Archive for December 21, 2016

UK: Bristol police step up patrols to combat “Islamophobia” after Berlin jihad attack

December 21, 2016

UK: Bristol police step up patrols to combat “Islamophobia” after Berlin jihad attack, Jihad Watch

Because everyone knows that the first and only victims of every jihad terror attack are Muslims, and that the main responsibility of non-Muslim authorities after every such attack is to make sure that no one associates it with Islam, and that there is plenty of news about how the Muslim community is bracing for a “backlash” that never materializes.

But this is bordering on self-parody. If Britain isn’t finished, it sure does want people to think it is.

bristol-police-uk

“Bristol police step up patrols to combat Islamophobia after Berlin Christmas market attack,” by L_Churchill, Bristol Post, December 21, 2016:

Police in Bristol have stepped up patrols in the city centre due to concerns about Islamophobia in the wake of the Berlin terror attack.

The Christmas markets in the German city were the target of a terrorist attack on Monday where a lorry was driven into crowds of people, killing 12 and injuring another 48.

Since then mounted police officers, bobbies on the beat and PCSOs have been spotted around the Bristol Christmas market in Broadmead.

Chief Superintendent Jon Reilly, area commander for Bristol, confirmed patrols had been increased in the city centre.

He said: “Following previous terror attacks across mainland Europe we have seen an increase in the number of reported Islamophobic hate crimes in the Avon and Somerset area.

“We have subsequently increased patrols in areas of Bristol which have high footfall in order to provide additional reassurance and to act as a visible deterrent. We also hope it will aid and encourage reporting of any hate crimes or incidents should they occur.

“We want those who are victims of hate crime to feel confident in the belief that we’ll take their reports seriously, protect them and make sure they get all the support they need….

Are Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait Funding German Salafism?

December 21, 2016

Are Saudi Arabia Qatar and Kuwait Funding German Salafism? Gatestone InstituteGeorge Igler, December 21, 2016

(Please see also, Saudi Arabia Funding Extremist Islamist Groups in Germany? — DM)

The Sheikh Eid Bin Mohammad al-Thani Charitable Association and the Saudi Muslim World League are coordinating a “long-running strategy to exert influence” by Gulf States in Germany, according to a report authored by Germany’s security agencies.

“This is about war, about children being indoctrinated, they are only in primary school and already fantasize about how when they grow up, they want to join the jihad, kill infidels.” — Wolfgang Trusheim, Frankfurt State Security office.

“For quite some time we’ve had indications and evidence that German Salafists are getting assistance, which is approved by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, in the form of money, the sending of imams and the building of Koran schools and mosques.” — Rolf Mützenich, German MP and Middle East expert.

Declining to assimilate in the West continues with the apparent, religiously mandated, preference to have the host countries become Islamic.

Salafism — from salaf, “ancestors” or “predecessors” in Arabic — urges the emulation of the first three generations of the Islamic prophet Mohammad’s companions, and Mohammad himself. It is often deemed the most fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

Security agencies in Germany claim that 9,200 such Islamic extremists currently call the country home. Another intelligence briefing cited by Süddeutsche Zeitung, warns that “the ideology already has 10,000 followers” and growing, in the country.

“Almost all of the German nationals who have travelled to Syria to fight for Islamic State became radicalized by Salafis, who target low-income Muslim youths in German cities,” wrote the Los Angeles Times, adding that it is proving increasingly challenging for German intelligence officials, “to differentiate between those who identify intellectually with Salafism and those who espouse using violence to realize a radical version of Islam.”

1360-2

Both Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) and Federal Intelligence Agency (BND) “have accused Saudi Arabia and Kuwait of funding religious groups and conversion groups, as well as financing the building of mosques and backing hardline imams,” according to the Daily Express.

Following raids of their offices throughout Germany the activist group Die Wahre Religion (“The True Religion”) has already been banned in the country.

According to the German interior minister, Thomas de Mazière, “translations of the Quran are being distributed along with messages of hatred and unconstitutional ideologies … Teenagers are being radicalised with conspiracy theories.”

A radicalized 12-year old Muslim boy was recently arrested in the country; he was accused of planting bombs aimed at targeting shoppers in Germany’s famous Christmas markets.

Police raided 190 locations nationwide, affiliated with Die Wahre Religion; authorities described the group as a “collecting pool” for jihadists, which had already sent at least 140 fighters to foreign battlefields.

850 people are thought to have journeyed, “from Germany to Syria and Iraq to join extremist groups like the Islamic State as fighters,” according to the Associated Press.

