject the offer made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. According to Arafat, Barak wanted the Palestinians to make concessions concerning Jerusalem and its holy sites.

“He who relinquishes one grain of soil of the land of Jerusalem does not belong to our people,” Arafat announced. “We want all of Jerusalem, all of it, all of it. Revolution until victory!”

At Camp David, Arafat and his negotiators demanded full sovereignty over the entire West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, including its holy sites and the Jewish Quarter in the Old City. They also repeated their long-standing demand that the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees be fully implemented, allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to flock into Israel.

Barak, for his part, is said to have offered the Palestinians a state that would be established on 91% of the West Bank, large parts of East Jerusalem and the entire Gaza Strip. What is certain is that Barak wanted the Palestinian leader to make some concessions on the explosive issues of Jerusalem and refugees.

The Camp David summit failed the moment Arafat realized that he was not going to get all of his demands met. Arafat later informed his confidants that he walked out of the summit because he did not want to go down into history as a leader who succumbed to Israeli and American pressure.

Fast-forward 16 years: Abbas stands near Arafat’s grave in Ramallah and spouts similar sentiments. Vowing to continue in Arafat’s path and honor his legacy, Abbas said that these days he was being “inspired” by his predecessor’s “determination” and “resolve.”

Abbas is at least up-front in his intentions. No one, he says unashamedly — not the Israelis nor the Americans nor the Europeans — ought to harbor any illusions. “Peace” with the Palestinians, says Abbas, means Israel fulfilling each and every demand he — and Arafat — has made. “Peace,” in other words, with no Palestinian concessions.

Arafat continues to enjoy massive popularity among Palestinians because he died without “selling out” to Israel. His hero status hinges on his rejectionism at Camp David.

Had Arafat accepted Barak’s offer at that summit, he would have been condemned as a “pawn” in the hands of the Israelis and Americans, a failed leader who betrayed his people.

Abbas’s self-fashioning himself in the guise of Arafat is not new. For many years, he has been following in the footsteps of Arafat and honoring his legacy. Moreover, Abbas is well aware that, like Arafat, he is not authorized by his people to make any concessions to Israel. This is not merely because Abbas is now in his 12th year of a four-year-term in office.

Like his predecessor Yasser Arafat (left), Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (right) would rather die intransigent than achieve a peaceful settlement with Israel.

Even if Abbas were a legitimate president, no concessions to Israel would be forthcoming. Arafat was quoted back then as saying that he rejected the Barak offer because he did not want to end up drinking tea with assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the first Arab leader to sign a peace agreement with Israel.

Thus, Abbas is in no hurry to return to the negotiating table with Israel. Indeed, for Abbas, there is no negotiation — only demands. He knows that concessions on his part would result in being spat upon by his people — or killed.

Hence the PA president has in recent years avoided even the pretense of negotiations with Israel, and instead has poured his energies into strong-arming the international community to impose a solution on Israel — one that would indeed supply the Palestinians with nearly all their demands.

Abbas and the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah want the international community to hand them what Israel will not give them at the negotiating table. Abbas is hoping to achieve his goal through international conferences on the Middle East, like the one being floated around by France, or through the United Nations and other international agencies and institutions.

In fact, this has been Abbas’s sole strategy in recent years: a diplomatic war in the international arena that is aimed at isolating and delegitimizing Israel, in order to force it to comply with all Palestinian demands.

Of course, this strategy has its risks. Yet, if it fails, Abbas will at least depart the scene without being branded with the scarlet letter of “traitor.” His successor, he hopes, will stand next to his grave and pledge to follow in his footsteps, as he himself has done for Arafat. And this is not an idle hope.

Thanks to decades of indoctrination and anti-Israel rhetoric, for which both Arafat and Abbas are also responsible, Palestinians have been radicalized to the point where it is impossible to identify a single leader who would negotiate in good faith with Israel.

Under the current circumstances, any attempt by the Obama Administration — in its remaining months in power — to support a United Nations vote in favor of a Palestinian state will be seen as a reward to those Palestinians who are opposed to a resumption of peace negotiations with Israel.

Many in Europe, particularly France, seem be aching to do just that — as a “present” to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to show how submissive the French can be; to encourage more “business” with Arab and Muslim states, and, they might hope, to deter more terrorist attacks. Actually, if the members of the UN Security Council declare a Palestinian state unilaterally, they are encouraging more terrorist attacks: the terrorists will see that attacks “work” and embark on more of them to help the jihadi takeover of Europe go even faster.

The Obama Administration (and the next US Administration) need to make it clear to Abbas and the Palestinians that the only way to achieve a state is through direct negotiations with Israel, and not additional UN resolutions.

Similarly, the French would do well to abandon their plan for convening an international conference on peace in the Middle East. They need to understand that Abbas and the Palestinians are hoping to use the conference as an excuse to stay away from the negotiating table with Israel — the only country that could really help the Palestinians achieve a state through direct talks. Declaring a Palestinian state in the Security Council only makes them look as if their actual goal is to destroy Israel by allying “two sides of the Mediterranean” against Israel — and they know it. They would be fooling no one.

