Archive for December 6, 2016

Self-hating Jews ally with Muslims against Trump

December 6, 2016

Self-hating Jews ally with Muslims against Trump, American ThinkerEd Straker, December 6, 2016

While certainly not all Muslims are anti-Semites, there is obviously an enormous strand of anti-Semitism in mainstream Islamic cultures in nearly every Muslim country.  Dialogue can be useful, but to ally with a group, many of whose coreligionists want Jewish people dead, against a president-elect who wants to protect us from Islamic terrorism makes no sense.  These Jews are putting their love for sharia adherents above their own self-preservation instincts, which is why I call them self-hating

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

There are Jews, and there are Jews.  For every Mark Levin, there is a Bernie Sanders.  For every Milton Friedman, there is a George Soros.  For every Matt Drudge, there is at least half of a Sulzberger.

Unfortunately, it is the latter kind who have set up an alliance with American Muslims against Donald Trump.

Jolted into action by a wave of hate crimes that followed the election victory of Donald J. Trump, American Muslims and Jews are banding together in a surprising new alliance.

They forgot to mention that of this wave of hate crimes, 95% were against non-Muslims.  They worry about:

… ominous talk by Mr. Trump or his advisers about barring Muslims from entering the country and registering those living here had caused all of them to think about Germany in the years before the Holocaust.

It’s funny to compare Mr. Trump to the Holocaust in conversations with Muslims.  It was Muslims, after all, who formed SS units allied with Adolph Hitler.  It was the mufti of Jerusalem who allied himself with Adolph Hitler.  In 21st-century America, it is Muslims who vow to wipe out Israel, whether they be Iranian, al-Qaeda, Hezb’allah, Hamas, or members of many other Islamic groups.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has proposed killing no one – rather, merely reducing immigration from countries in chaos that have unvettable Muslims who may be terrorists.  In places where Muslims have freely entered Western countries, like France and Germany, Jews have been repeatedly hunted down and slaughtered by Muslims.

Jonathan Greenblatt, the chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League … received a standing ovation when he declared at his organization’s conference in Manhattan last month that if Muslims were ever forced to register, “that is the day that this proud Jew will register as a Muslim.”

Trump has never said that Muslims should register; he talked about a registry for immigrants, a registry, by the way, that already exists.

Nearly 500 Muslim and Jewish women, many wearing head scarves and skullcaps, gathered on Sunday at Drew University in Madison, N.J., in what organizers said was the largest such meeting ever held in the United States. It was the third annual conference of the Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom, a grass-roots group that now claims 50 chapters in more than 20 states[.]

The women spread out inside an enormous sports complex and met in clusters to study sacred texts on the racquetball courts, practice self-defense techniques in the dance studio and, in the bleachers, discuss how to talk to friends whose impression of Islam had been shaped entirely by news of terrorist attacks.

197552_5_

Well, they certainly weren’t shaped by all the news of tolerance in Islamic countries, were they?  I wonder if the women discussed why there are virtually no Jewish people in Tunisia.  Or Sudan.  Or Egypt.  Or Saudi Arabia.  Or Jordan.  Or Malaysia, or any other Muslim country.  Was Donald Trump responsible for this? Did Trump arrange for all the Jews to be kicked out of these countries?

Are Trump’s “alt-right” supporters responsible for the virulently anti-Semitic schooling and media broadcasts that compare Jews to pigs in many of these countries?  Is the Iraqi version of Breitbart responsible for all the hate, or is it someone else?

Despite the new cooperation, tensions over Israel continue to flare up. Several Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, recently declared their opposition to Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who is a Muslim, becoming the chairman of the Democratic National Committee because of critical statements he has made about Israel.

Nice of the Times to leave it at that.  What about Ellison’s “uncritical statements” about the virulently anti-Semitic Nation of Islam?  Do you think the interfaith workshops touched on that?

While certainly not all Muslims are anti-Semites, there is obviously an enormous strand of anti-Semitism in mainstream Islamic cultures in nearly every Muslim country.  Dialogue can be useful, but to ally with a group, many of whose coreligionists want Jewish people dead, against a president-elect who wants to protect us from Islamic terrorism makes no sense.  These Jews are putting their love for sharia adherents above their own self-preservation instincts, which is why I call them self-hating.

Who will rid me of this troublesome Kerry?

December 6, 2016

Who will rid me of this troublesome Kerry? | Anne’s Opinions, 6th December 2016

The answer to my rhetorical question in the title is President-elect Donald Trump.

John Kerry wagging his finger at

John Kerry wagging his finger at “naughty” Israel for the last time

In a parting shot at his nemesis, outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry takes aim at Binyamin Netanyahu, the settlements, and Israel. His Jeremiad sounds awfully familiar, and – yes – he has spouted off the same nonsense time and time again.