In a warehouse near the western city of Cologne, authorities seized about 21,000 German-language copies of the Quran. The ban came a week after security authorities arrested five men who allegedly aided the Islamic State group in Germany by recruiting members and providing financial and logistical help.

The German interior minister stressed that the ban does not restrict the freedom of religion in Germany or the peaceful practice of Islam in any way. However, he said the group had glorified terrorism and the fight against the German constitution in videos and meetings.

Terrorism is naturally an abiding concern in Germany, yet recent comments by Wolfgang Trusheim, of Frankfurt’s State Security office, point to where much of the Salafist influence is being focused, namely, the minds of the young:

This is about war, about children being indoctrinated, they are only in primary school and already fantasize about how when they grow up, they want to join the jihad, kill infidels. They refuse to play football with infidels, they say: “I’m not allowed to play football with you, but when I’m grown up, I will kill you, because you are an infidel.”

As cited by a recent TV report by Hessischer Rundfunk:

There were instances of radical Salafist parents, who are willing to teach their children the hatred of believers of a different creed by any means. A father who puts his children in front of the TV, they are forced to watch the most cruel decapitation videos, and will be questioned, and just as they have learned, they reply that the human who has just been burnt alive or decapitated, deserves it because he is an infidel.

Salafists, according to the New York Times, “are known for aggressive proselytizing and their sympathies for the Islamic State.” Much of the recent crackdown by German government agencies is aimed at preventing such extremists from targeting the country’s swelling “refugee” population.

Germany is already experience a boom in births as a product of its “unmanageable” population influx.

“Something must be done immediately. We cannot wait any longer,” says Michael Kiefer, an Islamic Studies specialist at the government-sponsored Institute for Islamic Theology at the University of Osnabrück, about the growth of Salafism in Germany.

Such warnings, quoted in an analysis by Gatestone Institute as far back as 2014, evidently fell on deaf ears. The following year, Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel, permitted over 1.5 million Muslim migrants to swell her nation’s Islamic population still further.

According to Dr. Bernd Baumann, a representative of the populist Alternative for Germany party (AfD) from Hamburg, with Germany representing less than 1% of the world’s population, in the year 2016, the European nation had accepted more “refugee” applications than the rest of the world combined:

Public Islamist recruitment drives, however, are becoming an increasingly common sight on German streets, as Die Zeit reported on November 28.

The Daily Express reported on December 15, 2016:

“The Kuwaiti Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS), a non-governmental organization (NGO) banned by the U.S. and Russia for alleged links to terrorist group Al-Qaeda, has also been blamed for the rising support for fundamentalist Salafi groups in Germany.”

Missionary groups from the Gulf States, including the Saudi Muslim World League, and Qatar’s Sheikh Eid Bin Mohammad al-Thani Charitable Association, are allegedly involved in a “long-running strategy to exert influence” on Muslims in Germany.

RIHS and the Sheikh Eid Bin Mohammad al-Thani Charitable Association have denied the allegations. The Saudi ambassador to Germany, Awwas Alawwad, also rejected the intelligence claims, saying his country has “no connection with German Salafism.”

Despite such denials, Chancellor Angela Merkel, “has confirmed plans rapidly to expand the scope and size of Germany’s intelligence services including its domestic spy agency.”

As the German MP and Middle East expert, Rolf Mützenich, has said, “The danger is real and should not be underestimated.” He added:

“For quite some time, we have had indications and evidence that German Salafists are getting assistance, which is approved by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, in the form of money, the sending of imams and the building of Koran schools and mosques.

“The best way of preventing refugees from being radicalised is speedy and successful integration. To achieve that, we need professional prevention and de-radicalisation programs. That means more money and resources for specialists in schools, government administration, police, youth welfare organisations, prisons and reform schools.”

Critics might argue that that there is enormous pressure in Muslims not to assimilate. The injunction begins with the Koran:

O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people. (Q5:51, Sahih International translation)

And:

Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming. (Q3:28, Shakir translation)

Declining to assimilate in the West continues with the apparent, religiously mandated, preference to have the host countries become Islamic.

With Islamist double-agents working for German intelligence services now being arrested in the country, Germany’s security challenges clearly go far deeper.

Saudi Arabia Funding Extremist Islamist Groups in Germany?

December 21, 2016

Saudi Arabia Funding Extremist Islamist Groups in Germany? Clarion Project, Codi Robertson, December 21, 2016

(Here is a recent video about Salafist indoctrination of children in Germany.