The message that needs to be relayed to the Palestinians is that UN resolutions and international conferences will not bring them closer to achieving their aspirations. Another message that needs to be driven home to the Palestinian leadership is that without preparing their people for peace and compromise with Israel, the whole idea of a two-state solution is meaningless.

An entire Palestinian generation has been raised on the poisonous idea that even the consideration of compromise with Israel is traitorous. The next US Administration might do well to consider this unpleasant reality.

 

EXCLUSIVE – Alan Dershowitz Defends Steve Bannon: ‘Not Legitimate To Call Somebody An Anti-Semite Because You Disagree With Their Policies’

November 16, 2016

Source: EXCLUSIVE – Alan Dershowitz Defends Steve Bannon: ‘Not Legitimate To Call Somebody An Anti-Semite Because You Disagree With Their Policies’ – Breitbart

TEL AVIV – Alan Dershowitz, a staunch Democrat and emeritus law professor at Harvard University, is hitting back against the smears claiming White House appointee Steve Bannon is anti-Semitic, arguing it is “not legitimate to call somebody an anti-Semite because you might disagree with their policies.” 

Speaking in a telephone interview with this reporter, Dershowitz stated:

I think we have to be very careful before we accuse any particular individual of being an anti-Semite. The evidence certainly suggests that Mr. Bannon has very good relationships with individual Jews. My former researcher, Joel Pollak, is an Orthodox Jew who takes off the Jewish holidays, who is a committed Jew and a committed Zionist, and he has worked closely with him. He has been supportive of Israel.

So, I haven’t seen any evidence of personal anti-Semitism on the part of Bannon. I think the (Breitbart) headline about a Conservative Republican being a renegade Jew was ill-advised. But it doesn’t suggest to me anti-Semitism. It suggests to me a degree of carelessness.

I think the larger problem – and it’s a very complicated one today – is how you assess a person who himself might not have negative characteristics, but who has widespread appeal to people who do. And I think that problem exists on the right and the left. I think there are left-wing candidates who appeal to some of the worst bigots on the hard left. Anti-Semites on the hard left. Anti-Israel people on the hard left. And I think the same thing is probably true of some very right-wing conservatives who appeal vertently or inadvertently to people whose values they probably themselves don’t agree with.

Asked whether the claims against Bannon demean the term “anti-Semitism,” Dershowitz replied:

I think so. And I think one has to be very careful about using the term anti-Semitic in two ways. One, I don’t think anybody should be called or accused of being anti-Semitic unless the evidence is overwhelming. And then the second, more subtle and difficult issue is what about characterizing supporters or people who follow them?  Subtle distinctions have to be made.

One has to be concerned about any group, right or left, that has widespread appeal to bigots. And I think they have to look in the mirror and ask themselves why. And that’s a legitimate point to make.

But it is not legitimate to call somebody an anti-Semite because you might disagree with their policies.  Or because in one instance, like in the Bannon case, an aggrieved wife in a divorce may have said something which he himself has denied having said. I think you always have to have a presumption of innocence and of good faith. And so, I am not prepared to accept those conclusions based on the evidence that I have now seen.

Bannon, Breitbart’s former executive chairman, was named by President-elect Donald Trump earlier this week as the chief strategist of the new White House administration.

Yesterday, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton A. Klein released a statement calling the anti-Semitism claims “painful” while describing Bannon as a defender of Israel:

It is painful to see Anti-Defamation League (ADL) president Jonathan Greenblatt engaging in character assassination against President-elect Trump’s appointee Stephen Bannon and Mr. Bannon’s company, Breitbart media. ADL/Greenblatt essentially accused Mr. Bannon and his media company of “anti-Semitism” and Israel hatred, when Jonathan Greenblatt/ADL tweeted that Bannon “presided over the premier website of the ‘alt right’ – a loose-knit group of white nationalists and anti-Semites.” …

ZOA’s own experience and analysis of Breitbart articles confirms Mr. Bannon’s and Breitbart’s friendship and fair-mindedness towards Israel and the Jewish people. To accuse Mr. Bannon and Breitbart of anti-Semitism is Orwellian. In fact, Breitbart bravely fights against anti-Semitism. Here are a few of the many examples:

Stephen Bannon joined ZOA in fighting the anti-Semitic rallies at CUNY by requiring his Breitbart reporters to call CUNY officials and Gov. Cuomo aides urging them to do something about it.

Mark Levin took to his radio show on Monday to argue that the allegations of anti-Semitism against Bannon are “absolutely ridiculous.”

This reporter made similar remarks, telling BuzzFeed: “These smears are laughable to anyone who knows Bannon, a committed patriot who is deeply concerned about the growing threats to Israel. He has been particularly concerned with the dangerous trend of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiment on U.S. college campuses. While at Breitbart, he pitched countless articles on these and other themes in defense of the Jewish state.”

