Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton met with Benjamin Netanyahu Sunday. Interestingly, Trump was with the Israeli prime for nearly ninety minutes, Clinton for less than an hour.
The Republican candidate obviously had more of substance to discuss with Netanyahu – the efficacy of security walls and their mutual distrust of the Iran nuclear deal being two obvious examples. For Hillary, the encounter was more of a quick check on her bucket list, and probably an uncomfortable one.
After his meeting, Trump’s people made clear that Donald had pledged that, if elected president, he would formally recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state.
This has been a bone of contention (to put it mildly) from, we could almost say, time immemorial, because the Jewish claim on the city dates from at least the construction of Solomon’s temple, estimated to be 832 BCE. (Actually, there’s lots of earlier evidence of Jewish presence in Jerusalem, including the extensive excavations of David’s City, but I’m keeping it simple here.) Islam, currently occupying Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, has its origins in the beginning of the 7th Century CE, over 1400 years after Solomon, and in Mecca and Medina (not Jerusalem). No one sane disputes this.
Several American presidential candidates – when running for office – have made pledges similar to Trump’s, then, upon election, basically reneged, usually by ignoring the situation or telling the Israelis to wait until the Palestinian question is resolved. That gave those presidents a fair amount of cover because it would take Solomon himself to tell us when that would be – and even in his case I’m not sure.
So it’s natural that Trump’s pledge would be met with some skepticism. On Twitter Sunday night, several Republican stalwarts attacked a tweet I had written in support of Trump on this matter, implying (or even stating) that I was promoting a lie. The candidate would never go forward with the recognition.
While I think these attacks were basically masked, last-ditch NeverTrumpism, this would be a significant decision on Trump’s part with great international ramifications and I owe my critics a bit longer response than I could give in 140-character tweets.
To begin with, Trump attended the meeting Sunday in the company of his son-in-law Jared Kushner. Kushner – a real estate investor himself and publisher of The Observer who has emerged as one of Trump’s key advisers – is an Orthodox Jew and therefore takes the Jerusalem issue quite seriously, far more than almost any politician or political professional would. This could only signal to Netanyahu – and should to all of us – that Trump was not taking the meeting, or anything he said in it, lightly.
Yes, he could have been using Kushner as an emblem of some sort, but I suspect Kushner himself would have been unhappy about that. So I further suspect the reverse was true here. This was a gesture meant to say to the Israelis – I’m with you in the deepest sense. (Clinton was accompanied in her meeting by Jake Sullivan, who has been frequently besmirched by the email scandal.)
More importantly, Trump, not being a lifetime politician, would be the first president, basically ever, well-positioned to follow through on the pledge. He has never participated in the seemingly endless rounds of Middle East negotiations. The ins-and-out of the increasingly dubious Oslo Accords were not his doing. He can come to all of this fresh, with, let’s hope, common sense.
Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is just the kind of action I think Trump would enjoy taking because, after the initial brouhaha, everybody would realize that nothing really had changed. The facts on the ground would be the same, Israel would still be allowing Muslim worship at Al Aqsa, and the absurdity of Jerusalem not being recognized as the capital of Israel when it really is would be unmasked.
Most of all, it would be a sign that Western Civilization is not prepared to give up its dominant role in the future of humanity – something, at this moment, that is sorely needed.
Obama turned those who should enforce our borders and our laws into coyotes smuggling his illegal alien backers into this country. It hasn’t won him and his political ideology any friends. And has not done Hillary any favors.
The union representing the nation’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and staff is throwing its support behind GOP nominee Donald Trump.
It’s the first time ever that the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council has endorsed a candidate for president, according to a statement posted on Trump’s campaign web site Monday.
“Donald Trump reached out to us for a meeting, sat down with me to discuss his goals for enforcement, and pledged to support ICE officers, our nation’s laws and our members. In his immigration policy, he has outlined core policies needed to restore immigration security — including support for increased interior enforcement and border security, an end to Sanctuary Cities, an end to catch-and-release, mandatory detainers, and the canceling of executive amnesty and non-enforcement directives,” its statement says.
In contrast, the union says Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton supports furthering “amnesty” and is pushing a “radical” immigration plan that will lead to the loss of thousands of lives.