— DM)

A newly-leaked German intelligence report says Saudi Arabia, among several other countries, is funding extremist Islamic groups in Germany.

saudi-arabia-germany-foreign-ministers-john-macdougall-afp-getty-640German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (R) and his Saudi counterpart Adel al-Jubeir give a joint press conferenceat the Foreign Ministry in Berlin. (Photo: © JOHN MACDOUGALL/AFP/Getty Images)

A newly-leaked German intelligence report states Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar are funding extremist Islamic groups in Germany.

The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and Northern German public radio broadcaster Norddeutscher Rundfunk saw the brief and raised concern regarding a reported increase in Salafism, an ultra-conservative movement within Sunni Islam, within Germany.

The report, compiled by German domestic intelligence agency Bft and Federal Intelligence Agency (BND) allegedly accuses Saudi Arabia and the two Gulf nations of funding various Islamic institutions including mosques and religious schools, as well as individual strict preachers and conversion, or “dawah” groups.

The three countries supported missionary groups as a “long-running strategy to exert influence,” according to the report.  More specifically, the report called out  the Saudi Muslim World League, Sheikh Eid Bin Mohammad al-Thani Charitable Association and the Kuwaiti Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (which is banned in both the U.S. and Russia for allegedly supporting al-Qaeda).

The report found that these organizations have strong ties to the governments of their home countries.

Neither of the German intelligence agencies have confirmed the accuracy of the leaked report.  There are some who say that say the leak was made intentionally so that Germany would cease controversial arm sales to Saudi Arabia.

While Germans await official word from the intelligence agencies, Saudi Arabia’s German ambassador, Awwas Alawwad, completely rejected the report, stating that his country has “no connection with German Salafism.”

Weeks before the leak, German authorities  banned the Islamic missionary group Germany Die Wahre Religion (DWR), or “The True Religion,” after officials found was “bringing jihadi Islamists together across the country under the pretext of preaching Islam.”

Germany, of course, is not new to the threat of Islamic terrorism.  An attack Monday on a Christmas market in Berlin left 12 dead and close to 50 injured. Two two attacks carried out by Islamic State supporters this past July.

Also, suspicion that Saudi Arabia is funding terrorist organizations is not new.  Especially since the recent disclosures by the Saudis that they had, in fact, funded extremism in the past.

If it is discovered that the Saudis are still funding extremist Islamic groups, it could prove devastating for the West, as Saudi Arabia has been considered one of the few Middle Eastern countries that the West can call an ally.

 

Ban Ki-moon’s last hypocritical hurrah

December 21, 2016

Ban Ki-moon’s last hypocritical hurrah, Israel Hayom, Ruthie Blum, December 21, 2016

The outgoing secretary-general of the United Nations outdid himself this week. In his final briefing ‎to the U.N. Security Council on Friday, Ban Ki-moon said, “Over the last decade, I have argued that ‎we cannot have a bias against Israel at the U.N. Decades of political maneuvering have created a ‎disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel. In many cases, ‎instead of helping the Palestinian issue, this reality has foiled the ability of the U.N. to fulfill its role ‎effectively.”‎

Listening to the head of the international body that long ago ceased to fulfill any role other than that ‎of providing a platform for despots, one might have mistaken him for an innocent bystander whose ‎voice has been drowned out by the cacophony against the Jewish state.

In fact, Ban is a prominent ‎member of the Israel-bashing choir he has been conducting for the past 10 years, taking every ‎opportunity to equate the only democracy in the Middle East with the forces bent on its destruction ‎and on the subjugation of the West.

Indeed, he even performed this feat in his farewell address, admonishing both Israel and the ‎terrorist organization that rules the Gaza Strip in the same breath. Israel, he warned, “needs to ‎understand the reality that a democratic state, which is run by the rule of the law, which continues to ‎militarily occupy the Palestinian people, will still generate criticism and calls to hold her accountable.” ‎Hamas, with its “anti-Semitic charter, which seeks to destroy Israel,” he said, should “condemn ‎violence once and for all and recognize Israel’s right to exist.”‎

He conveniently forgot to mention that Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005, and that ‎Hamas — which took control over the enclave two years later — has no reason to “condemn” the ‎violence against Jews that it perpetrates and promotes.‎

But no matter. Ban, like the rest of his cohorts at the U.N., never lets facts get in the way of ‎ideology. Nor do his own contradictions in terms cause him to pause, which is why he had no ‎problem saying that though the Palestinian conflict is not at the root of the other wars in the Middle ‎East, “its resolution can create momentum in the region.” If he has some notion of how, exactly, the ‎mass murder of Syrians at the hands of the Russian- and Iranian-backed regime of President ‎Bashar Assad and rebel forces would be affected by some deal between Jerusalem and Ramallah, ‎he is keeping it under wraps.‎