Breitbart’s Joel Pollak stated: “I have worked with Stephen K. Bannon, President-elect Donald Trump’s new chief strategist and senior counselor, for nearly six years at Breitbart News. I can say, without hesitation, that Steve is a friend of the Jewish people and a defender of Israel, as well as being a passionate American patriot and a great leader.”

Pollak pointed to his “credentials” to comment on the matter: “I am an Orthodox Jew, and I hold a Master of Arts degree in Jewish Studies. My thesis at the Isaac and Jesse Kaplan Centre at the University of Cape Town dealt with the troubled status of Jews in an increasingly anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic, post-apartheid South Africa. I believe myself to be a qualified judge of what is, and is not, anti-Semitic.”

Pollak asserted it “defies logic that a man who was a close friend, confidant, and adviser to the late Andrew Breitbart — a proud Jew — could have any negative feelings towards Jews.”

“As I can testify from years of work together with Steve in close quarters, the opposite is the case: Steve is outraged by anti-Semitism. If anything, he is overly sensitive about it, and often takes offense on Jews’ behalf.”

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Pamela Geller sues Facebook for censoring her anti jihad content

November 16, 2016

Pamela Geller: As a Jew, I Stand with Steve Bannon

November 16, 2016

Source: Pamela Geller: As a Jew, I Stand with Steve Bannon – Breitbart

I am fortunate to say that I have known and worked with Steve Bannon ever since the tragic passing of Andrew Breitbart. While he was at Breitbart, he would ask me to write articles on pressing issues — usually several times each week. Longtime readers who are deeply familiar with my work know that I am a fiercely proud Jew and unapologetic Zionist. As long as I have known Steve, he has been an unabashed supporter of Israel, and of those of us who fight against Jew-hatred and racism. Unequivocally.

He is whip-smart, courageous, bold, and loyal.

Now the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is claiming that he is anti-Semitic? What? He partnered with Andrew Breitbart — a Jew. He partnered with Larry Solov, another Jew, after Breitbart died. He worked with me — a Jew. He gave proud and fierce Zionists such as Aaron Klein a platform to speak and advance the cause of the Jewish people and the Jewish state. Breitbart Jerusalem was launched under Bannon’s tenure with the Breitbart organization.

The ADL haters’ attacks on Steve Bannon make him an honorary Jew. The ADL has a consistent record of attacks on proud Jews and Zionists. The ADL has attacked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Joan Rivers, and even Israel itself. The ADL should be sued for fraud. They raise money on the premise that they “fight antisemitism.” On the contrary, they fuel and align with the world’s most vicious Jew-haters. The ADL gave an award to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, despite his long record of anti-Semitic statements.

I have crossed swords for years with this vicious leftist “Jewish” organization — starting with their refusal to recognize the Armenian genocide. If a group claiming to represent the Jews fails to recognize the template, the mass slaughter that inspired Hitler, then we have failed to learn anything from history. In whitewashing the Armenian genocide, the ADL is as culpable as the Islamic perpetrators.

 Meanwhile, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) claimed that Bannon was “the main driver behind Breitbart becoming a white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill.” The SPLC is a well-funded group that works furiously to silence dissent and impose a totalitarian straitjacket on the public discourse on these issues, only allowing voices that toe their propaganda line about Islam being a religion of peace and Muslims as the victims, rather than the perpetrators, of terrorism.

The SPLC uses its hate group listings to demonize conservatives and anyone who dissents from its statist, authoritarian agenda. Its hate group list is so tendentious and politically motivated that the SPLC was removed from a government website’s listing of resources on hate groups.

The ill-gotten wealth of the SPLC amounts to tens of millions of dollars, while those whom they target, the supporters of freedom, are meagerly financed by average Americans who want freedom preserved in this country.

As for what Bannon’s ex-wife said in their divorce papers, don’t even go there. People are at their worst during a divorce. They will say anything and do anything to get the kids, the money, the house, whatever. It is all wild mudslinging, and I accuse “journalists” such as Jake Tapper of committing defamation and libel in their rage over the fact that that quisling crook Hillary lost and lost big.

I did a BBC interview Monday afternoon in Bannon’s defense. It was supposed to be a Trump interview, but it was all Bannon, and the BBC was gunning for him. I took them apart — it will be interesting to see what they run.

The establishment media and establishment leftist organizations such as the SPLC and the ADL, as well as the DNC, are trying to do to Trump and Bannon what they successfully did to Allen West’s chief of staff, Joyce Kaufman, shortly after West was elected to Congress in 2010: ignite a media firestorm that forces him to change the personnel of his staff to suit his enemies. West blinked and fired Kaufman.

Trump must hold firm. He has been on the receiving end of the most vicious smears and libels. That’s why my money is on him. He won’t take the bait.

The good news is that the people know. The people know the enemedia and what their agenda is. It won’t work. Not anymore.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here

WATCH: The Biggest Media Meltdowns to Trump’s Win

November 16, 2016

WATCH: The Biggest Media Meltdowns to Trump’s Win, MRCTV via YouTube, November 11, 2018