Let’s have a look at his latest – and last, thank goodness! – complaints about an Israel that will not heed his warnings:

First the mildly good news:

It seems increasingly unlikely, though not impossible, that the Obama administration will lend its hand to a resolution that might discomfit the Israeli government at the UN, or otherwise seek to bequeath a framework for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

But then comes the rest:

Outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry did a great deal more than discomfit the prime minister and his coalition on Sunday, however. In remarks at the Saban Forum in Washington, DC, Kerry unloaded almost four years of bitter frustration at Benjamin Netanyahu and his colleagues, warned that Israel is heading toward “a place of danger,” and cited the settlement enterprise as the central catalyst for that potential disaster.

A different, brighter future, he indicated, was attainable for Israel. But the settlers were destroying it, he said. And his unfortunate role, he made sadly clear, had been to serve these past four years as the prophet who can see the tragedy approaching, but whose warnings go unheeded.

No, said the secretary, ceding a point to Netanyahu, who had spoken by satellite just before him, the settlements “are not the cause of the conflict.” But, Kerry repeated several times, they most certainly constitute a core “obstacle” to its solution. “Let’s not kid each other here,” he advised. “You can’t just wipe it away by saying it doesn’t have an impact. It does have an impact.”

Oh, bla bla bla. The core obstacle to the solution of the crisis is the Arabs’ refusal to recognize a Jewish state in ANY of the land of Israel. The settlements are a convenient tool, a perfect excuse for a politically correct world where history has been turned on its head and indigenous rights have been reversed, making the occupiers (the Arabs) the “indigenous natives” and turning the Jews into imperialist colonialist invaders.

He didn’t blame Netanyahu personally for utilizing settlements with the deliberate goal of ensuring that there can be no two-state solution. But the Israeli right, Kerry said, was strategically bringing more and more Jews into the West Bank, and locating them in very specific locations, with precisely that goal — to ensure that there could be no viable Palestinian state. And Netanyahu was presiding over the process.

The vast majority of “settlers” (I apologize for the term but I use it as shorthand) are living in greater Jerusalem or the large settlement blocs, which under any peace plan ever proposed are going to remain under Israeli sovereignty. In which case, why is it a problem for Jews to live there?

Next we come to Kerry’s hubris as “Israel’s saviour”:

The way he told it, his has been a thankless task — essentially trying to save Israel from itself,

Sorry not sorry Mr. Kerry. We Israelis know how to look after ourselves a lot better than you can, or than you think you can (small difference).

The ongoing building is backed by the right “because they don’t want peace,” he said flatly. “They want to block peace,” said Kerry. “That’s the history of the settler movement, my friends.”

That is such a disgusting slur and slander against the Israeli right, the settlers, and all of Israel in fact since the government represents the entire country, that really our Foreign Ministry should look into suing Kerry for libel.

Is Kerry implying that Israelis want war?? That we prefer to live by the sword? Does he reference Palestinian terrorism at all? Does he make mention of the violence that descended upon us when we DID cede territory in Gaza?

Or is it simply that what he calls “peace” does not mean what he thinks it means?

“Peace” does not mean surrendering to your enemies, or even simply ceding up front any demands they make of you just to have a quiet life and to bring them to the negotiating table.

“Peace’ means the absence of war, normalization of relations, trade, tourism, cooperation, and the prevention of violence from terrorists and other hostile elements. None of this should be contingent on giving up strategically priceless territory.

Vouchsafing new details of his 2013-2104 deal-making efforts, now that he’s so close to the end of his term, Kerry detailed some of the security provisions that, he argued, could enable a substantial Israeli withdrawal, and facilitate a small, demilitarized Palestinian “city state” in the West Bank. The Jordanians were ready to build a sophisticated security fence on their side of the Jordan Valley, and the Palestinians on their side. Israeli troops would have been able to helicopter to trouble spots in minutes. There were “all kinds of ways” for Israel to deploy its soldiers in times of crisis, he said, referring to the proposals memorably castigated by then defense minister Moshe Ya’alon in 2014 as “not worth the paper they’re printed on.”

Not only were his proposals worthless, even if they had been of value at the time, later developments, such as the “Arab Spring” and the rise of ISIS would have rendered them useless, and worse, would have placed Israel in an untenable position militarily and diplomatically.

… Stability and tranquility were not out of reach for Israel, Kerry suggested, but wouldn’t be attained if “all the time you are building up your presence” in what the Palestinians see as their state.

But does Kerry have anything to say about the illegal Arab construction in Israel? Not to mention the ongoing destruction by the Waqf on the Temple Mount. Is building illegal only for Jews? If so, there’s a word for that: antisemitism.

And as for that idea beloved by Netanyahu of a regional Arab peace first, and accommodation with the Palestinians somewhere down the line, forget about it. “There will be no separate peace with the Arab world,” he insisted.

Again, events have overtaken Mr. Kerry. Israel is on speaking terms at the very least with many of her most obdurate enemies, including Saudi Arabia, besides “cold peace partners” like Jordan and Egypt.

I was gratified to see that others are of the same opinion as me regarding Kerry’s outrageous statements.