But Hillary does have the support of millions of illegal aliens. That’s why she’s again Voter ID and why the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail, successfully in many cases, against any anti-fraud measures.
(This article relies substantially on materials posted by Dr. Bill Warner, much of which is presented in the following video:
The article also elaborates on the relevance of the presented material to America’s November 8th presidential elections. — DM)
Ever wonder why there are so many Muslims and Muslim countries in the world? Over the millennia many countries were conquered, but didn’t remain Persian or Greek or Roman as the case may be. You see, the countries conquered in the name of Islam, became and remained Islamic. For example Pakistan, part of India, and Malaysia both were Hindu; Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and N. Africa were Christian; Afghanistan was Buddhist. They are all Islamic now.
This transformation was not by chance but by design. All these countries were conquered by force then shorn of their wealth and many of their women. Then the Muslim conquerors introduced Sharia and continued fighting the local inhabitants. The inhabitants were either forced to convert or accorded Dhimmi status. As time went on all cultures submitted and eventually became Islamic.
The advance of Islam was finally reversed in Spain and stopped at the Gates of Vienna in 1642. Thereafter the power of Islam went into decline but other than Spain, it never lost its hold on the people it conquered. This decline was reversed in the Twentieth Century when Arabs became wealthy as a result of their vast oil reserves. This wealth was then deployed to conquer the west, not by Violent Jihad, but by Stealth Jihad.
This design was referred to as The Islamic Doctrine. It consists of Koran (14%) which stipulates that “there is no god but ALLAH and Mohammed is his messenger”, Sira, Mohammed’s biography (26%) and Hadiths, traditions, (60%). There are two different Korans combined into one, the Mecca Koran and the Medina Koran.
About sixty-one percent of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of the unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity. About seventy-five percent of Muhammad’s biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers.
Mohammed started as a religious preacher in Mecca. It was during this period that the Koran 2:256 stipulated. “There is no compulsion in religion” and 109:1 stipulated “You have your religion I have mine.” Ultimately he was chased out of Mecca and migrated with his followers to Medina.
Then began the Jihad period. From then on people were forced to convert under pain of death or were forced to live as Dhimmis (second class citizens) and pay (Jizya) for the privilege of living there.
This Jihad continued until there was no more discord.
Koran 2:193. “Fight them (Kafirs) until there is no more discord and the religion of Allah reigns absolute but if they submit, then only fight those who do wrong.”
Thus it continues until everyone in the territory has submitted to Islam, accepts Dhimmi status and pays Jizya.
Quotes from the Qur’an and Hadith on war, violence, infidels, and unbelievers may be found here. For example:
Ayhat 8:12, “I shall cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth; strike, then, their necks, [O believers,] and strike off every one of their finger-tips!”
Sura 9:5,29,41. “Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the last Day…. Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! “
This inconsistency in the Koran is resolved by the doctrine of abrogation, wherein the Medina principles abrogate the Mecca principles.
Migration intends to overtake the host country through this doctrine. It is driven by Islam’s proscription against assimilation, and its will to dominate.
51% of the Koran concerns itself with the Kafir. It is a political doctrine not a religious one. There is no golden rule. Kafirs are to be subjugated. Muslims are to dominate.
Migration is part of the doctrine of jihad. Migration is so important that the Islamic calendar is based upon the Hijra, Mohammed’s migration from Mecca to Medina. Why? Because it was migration that lead to the creation of jihad in Medina. And it was jihad that made Islam triumphant.
In the past Muslims tended to stay in Islamic countries. Today, the new politics is to migrate to Kafir lands and immerse themselves in local politics. This is the jihad of money, writing and speech. Their politics is to bring the Sharia to Kafir culture. An example is using Islamic money is to build departments in universities that will support Sharia and never criticize Islam.
Unfortunately this migration is encouraged by globalist leaders such as Chancellor Merkel and President Obama. And of course, Hillary Clinton aspires to be one of them.