What he has never been quiet about, however, is his belief that Israelis are responsible for ‎Palestinian terrorism, and his hurt feelings when called to task for holding this view. Take last ‎January, when Ban said it was “human nature” for downtrodden people like the ‎Palestinians ‎to express their frustration through violence. This caused a stir among defenders of ‎Israel, particularly since the U.N. chief had never made a similar statement about, say al-Qaida, ‎Islamic State ‎or Boko Haram — the group that, at the end of the same month, burned 86 Nigerian ‎villagers alive, ‎among them many children.‎

Offended at the mere suggestion that he had justified Palestinian terrorism‎, ‎Ban penned an op‎-‎ed ‏in The New York Times ‏‎–‎‏ titled ‏‎”‎Don‎’‎t shoot the messenger‎, ‎Israel‎” –‎‏ to claim that his words had ‏been unfairly ‏‎”‎twisted‎.” ‎To prove that he had been misquoted‎, ‎he clarified‎, ‎‏”‏The stabbings‏, ‏vehicle‏-‏rammings and other attacks by Palestinians targeting Israeli civilians are reprehensible‎. So, ‎too, are ‎the incitement of violence and the glorification of killers. Nothing excuses terrorism. I ‎condemn it ‎categorically.”‎

Then, without skipping a beat, he proceeded to blame Israel.‏

‎”It is inconceivable … that security measures alone will stop the violence,” he wrote. “As I warned ‎the ‎Security Council last week, Palestinian frustration and grievances are growing under the weight ‎‎of nearly a half-century of occupation. Ignoring this won’t make it disappear. No one can deny ‎that ‎the everyday reality of occupation provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of ‎violence ‎and extremism and Israeli settlements keep expanding. … Palestinians — especially ‎young people — ‎are losing hope over what seems a harsh, humiliating and endless occupation.”‎

Given his false depiction of the situation — including by omitting Israel’s ‎withdrawal from more ‎than 90% of the territory it obtained after the attempt of surrounding ‎Arab armies to obliterate it in ‎the Six-Day War — it stood to reason that his proposed solutions would be preposterous.‎‏ And they ‏were.‏

‎”We continue to work with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to rebuild Gaza and prevent ‎another ‎devastating conflict, and to press Palestinians for genuine national reconciliation,” he ‎wrote, ‎ignoring the fact that it has been impossible to “rebuild” Gaza, when Hamas has used all ‎the ‎American and European funds provided for this purpose to rebuild all its terror tunnels ‎through ‎which to kidnap and kill Israelis — and boast about this in video clips.‎

However‎, ‎he said ‎he was ‏‎”‎disturbed‎ by statements from senior members of Israel’s government ‎that the ‎aim [for a two-state solution] should be abandoned altogether”‎‏ because the‎ “stalemate” will ‎lead to “a corrosion ‎of the moral foundation of Israeli and Palestinian societies, ever more inured to ‎the pain of the ‎other.”‎‏

After attacking Israel for “lashing out at every well-‎intentioned critic,” ‏Ban concluded that ‎‎”the status quo is untenable. Keeping another people under indefinite ‎occupation undermines the ‎security and the future of both Israelis and Palestinians.”‎

It takes serious nerve for someone who has exhibited anti‎-‎Israel bias for years to bemoan the ‏practice‎. ‎But then ‎hypocrisy is what Ban and the U‎.‎N‎. ‎are all about‎.‎

Syria: Muslim father sends his two pre-teen daughters on jihad suicide missions

December 21, 2016

Syria: Muslim father sends his two pre-teen daughters on jihad suicide missions, Jihad Watch,

“Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties, for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed.” (Qur’an 9:111)

In light of that verse, this father doesn’t think he is a monster. He thinks he is doing his daughters a great favor.

“Syrian father convinces young daughters to undergo suicide missions in sickening video,” by Bethan McKernan, Independent, December 21, 2016:

Disturbing footage of a Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (JFS) fighter in Syria convincing his two young daughters to take part in suicide missions has emerged online after being posted by rebel media sources.

It is thought that one of the girls may have been behind the suicide bomb which hit a police station in Damascus last week, although the link cannot be verified.

In two videos, the man who belongs to JFS – the newly adopted name of al-Nusra, or al-Qaeda in Syria – films his wife saying goodbye to eight-year-old Fatimah and seven-year-old Islam.