Ruthie Blum in Israel Hayom says Good Riddance Mr. Kerry:

But let’s face it: Even Bozo the Clown would be better than Secretary of State John Kerry.

To be fair to Kerry, he was following the foreign policy spelled out by Obama four years earlier: that America was about to embark on a new path, reaching out to enemies who would suddenly transform into friends when faced with a more gentle and multicultural America — one that “leads from behind.”

Nevertheless, it was Kerry who did most of the shuttling, predominantly to the Middle East, alternating between his many trips to Europe to grovel before his Iranian counterpart, and visits to Israel, where he expressed severe displeasure with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for not behaving similarly with the Palestinian Authority.

“I come to you as somebody who is concerned for the safety and the security of the State of Israel — for the long-term ability of the State of Israel to be able to be what it has dreamt of being, and what the people of Israel, I believe, want it to be,” he said, implying that it has not lived up to that dream.

Again that patronizing arrogance.

He then professed his concern for the Jewish state, claiming to “want to see this thing develop into the full-blossomed beacon that Israel has the potential of being.” Indeed, he went on, “Israel has all these skills,” in so many realms “that it could be sharing with Egypt, with Jordan, with the Emirates, with Saudi Arabia, with all of these countries. … But the issue is, how do get from here to there?”

Netanyahu could have pointed out that attempting to get “from here to there” has been his guiding principle — one that he has been putting into practice with every Arab and African country that is open to it. This year alone, he has forged friendly relations and cooperation with Cairo. He has even made enormous strides with the Saudis, who consider Israel an ally in preventing Iran from acquiring the nuclear weapons that Kerry and his boss handed the mullahs on a silver platter.

Ouch.

He continued by lambasting settlements, while claiming he understands that they are not the root cause of the conflict, saying that he “cannot accept the notion that they do not affect the peace process — that they aren’t a barrier to the capacity to have peace.”

And here was the clincher. He said he knows this, because “the Left in Israel is telling everybody they are a barrier to peace and the Right supports it, openly supports it, because they don’t want peace.”

And there you have it. Kerry’s utter gall. His accusation that most Israelis oppose peace. Not that we long to live without fear of being stabbed, car-rammed, torched, blown up by bombs and hit by rocket fire by hate-filled terrorists bent on our annihilation. Not that we have relinquished most of the West Bank and all of Gaza to those killers. Not that every territorial withdrawal has been accompanied by an escalation in violence against us.

Meanwhile the indefatigable Elder of Ziyon has done his homework and notes that Kerry outright lied about the basic facts of the Oslo Accords in his Saban Forum speech:

John Kerry, speaking at the Saban Forum this past weekend, said:

When Oslo was signed in 1993, the vision was that with the signing of Oslo, Area C – everybody knows there’s Area A, B, C – Area A is Palestinian security and administrative control, Area B is a split between administrative and security control, and Area C, which is 60 percent of the West Bank, is just Israel security and administrative still. But the deal of Oslo in 1993 was over the next year and a half Area C would be transferred to the Palestinian control administratively. Well, it didn’t happen for a number of different reasons. We won’t go into that now.

Kerry had good reason not to go into it – because it is a complete fiction.

The original 1993 Oslo Accords did not divide the territories into Areas A, B and C. That was Oslo II, in 1995, not 1993.

Oslo II mentioned very little about redeploying Israeli control.

The Wye River Agreement of 1998 did say Israel was to withdraw from a percentage of Area C, but the bulk was going to remain under Israeli control. It was never implemented after Netanyahu, who opposed it, lost a vote of no-confidence. But there were a whole lot of terror attacks in the md-90s that would seem to be a violation of Oslo.

Kerry didn’t mention Hamas or suicide bombings or terror.

He didn’t mention those inconvenient facts because they do not fit his politically correct world-view where the “poor brown people” can do no wrong and the “white people” (played by the Israeli Jews) can do no right.

For some more interesting reading on Kerry and his malicious ignorance on Israel and the Middle East, read this excellent article about him on the Winds of Jihad blog: “Ignorant Of Islam, Frustrated And Confused About the Middle East, Incapable Of Grasping Reality, Quick To Blame Israel”. It’s from 2013 but still as relevant as ever.

In short, Kerry is a puffed-up arrogant blowhard with a one-eyed view of the world, particularly the Middle East, and the time can’t come quickly enough when we shall see the back of him.

FULL MEASURE: December 4, 2016 – Run for the Border

December 6, 2016

FULL MEASURE: December 4, 2016 – Run for the Border, Full Measure via YouTube, December 6, 2016

Palestinian Authority TV: “Slice open the enemy’s chest – slice it!”

December 6, 2016

Palestinian Authority TV: “Slice open the enemy’s chest – slice it!” Jihad Watch

The Fatah song emphasizes that Fatah’s “oath” is to destroy Israel, saying “free the state from the hands of the Zionists,” and that this will be done through violence, terror and killing:

“Slice open the enemy’s chest, slice it”
“Shoot the Dashka (machine gun) and the cannon”
“The Fatah man… fires the mortar and the machine gun”
“Strike, mortar, strike!”

But the Palestinians are always deemed to be the victims. Nothing is evil enough for their jihadist leadership, no matter how calculatingly violent, propagandist and evil. Israel, with its democratic constitution, its culture of life, its diversity and its celebration of human rights, will always be presented as the villain, despite it being targeted for obliteration by jihadist states and leaders.

“Fatah: ‘Slice open the enemy’s chest – slice it!’ Song on PA TV broadcast 11 times during Seventh Fatah Conference”, PMW, Itamar Marcus, December 5, 2016:

PA TV chose to honor Fatah during the Seventh Fatah Conference, held from Nov. 29 – Dec. 4, by broadcasting 11 times in six days a song celebrating Fatah’s terror and murder of Israelis. The Fatah movement is headed by Mahmoud Abbas, who is also chairman of the Palestinian Authority.

The Fatah song emphasizes that Fatah’s “oath” is to destroy Israel, saying “free the state from the hands of the Zionists,” and that this will be done through violence, terror and killing:

“Slice open the enemy’s chest, slice it”
“Shoot the Dashka (machine gun) and the cannon”
“The Fatah man… fires the mortar and the machine gun”
“Strike, mortar, strike!”

The song applauds that it was Fatah who committed what it considers to be the first Palestinian terror attack against Israel – the attempted bombing of Israel’s main water carrier in 1965.
“Eilabun [in 1965] was the first shot [at Israel] and Fatah was responsible”

Love of violence is likewise celebrated by Fatah:

“I have no love other than the love of the rifle.”
“The sound of the rifles gives us joy”
“Bullets! Sing for us”

For teaching these values of violence, the song expresses appreciation to Fatah:

“Fatah taught me, thank you, Fatah.”

Click to view

The following is an excerpt from the lyrics of the song celebrating Fatah violence that was broadcast 11 times in 6 days on official PA TV, during the Seventh Fatah Conference:

“Shoot the Dashka (machine gun) and the cannon
Let the whole world hear:
The Palestinian will never bow other than to the Lord of the universe…
Eilabun [in 1965] was the first shot [at Israel] and Fatah was responsible
The oath is to free the state from the hands of the Zionists
Long live all the Fatah men
No one prevailed over us
We burst over the borders…
The Fatah man does not take things lightly…
He fires the mortar and the machine gun…
Strike, mortar, strike!
Slice open the enemy’s chest, slice it
I’m a Palestinian and I want my right
My full right…
The difficult way is our way
Bullets! Sing for us!
Bullets! Sing for us…….

Cartoons of the Day

December 6, 2016

via New York Times

Independent. Trusted. Real.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE TIMES

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

15178316_1181347991900233_1137379926467503586_n-500x500

 

double

 

just-in

 

via Hope n’ Change Cartoons

what-are-you-waiting-fir-1

 

 

Web giants to cooperate on removal of extremist content

December 6, 2016

Web giants to cooperate on removal of extremist content

Mon Dec 5, 2016 | 6:07pm EST

Source: Web giants to cooperate on removal of extremist content | Reuters

By Julia Fioretti | BRUSSELS

Web giants YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft will step up efforts to remove extremist content from their websites by creating a common database.

The companies will share ‘hashes’ – unique digital fingerprints they automatically assign to videos or photos – of extremist content they have removed from their websites to enable their peers to identify the same content on their platforms.

“We hope this collaboration will lead to greater efficiency as we continue to enforce our policies to help curb the pressing global issue of terrorist content online,” the companies said in a statement on Tuesday.

Tech companies have long resisted outside intervention in how their sites should be policed, but have come under increasing pressure from Western governments to do more to remove extremist content following a wave of militant attacks.

YouTube and Facebook have begun to use hashes to automatically remove extremist content.

But many providers have relied until now mainly on users to flag content that violates terms of service. Flagged material is then individually reviewed by human editors who delete postings found to be in violation.

Twitter suspended 235,000 accounts between February and August this year and has expanded the teams reviewing reports of extremist content.

Each company will decide what image and video hashes to add to the database and matching content will not be automatically removed, they said.

The database will be up and running in early 2017 and more companies could be brought into the partnership.

The European Union set up an EU Internet Forum last year bringing together the internet companies, interior ministers and the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator to find ways of removing extremist content.

The Forum will meet again on Thursday, when ministers are expected to ask the companies about their efforts and helping to provide evidence to convict foreign fighters.