“Why are you sending your daughters?” the man asks from behind the camera. “One is seven and the other is eight, they’re young for jihad.”

“No one is too young for jihad, because jihad is a duty for every Muslim,” the woman replies, as the family praises god and the daughters hug and kiss their mother.

In the second, the two girls themselves say they will take part in suicide operations in Damascus.

“Why don’t you leave this to the men? The men who escaped on the green buses?” The child, confused, says yes, before her father asks more questions.

“You want to surrender so that you’re raped and killed by the infidels? You want to kill them, no? We’re a glorious religion, not a religion of humiliation, isn’t that so darling?”, he coaxes.

“You won’t be scared, because you’re going to God, isn’t that right?” he asks the younger girl.

The sickening footage was shared widely online on Wednesday. It is not known where the videos of the family were filmed, but the mention of ‘green buses’ suggests Aleppo, where the infamous regime buses have been transporting both rebels and civilians to neighbouring Idlib province this week after the fall of the city to government forces.

In October, the UN estimated there to be around 900 JFS fighters among the 8,000 rebels which had held onto the eastern part of the city for the last four years.

But Syrian government has also bussed surrendering rebels out of besieged areas on several other occasions, including in the southern Damascus suburb of Daraya, which agreed to an amnesty in August.

Several commentators in Syria have speculated that one of the girls could have been behind an attack in Damascus station last Friday, in which a little girl wandered into a police station in al-Midan and asked for the toilet before she either detonated a bomb on her person or it was detonated remotely….

To Islamists, the Germans are a bunch of cowards

December 21, 2016

To Islamists, the Germans are a bunch of cowards, Israel National News, Giulio Meotti, December 21, 2016

It is no secret that Islamists consider the Germans as a bunch of cowards. “You love life, we love death”, they continue to repeat. Because wherever they look, the combatants of Allah see only people and governments only too ready to capitulate.

And Germany is Europe’s soft underbelly. The Bundeswehr, Germany’s army, already belongs to history; the country has welcomed more than one million Muslims; German ministers envision the creation of an “official Islam”, while German churches are closing at weekly rhythm; the Sharia courts are already operating; comedians such as Jan Bohmermann are criminalized and the “night of Cologne” with its mass sexual attacks on women has already been justified by feminists and multiculturalists.

We could have hailed a meaningful change in the German policy toward Islamic terrorism if the day after the carnage at the Christmas market in Berlin, a couple of German war planes had bombed the Islamists’ bases in the Middle East and pulverized a few dozen of them.

Nothing happened. Nothing will happen.

Through these random attacks, Muslims are now trying to understand if and how they can defeat the West. They poured into the streets to demonstrate against the caricatures of Mohammed and found themselves at movie theaters to celebrate the defeat of the Americans in Iraq. They understood that they can succeed.

Following the appeal launched by Günter Grass following the terrorist attack of September 11 (“the West should wonder what went wrong”), German “civil society” preferred to criticize itself rather than questioning the tangle of feelings that animates the warriors of Allah. They reacted like someone who is threatened by a hurricane does: accumulating supplies, nailing doors and windows and praying that the storm will end as soon as possible.

But Islamic fundamentalists are different: if they don’t encounter any resistance, they will act and strike in a more resolute way. And in this sense, they have every reason to consider the West and Germany to be weak, decadent and incapable of defending itself. If you are targeted by beheadings and kidnappings, bombings and shootings, and you react through hysterical outbursts about a “dialogue between cultures,” you will get more violence.

Twelve good Germans have just been assassinated during the Christmas holiday. The day after the carnage, the multicultural festival resumed as if nothing bad had happen. Christian leaders called for more “dialogue” (Italy’s head bishop, Monsignor Galantino, said that religion has nothing to do with the attack).

But it is also very ironic: the dialogue these drunken multiculturalists want so establish with the Muslim world will have to take place over orange juice and mineral water. Teetotal submission.

Jihad assassin of Russian ambassador guarded Erdogan on multiple occasions

December 21, 2016

Jihad assassin of Russian ambassador guarded Erdogan on multiple occasions, Jihad Watch

turkish-assassin-of-russian-ambassador-1

What did Erdogan know, and when did he know it?

“Russian ambassador’s assassin ‘guarded Recep Tayyip Erdogan,’” by Roland Oliphant, Telegraph, December 21, 2016:

The Turkish policeman who murdered Russia’s ambassador to Ankara provided security to Recep Tayyip Erdogan on multiple occasions in recent months, a pro-government commentator has claimed.