(Reporting by Julia Fioretti; editing by John Stonestreet)

 

Renowned Russian Scholar Valery Solovei: ‘The New American Administration Will React From A Position Of Strength, And We Can Never Win In This Competition’

December 6, 2016

Renowned Russian Scholar Valery Solovei: ‘The New American Administration Will React From A Position Of Strength, And We Can Never Win In This Competition’, MEMRI, December 6, 2016

On November 30, 2016, Russia’s daily newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets published an interview on U.S.-Russia relations with one of the most influential and highly quoted intellectuals, Professor Valery Solovei. According to Solovei, who chairs the department of public relations at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), the new Trump administration will respond from a position of strength, and Russian will never win in such competition. He also added that the new American administration can tear Russia’s economy into shreds within 2-3 years.

Below are excerpts from Solovei’s interview with Mk.ru:[1]

znakcom-709673-890x591Valery Solovei (Source: znak.com)

“[Russian President] Vladimir Putin talked today about his recent telephone conversation with U.S. president-elect Donald Trump, and expressed hope for a correction in  Russian-American relations. How justified are [Putin’s hopes]  Is Trump really ‘ours’? … The Russian ruling elite’s euphoria over Trump’s victory was even higher than that at Trump headquarters – says Valery Solovei – For example, I know that at some government offices, when the results of U.S. elections were announced, they opened champagne and smoked cigars.

“But now, naturally, the euphoria has subsided. First, among people who understand something about foreign policy, and how the U.S. governmental mechanism is built. Trump is not that unpredictable as he is often depicted. To rule successfully he must rule in accord with his own party. Now, by the way, a unique situation has developed in the U.S.: the Republicans control both houses of Congress, and they are also in charge in the majority of states. Hence, Trump must respect the balance of forces, interests and views developed in the party establishment which [in turn] forms part of a common American establishment. And Trump’s first nominations attest to a realistic and very balanced approach.

“It is noteworthy that these personnel decisions have earned encouragement not only from the Republicans, but from Democrats as well. It must be said that presently the American establishment shares a broad anti-Russia consensus that is non-partisan in character. All regard Russia as a former great power in a state of long and irreversible decline. But which tries, in fits of despair, to revise the outcome of the Cold War. I emphasize: this opinion is shared by the entire U.S. establishment.

“Nevertheless, the Americans have several obvious interests for cooperating with Russia. Trump understands perfectly that his ability to solve the Syrian puzzle will be an important indicator of his foreign policy success.  And he does not set himself the goal – not publically, at least –of overthrowing Assad. Trump avers that fighting terrorism is the top priority. Therefore, there a certain foundation exists not only for coordination, but even for some joint actions.

“Of course, the Russian leadership secretly hopes to trade Syria for Ukraine. This means reaching agreement with the Americans on Syria by bargaining for an agreement that includes Ukraine in the Russian interest zone. And I can say that official Kiev is extremely scared of this– to the point of cramps.

‘If We Do Not Reach An Agreement With The U.S., We Shall Find Ourselves In A Most Unpleasant Situation’

“It is not quite clear yet what will happen in this direction. But I’ll return to the beginning of my speech: a Republican establishment exists, an American establishment exists that attaches importance to contain Russia’s feeble revisionist efforts. Even if Trumps decides to conclude such a deal with Moscow, the establishment, most likely, will not allow its implementation.

“As for Crimea, this problem is in any case marginalized. Today it is clear to all. The US, like the EU, will never recognize Crimea as part of the Russian Federation. But de-facto the situation will remain the same.

There are several other problematic subjects in Russian-American relations which are unlikely to be solved with the advent of the Trump administration. For example, [there is] the “Magnitsky List” [of sanctioned Russian officials] or the case of the downed Malaysian “Boeing”. Very soon the international commission investigating this catastrophe will release the list of the guilty. In Moscow they fear that the list will be very unpleasant for us.

“As soon as it appears, the damage suits from the families and relatives of the fallen will immediately follow and will most probably endanger Russian Federation property abroad. Russia, most likely, would prefer the package deal with America – to sit by the [negotiations] table and to solve all the problems. But I am sure that Americans will not go for it.

“That aside, another most serious conceptual problem exists, which few currently consider. The issue in question is that for the last two years Russia had demonstrated to the whole world that it places force in the very forefront. Meaning: you, Americans and Europeans, talk about values, but all this is hypocrisy, lies. You have no values: we applied pressure – you have retreated, without deciding to do anything.

“But Trump is not Obama. In the foreign policy domain, the Obama administration was the weakest postwar American administration. Trump cannot allow himself such weakness. Therefore, though the situation opens some new possibilities before us, it carries much larger risks. The new American administration will react from a position of strength, and we can never win in this competition. The Soviet Union had lost it, and Russia is much weaker than the Soviet Union. Our  [US vis a vis Russia] potentials are grossly disproportionate, have no illusions about it.

“This means that all depends on our readiness to evaluate the situation realistically and to compromise. If we do not reach an agreement with the U.S., we shall find ourselves in a most unpleasant situation. There are many tools in their arsenal that allow [them] to drive us into a corner. The economic and financial ones will suffice: within 2-3 years, Russia’s economy will be torn to shreds.”

Endnote:

 

[1] Mk.ru, November 30, 2016. The interview was performed by Russian journalist Andrei Kamakin.

 

Al Gore meets with Ivanka Trump and her father

December 6, 2016

Al Gore meets with Ivanka Trump and her father, American ThinkerThomas Lifson, December 6, 2016

There is much more coming down the road for warmist dogma. Trump is skeptic, and skeptics don’t change their minds because of a short meeting with a beefy, wealthy former vice president. Gore’s words do not indicate he persuaded anyone of anything.

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

Many conservatives are worried that Al Gore ascended the elevators at Trump Tower and met first with Ivanka Trump, and the President-elect:

“I had a lengthy and very productive session with the president-elect. It was a sincere search for areas of common ground,” Gore told reporters after spending about 90 minutes at Trump Tower in Manhattan during the lunch hour Monday. “I had a meeting beforehand with Ivanka Trump. The bulk of the time was with the president-elect, Donald Trump. I found it an extremely interesting conversation, and to be continued, and I’m just going to leave it at that.”

Donald Trump’s approach to his presidency seems to include talking to former and current opponents. Far from inhabiting a bubble, he makes sure to hear the views of others. And Gore has plenty of connections to the world of high tech (he is on Apple’s Board), a community that now realizes it backed the weak horse in the election, and now has few connections to the incoming administration. That is an unnatural vacuum.

It is far too soon to panic. Sharing and even amplifying my calming views, Russell Cook, one of the leading debunkers of claims that critics of global warming theory are in the pay of oil companies, makes three critical observations about the meeting:

There is much more coming down the road for warmist dogma. Trump is  skeptic, and skeptics don’t change their minds because of a short meeting with a beefy, wealthy former vice president. Gore’s words do not indicate he persuaded anyone of anything.

 

Funding Terrorism – The Buck Stops Here

December 6, 2016

Funding Terrorism – The Buck Stops Here, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Patrick Dunleavy, December 6, 2016

1899

Having just gone through eight years of an administration that refused to use the term “radical Islamism” when discussing terrorism, the U.S. must say “NO” to the Palestinian Authority/Hamas alliance. Otherwise we will find ourselves, the U.S. taxpayers, providing material support to a radical Islamic terrorist organization. Enough with the handouts. The buck stops here.

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

“Follow the money” – that fundamental rule for investigating organized crime – also holds true for uncovering terrorist organizations. But if the search leads to your own doorstep, immediate and decisive action must be taken.

This may be the case for the U.S. government in light of recent statements by Mahmoud Abbas, the current president of the Palestinian Authority. The 81-year-old Abbas, who has been president since 2005, is calling for unifying the Fatah party government with Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip. President Bill Clinton’s executive order first labeled Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization in 1995.

Hamas was included among terrorist groups whose “grave acts of violence … disrupt the Middle East peace process [and] constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.”

The State Department followed that up by labeling Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997. Those actions make it prohibited by law for any U.S. citizen to provide material support, including currency, to the organization. That means that if you or I gave a dollar to them or their pseudo charities, we can go to prison.

The U.S. provides approximately $400 million annually to the Palestinian Authority (PA). That support cannot continue legally if the PA unites with Hamas,  unless two critical conditions are met. First, Hamas would have to recognize “the Jewish state of Israel’s right to exist.” And second, just as crucial, Hamas must accept all previously negotiated Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

Under its current charter – which calls for Israel’s destruction – this will never happen. Hamas is an Islamic organization, formed in 1987 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood by a group of men including radical Islamic cleric Sheik Ahmed Yassin.  Its very name is an acronym, Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah, for the Islamic Resistance Movement. Hamas wants a fundamentalist Islamic state on the very land allotted to the nation of Israel by the United Nations in 1948.

Since its formation, Hamas has been responsible for suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and other heinous acts resulting in the deaths of innocent men, women, and children. It has also stolen (or re-directed) funds and support provided by the United Nations relief organizations and other charities intended to help the people of Gaza rebuild. Hamas has used the materials to build tunnels, buy weapons and construct military installations used to attack Israel.

Do we really think that they would not be able to siphon off money from the funds the U.S. provides to the Palestinian Authority if an alliance government is formed? That would be foolish naiveté and dangerous diplomacy.

In combating terrorist organizations like al-Qaida, ISIS, and Al Shabaab, counter terrorism experts strive to cut off funding to these groups. That’s because if you cut off the finances, the organizations will not be able to reconstitute or recruit. Giving them a handout or opening another spigot from which they could water the fertile soil of jihad is counter to the goal of eliminating the threat posed to Western democracies by radical Islam.

Having just gone through eight years of an administration that refused to use the term “radical Islamism” when discussing terrorism, the U.S. must say “NO” to the Palestinian Authority/Hamas alliance. Otherwise we will find ourselves, the U.S. taxpayers, providing material support to a radical Islamic terrorist organization. Enough with the handouts. The buck stops here.