Melvut Mert Altintas, 22, served on police details backing up Mr Erdogan’s personal body guards eight times since the failed military coup that rocked Turkey in July.

Alintas, who served on an elite Ankara riot unit for two and a half years, was part of the second tier of security at those events, Abdülkadir Selvi, a columnist known for his close ties to the government, wrote in Hurriyet.

If confirmed, the revelations will raise questions about how the assassin passed through strict security screening despite plotting the murder of a high-ranking foreign diplomat.

Altintas shouted “Allahu Akbar” and “don’t forget Aleppo” after he shot Andrey Karlov, Russia’s ambassador to Turkey, on Monday.

The off-duty policeman was killed shortly afterwards by Turkish security officers, who said they feared he was carrying a bomb.

The Turkish government has blamed the attack on Fettulah [sic] Gulen, a US-based preacher and critic of Mr Erdogan who has also been accused of orchestrating the failed coup in July.

The Kremlin distanced itself from those claims on Wednesday, saying that it was “too early” to name Altintas’ possible accomplices.

“We shouldn’t rush with any theories before the investigators establish who were behind the assassination of our ambassador,” said Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin’s spokesman.

Mr Peskov added that the murder was a “certainly a blow to [Turkey’s] prestige.”

Earlier Mevlut Cavusoglu, the Turkish foreign minister, was quoted as telling John Kerry, the US Secretary of States, that Turkey and Russia both believed Gulen’s followers were behind the attack.

Experts have questioned that account, saying Altintas appeared to have targeted Russia in revenge for the country’s involvement in the Syrian civil war….

The Times Tales from the Far Side

December 21, 2016

The Times Tales from the Far Side, Washington Free Beacon, , December 21, 2016

(Please see also Are Europe’s ‘Extreme Right’ Parties Really So Extreme? — DM)

nytInstagram user kaylaaajang

President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet picks plan on moving the country “far to the right,” and not just any far right but the “Israeli far right,” according to the latest reports from the New York Times.

The Grey Lady introduced readers to David Friedman, Trump’s nominee to serve as ambassador to Israel, with the ominous warning that he is a “hard-liner” who could “could end up undercutting the security of Israel and the United States,” as one “left-leaning” expert told the Times on Dec. 15. Friedman was described in the first paragraph as a “bankruptcy lawyer aligned with the Israeli far right.”

“Far right” has become a staple of the New York Times lexicon since Trump’s upset victory over Hillary Clinton. The paper has used the term in connection to Trump 158 times since Election Day, tying him to everything from Europe’s rising nationalist parties to a Klu Klux Klan stabbing and profiles of internet-based white nationalist trolls. The term “far left” was used in connection to President Obama, by contrast, 431 times over the past eight years.

Friedman is not the only Trump cabinet nominee who threatens the balance of American politics. On Dec. 5 the paper stated that Trump’s “Cabinet Picks Portend a Shift Far to the Right.” As evidence of these far right tendencies, the paper cited that many of the president-elect’s nominees “have long records opposing the current administration on social programs, wages, public lands, veterans and the environment.”

The Times pointed to Trump’s Labor Secretary nominee, fast food restaurateur Andrew Puzder, as an example of the shift away from the center. Puzder “has been extremely critical of the Obama administration’s labor policies, including its push for a higher minimum wage and for new overtime rules for workers.”

The Times does not say that the Democratic Party platform’s embrace of a $15 minimum wage—more than double the current rate of $7.25—originated from one of the most liberal wings of the party: union powerhouse Service Employees International Union. On Nov. 22, a federal judge appointed by Obama blocked the new overtime rules because they are “contrary to the statutory text and Congress’s intent” of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The article does not say if the Obama administration’s policies—such as his efforts to “shut down fossil fuel production”—constitute a turn to the “far left.”

Trump’s nominees stand in stark contrast to those of President Obama, who according to the New York Times has never nominated anyone from the far left to a cabinet position or federal court. Dating back to Obama’s Nov. 4, 2008 election victory, the Times has used the word “far left” to describe “nominee” in about 140 instances, according to Lexis Nexis. The use of the term was more likely to help readers navigate photo captions—82 times—than provide context as to a politician or prospective Democratic cabinet member’s political leanings. The Times obituary 0f communist dictator Fidel Castro, for example, employed the phrase just once: “REVOLUTIONARY: Far left, Fidel Castro in 1968.”