The West’s Politically Correct Dictatorship

December 6, 2016

The West’s Politically Correct Dictatorship, Gatestone InstituteGiulio Meotti, December 6, 2016

The brave work of the artist Mimsy was removed from London’s Mall Galleries after the British police defined it “inflammatory.”

In France, schools teach children that Westerners are Crusaders, colonizers and “bad.” In their efforts to justify the repudiation of France and its Judeo-Christian culture, schools have fertilized the soil in which Islamic extremism develops and flourishes unimpeded.

No one can deny that France is under Islamist siege. Last week, France’s intelligence service discovered another terror plot. But what is the priority of the Socialist government? Restricting freedom of expression for pro-life “militants.”

Under this politically correct dictatorship, Western culture has established two principles. First, freedom of speech can be restricted any time someone claims that an opinion is an “insult.” Second, there is a vicious double standard: minorities, especially Muslims, can freely say whatever they want against Jews and Christians.

There is no better ally of Islamic extremism than this sanctimony of liberal censorship: both, in fact, want to suppress any criticism of Islam, as well as any proud defense of the Western Enlightenment or Judeo-Christian culture.

Twitter, one of the vehicles of this new intolerance, even formed a “Trust and Safety Council.” It brings to mind Saudi Arabia’s “Council for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.”

Under this political correctness, the only “win-win” is for political Islam.

It might look like a golden age for free speech: more than a billion tweets, Facebook posts and blogs every day. But beneath this surface, freedom of expression is dramatically retreating.

Students at the City University of London, home to one of Britain’s most respected schools of journalism, voted to ban three newspapers from its campus: The Sun, Daily Mail and Express. Their “crime”, according to the approved motion, is to have published stories against migrants, “Islamophobic” articles, and “scapegoating the working classes that they so proudly claim to represent.” City University, supposedly a place dedicated to openness and questioning, became the first Western educational institution to vote for censorship, and ban “right wing newspapers.”

The filmmaker David Cronenberg called this self-censorship, after the massacre at Charlie Hebdo: “a weird, serpentine political correctness.” It is one of the most lethal ideological poisons of the 21st century. It is not only closed-minded and ridiculous, it makes us blind to the radical Islam that is undermining our mental and cultural defenses.

The countless attacks by Muslim extremists testify that the multicultural world to which we have been led is a fiction. Political correctness simply encourages the Islamists to raise the stakes to win the war they are advancing. The resulting tension has been fed by the Western elites with their sense of guilt for “colonialism” in the Third World.

ISIS Threaten Sylvania” — an art exhibition featuring cute little stuffed animals picnicking on a lawn, and unaware of other cute little stuffed animal terrorists carrying assault rifles on a knoll just behind them — is the work of the artist known as Mimsy (she hides her identity). The protagonists of this series of light box tableaux are a family of stuffed animal dolls that inhabits an enchanted valley. Gunmen, dressed like the Islamic State henchmen, strike the innocent inhabitants of the valley, at school and on the beach, at a picnic or in a gay pride parade. It looks like an updated version of Maus by Art Spiegelman, a graphic novel depicting Nazi cats and Jewish mice during the Holocaust.

Those wishing to see this artistic panel at the Mall Galleries, in London, will now have to console themselves with the work of Jamie McCartney, “The Great Wall Vagina,” nine meters of female genitalia, less important and less provocative.

The brave work of Mimsy, after the British police defined it “inflammatory,” has been eliminated from the program of this London cultural event. Its organizers informed the gallery owners that if they wanted to put it on display, they would have to shell out £36,000 ($46,000) to “secure the venue” for the six days of the exhibition.

2101The brave work of the artist Mimsy, satirizing the brutality of ISIS, was removed from London’s Mall Galleries after the British police defined it “inflammatory.” (Image source: Mimsy)

Under this politically correct dictatorship, Western culture has established two principles. First, freedom of speech can be restricted any time someone claims that an opinion is an “insult.” Second, there is a vicious double standard: minorities, especially Muslims, can freely say whatever they want against Jews and Christians.

And so it came to pass that the most famous Spanish football team, Real Madrid, removed the cross from its crest after a commercial deal with Gulf emirate of Abu Dhabi. The Christian symbol was quickly ditched to please the Islamic Gulf sponsors.

Perhaps soon the West will be soon asked to change the flag of the European Union — twelve yellow stars on a blue background — because it contains a Christian message in code. Arsène Heitz, who designed it in 1955, was inspired by the Christian iconography of the Virgin Mary with a crown and twelve stars on her head: what a heartless “Western Christian supremacist” message!

Political correctness is also having a huge impact on big business: Kellogg’s withdrew advertising from Breitbart for being “not aligned with our values” and Lego dropped advertising with Daily Mail, to mention just two recent cases.

It should not cause alarm if companies want to decide where to advertise their products, but it is very alarming when it happens due to “ideology.” We have never read about companies abandoning a newspaper or website because it was too liberal or “leftist.” If the Arab-Islamic regimes were follow these views, why should they not ask their companies to stop advertising in Western newspapers that publish articles critical of Islam, or which publish pictures of half-naked women?