The rare appearance of “far left” in the New York Times typically comes in the form of a quote from Republican politicians, rather than a news or headline writer’s copy. The paper’s journalists work hard to provide important context for its readers. When New Jersey Republican Steven Lonegan called now-Sen. Corey Booker “a far left liberal extremist,” Times reporters added that Booker “is frequently criticized in his own party for his moderate views.”

The paper used “far left” twice while covering the nomination of now-Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. When she cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on a near party-line vote—Sen. Lindsey Graham was the only Republican to vote for her—the Times reported that “Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, complained of Ms. Kagan’s ‘strong commitment to far left ideological beliefs.’”

Grassley would have known more about Ms. Kagan had he read the June 18, 2010 edition of the New York Times, which featured a 2,500-word profile of her roots titled, “The Kagan Family, Left Leaning and Outspoken.” Readers discovered that she came from a “New York family whose intellectual dynamism and embrace of liberal causes provide a window onto the social milieu and culture that shaped her.” Her father tied himself to a tree once; her brother’s “involvement in radical causes’ [was] an inspiration for her senior thesis on the Socialist movement in New York.”

Far left appears in the article one time: “TOUGH TEACHER: Elena Kagan’s mother, Gloria, far left, with her class at Hunter College Elementary in 1979.”

Kagan now has a more leftwing record on the court than liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to the Washington University School of Law’s Supreme Court Database.

The sorrow and the pity in Syria

December 21, 2016

The sorrow and the pity in Syria, Washington Times

(Please see also, Lies and Hypocrisy over Aleppo. — DM)

iraninsyriaIllustration on Iran’s future role in Syria by Linas Garsys/The Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Over the last five years, Syria has been descending into a hell on Earth. Over the last four months, the lowest depths of the inferno have been on display in Aleppo, an ancient city, once among the most diverse and dynamic in the Middle East. On Friday, in the final press conference of his presidency, Barack Obama addressed this still-unfolding humanitarian and strategic catastrophe.

“So with respect to Syria,” he said, “what I have consistently done is taken the best course that I can to try to end the civil war while having also to take into account the long-term national security interests of the United States.”

An estimated 500,000 dead, 11 million displaced, millions more living in fear, sorrow and pitiful poverty, Iranian forces backed by Russian forces occupying the heart of the Arab world — yet no-drama Mr. Obama remains so casual, so confident that the decisions he’s made were “the best” and, what’s more, that he made them “consistently.” Is refusing to change one’s mind as conditions worsen and policies fail really a virtue?

To bolster his case, the president emphasized that he has spent lots of time — “if you tallied it up, days and weeks” — attending meetings on Syria. “We went through every option in painful detail with maps,” he said, “and we had our military and we had our aid agencies and we had our diplomatic teams, and sometimes, we’d bring in outsiders who were critics of ours.” Imagine that: painful detail, maps, aid agencies, even critical outsiders.

Count me among those not convinced. In 2011, during that hopeful moment known as the Arab Spring, peaceful protesters took to the streets of Damascus. The dynastic dictator Bashar Assad responded brutally. Before long, a civil war was ignited.

Mr. Obama’s top advisers recommended assisting non-Islamist and nationalist rebels — not with the proverbial boots on the proverbial ground but with secure communications devices, money, weapons and training. Mr. Obama rejected that advice. He had done the math: Mr. Assad, a member of the Alawite minority, hadn’t enough loyal troops to prevail against Syria’s insurgent Sunni majority. So the fall of the Assad regime had to be both inevitable and imminent.

What that failed to take into account: Iran’s theocrats would send in foreign Shia fighters, including those of Hezbollah, their Lebanese proxy, all under the leadership of their Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Vladimir Putin also would deploy forces in support of the Assad regime. We can surmise his reasons: to have a Mediterranean port for his navy; to re-establish Russia’s influence in the Middle East; to show the world that, unlike Mr. Obama, he does not abandon his friends; to diminish American credibility and prestige.

Mr. Obama’s response was, as it so often is, mainly rhetorical. He warned Mr. Putin that he was stepping into a quagmire. He proclaimed, as so he often does, that there can be “no military solution.”

The Russian president, a product of the KGB rather than the faculty lounge, knew that was nonsense. In the Middle East, the law of the jungle trumps international law every time.

Having accused President George W. Bush of overreach, Mr. Obama adopted a policy that might be called underreach. He decided not to enforce the “red line” he had declared against Mr. Assad’s use of chemical weapons. He decided not to eliminate Mr. Assad’s air power, which would have ended the barrel-bombing of civilians. He wasn’t even willing to help establish “safe zones” where innocent Syrians might stand a chance to defend themselves.