Libraries on US campuses are now putting “trigger warnings” on works of literature: students are advised, for example, that Ovid’s sublime Metamorphosis “justifies” rape. Stanford University even managed to exclude Dante, Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare and other giants of Western culture from the academic curricula in 1988: supposedly many of their masterpieces are “racist, sexist, reactionary, repressive.” This is the vocabulary of Western surrender before totalitarian Islamic fundamentalism.

France has removed great figures, such as Charlemagne, Henry IV, Louis XIV and Napoleon, from schools, to replace them, for instance, with studying the history of Mali and other African kingdoms. At school, children are taught that Westerners are Crusaders, colonizers and “bad.” In purportedly justifying the repudiation of France and its Judeo-Christian culture, schools have fertilized the soil in which Islamic extremism develops and flourishes unimpeded.

It is a question of priorities: no one can deny that France is under Islamist siege. Last week, France’s intelligence service discovered another terror plot. But what is the priority of the Socialist government? Restricting freedom of expression for pro-life “militants.” The Wall Street Journal called it “France’s War on Anti-Abortion Speech.” France already has one of the most permissive and liberal bodies of legislation on abortion. But political correctness makes one blind and ideological. “In four and a half years, the Socialists have reduced our freedom of expression and attacked public freedoms,” commented Riposte Laïque.

In the US, academia is rapidly closing its doors to any debate. At Yale, professors and students these days are very busy with a new cultural emergency: “renaming.” They are changing the name of buildings to erase all traces of slavery and colonialism — a revisionism out of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.

Everywhere in the US and in the UK, an air of hostility is spreading against opinions and ideas that could cause even a hint of distress in students. The result is the rise of what a writer such as Bret Easton Ellis called “Generation Wuss“.

The jihadists surely grin at this Western political correctness, since the result of this ideology will be the abolition of the Western critical spirit and a surreal reeducation of the masses through the annihilation of our history and a hatred of our truly liberal past.

Bristol University in the UK just came under fire for attempting to “no-platform” Roger Scruton for his views on same-gender marriage. Meanwhile, British universities are giving a platform to radical Islamic preachers. In the politically correct universe, conservative thinkers are more dangerous than ISIS supporters. London’s former mayor, Boris Johnson, called this dystopia “the Boko Haram of political correctness.”

Students and faculty at the Rutgers University in New Jersey cancelled a speech by former US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Students and professors at Scripps College in California protested the presence of another former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who, according to the protesters, is a “war criminal.”

A New York University professor, Michael Rectenwald, who attacked political correctness and the coddling of students, was recently booted from the classroom after his colleagues complained about his “incivility”. The liberal studies professor was forced to go on paid leave. “It’s an alarming curtailment of free expression to the point where you can’t even pretend to be something without authorities coming down on you in the universities,” Rectenwald told the New York Post.

There is no better ally of Islamic extremism than this sanctimony of liberal censorship: both, in fact, want to suppress any criticism of Islam, as well as any proud defense of the Western Enlightenment or Judeo-Christian culture.

Censorship is happening not only in the liberal enclaves on the coasts of the United States, but also in France. The Eagles of Death Metal — the American band that was performing at Paris’ Bataclan Theater when ISIS terrorists murdered 89 people there on November 13, 2015 — were banned by two music festivals: Rock en Seine and Cabaret Vert. The reason? Jesse Hughes, the band’s frontman, gave a very politically incorrect interview:

“Did your French gun control stop a single f*cking person from dying? I think the only thing that stopped it was some of the bravest men that I’ve ever seen charging head-first into the face of death with their firearms. I think the only way that my mind has been changed is that maybe until nobody has guns everybody has to have them. Because I’ve never seen anyone that’s ever had one dead, and I want everyone to have access to them, and I saw people die that maybe could have lived, I don’t know.”

After the jihadist massacre at Orlando’s Pulse gay nightclub, Facebook enforced the pro-Islamic injunction and banned a page of the magazine Gaystream, after it had published an article critical of Islam in the wake of the bloodbath. Gaystream‘s director, David Berger, had heavily criticized the director of the Gay Museum in Cologne, Birgit Bosold, who had told German media that gays should be more frightened of white bigoted men than of Islamic extremists.

Jim Hoft, a gay journalist who is the creator of the popular Gateway Pundit blog, was suspended from YouTube. Twitter, one of the vehicles of this new intolerance, suspended the account of Milo Yiannopoulos, a prominent gay critic of Islamic fundamentalism — but probably not the accounts of Islamic fundamentalists who criticize gays. Twitter even formed a “Trust and Safety Council.” It brings to mind Saudi Arabia’s “Council for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.” Could it be an inspiration for the liberal mullahs?

Yes, it might have looked like a golden age for free speech. But under this dictatorship of political correctness, the only “win-win” is for political Islam.