I know: Mr. Obama saw his mission as ending wars and certainly not risking additional American entanglements. And he is among those who believe that the projection of American power generally does more harm than good.

Not mutually exclusive is the theory that he had a specific goal in mind: to bring Iran’s rulers into a strategic partnership with the United States. To achieve that, he had to demonstrate that he respected what he has called their “equities” in Syria. Were he to take action against Mr. Assad, the Islamic republic’s envoys might walk away from the table where they were negotiating the nuclear weapons deal Mr. Obama envisioned as his great foreign policy legacy.

The president has been nothing if not “consistent” in his pursuit of detente with Iran’s Islamic revolutionaries. In all likelihood, that is what explains his decision, just after taking office, to turn a blind eye to the clerical regime’s ruthless repression of the Green Movement that took to the streets of Iranian cities following a rigged presidential election in 2009.

History will record that these efforts failed. Nixon went to China. Mr. Obama will not be going to Iran — or to Syria, which Iran intends to incorporate into its version of a caliphate (which Shia call an “imamate”).

Aleppo,” U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said last week at the U.N., “will join the ranks of those events in world history that define modern evil, that stain our conscience decades later. Halabja, Rwanda, Srebrenica, and, now, Aleppo. To the Assad regime, Russia, and Iran, your forces and proxies are carrying out these crimes.”

She went on to ask: “Are you truly incapable of shame? Is there literally nothing that can shame you? Is there no act of barbarism against civilians, no execution of a child that gets under your skin?”

Would it be unfair to suggest that the answers to these questions should have been apparent to her and the president years ago? Had that been the case, perhaps they would have formulated different policies and implemented a different course of action. Or perhaps not.

Liberals, drugged on power, suffer withdrawal symptoms

December 21, 2016

Liberals, drugged on power, suffer withdrawal symptoms, Washington Examiner, December 21, 2016

(Will we ever stop calling them “liberals?” They are leftists or Democrats, not liberals. The term “liberal” has been perverted into what it is not. — DM)

liberalspowerA crop of liberal writers are aghast that Republicans behave just as Democrats did for decades. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

“Democrats had a knife, and the GOP had a gun,” writes New York Times columnist David Leonhardt, remarking in particular on what he views as disgraceful Republican abuses of power in North Carolina. Having lost the governorship, the GOP used the lame-duck period to pass laws taking power and patronage away from the victorious Democratic governor-elect.

Leonhardt’s broad point about general Republican excess is being made by many a liberal writer. It is a revisionist history put succinctly by Greg Sargent, a liberal blogger at the Washington Post, that the “GOP shreds our norms in [the] quest for power and Dems don’t.”

This is a deeply ignorant or mendacious view of political history.

We do not defend the Republicans’ North Carolina caper; we already criticized it in this space. But it is stomach-turning to see liberal horror that Republicans should resort to the same tactics Democrats used with gusto. If anything is more irritating than hearing partisans justify their behavior with “tu quoque” arguments, it is seeing a crop of liberal writers aghast that Republicans behave just as Democrats did for decades.

The last two times North Carolina’s legislature moved to strip powers from its governor, it was Democrats doing the partisan stripping and Republicans being stripped. It was also an abuse then, and North Carolina Republicans cried foul, not that anyone seems to remember their protests now. Gov. Pat McCrory and legislative Republicans were thoroughly and mercilessly schooled in the art of political warfare by their Democratic adversaries, and finally brought a gun to the gunfight.

Republicans win a few elections and suddenly it is shocking — shocking, we tell you! — that they deploy gerrymandering just as Democrats did for decades. Trump wins an election, and suddenly liberals worry that presidents might govern with pens and phones, and change national immigration policy by fiat.

Suddenly, “obstructionism” is no longer considered a legitimate excuse for a president to announce that his agenda is too important to wait for democratic constitutional processes. Suddenly, liberal writers fear rather than cheer the possibility that a president might start a ruinous and illegal war on his own personal say-so.

When you’re told everything in the political landscape is unprecedented and horrible, you are not hearing a good faith argument. You are hearing the symptoms of defeat. Beginning next month, Democrats will have less power at national and state levels than they’ve had since the Great Depression. They’re losing influence over policy across the map, and it’ll take a lot of political rehab for them to get over it.

If we live in “a new normal in which the America we knew and loved is gone,” perhaps it’s because these people were enjoying liberal abuse of power too much to apply the constitutional brakes when they had the levers in their hands.