Professor Belhaj explains elites “encourage migration and accommodate Islam”, and described the harmony between Muslim migrants and neoliberalism as “structural, and not accidental”. “Migration is useful for the neo-liberal model of the borderless, minimal, global society…”
The Muslim Brotherhood met in 1991 and produced a document which set out its strategic goals for North America. The document was entered as evidence in the 2008 Holyland Terror Funding Trial. It contained among other things, the following paragraphs:
Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is.
…the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain “the keys” and the tools of this process in carry out [sic] this grand mission as a ‘Civilization Jihadist’ responsibility.
The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…
[W]e must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions,” the art of “absorption” and the principles of “cooperation.”
Pres Obama and Secretary Clinton, upon taking office, embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and worked with them to depose Mubarak and Assad. Luckily General al Sisi reversed their victory in Egypt and Assad, with the help of Iran and Russia, thwarted their plans in Syria.
Capt. Joseph R. John, USN (Ret), the Chairman of Combat Veterans for Congress PAC, wrote in June 2016:
Members of the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and MPAC have sinister goals that are not in support of the US Constitution or The Bill of Rights. They have become a very dangerous “Fifth Column” in the United States, appointed by Obama to very high and sensitive positions in the US Government agencies.
For nearly 8 years Obama has been filling the Washington bureaucracy including DHS, the CIA, DOD, the National Security Council, the White House, the State Department, every US Intelligence Agency, and the US Armed Forces with thousands of members of the CAIR, MPAC, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups.
In June of this year Donald Trump recognized the danger of Muslim migration and said, “This could be the all-time great Trojan horse.” And so it is but the US elites refuse to recognize it.
On August 15/16 he gave a speech on immigration and terrorism in which he clarified;
A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people.
In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.
In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.
Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.
So you can see, rather that limiting his policy to weeding out terrorists, he advocates weeding out Jihadists who want to subjugate America to Islam. This is not racism. It is common sense.
Trump has been stressing that Hillary Clinton wants to let in 550% more refugees than the 10,000 Obama let in. In response I wrote “Don’t be duped about Muslim migration to the US” in which I pointed out that the problem is much bigger and that no distinction should be made between refugees and immigrants.
According to the Report, Obama has issued over 832,000 green cards to Muslim majority countries in his first 6 years of his presidency. In addition, 482,000 Muslims overstayed their visas and are not being sent back. These Muslims support Sharia to an astonishing degree. In Afghanistan 99%, in Iraq 91% and in Pakistan 70%. When in the US 70% vote Democrat.
And now Obama is intending to allow in another 1 million Muslims.
Jewish Americans are very supportive of allowing such numbers into the US. They argue either we have a duty to do so or that Jews should be more welcoming given the history of America banning Jewish immigration in the thirties and forties. But this analogy doesn’t hold up at all. Jews were no threat to Americans personally and to their values, whereas the Muslims are both. Furthermore Muslims are very anti-Semitic and very anti-Israel. The Muslims have many other countries they could go to. The Jews had no other country willing to take them in. Jews are, in effect, welcoming their enemies into the country.
As for a duty to allow Muslim immigration or any immigration, there is none.
The blurb beneath the video states, “Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers are in freefall. Steve Green walks us through how dramatically the election map has changed in the past few weeks.”
President Barack Obama pauses during a news conference following the G-20 Summit in Antalya, Turkey, Monday, Nov. 16, 2015. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
The devastation of Syria, according to the Guardian, will be Obama’s legacy but it won’t entirely be the story of naive neglect. Some pundits think active incompetence must have played a part too. After all, when the administration conceived of an alliance with Russia as a way the conflict could be shifted to the negotiating table, any reasonable person could have foreseen the possible dangers. Events proved the administration completely miscalculated the way in which Putin and Assad would act. How could they not have foreseen it?
“The crux of the deal is a US promise to join forces with the Russian air force to share targeting and coordinate an expanded bombing campaign against Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria, which is primarily fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad.” To say Obama was stabbed in the back would only be to repeat Samantha Power’s belated regret at Putin’s “uniquely cynical and hypocritical stunt”.
Obama should have seen it coming but didn’t. All too frequently he never does. Noting this, Charles Lister, writing at Foreign Policy, headlines his piece “Obama’s Syria Strategy Is the Definition of Insanity.” He says “none of this should come as a surprise, even as the consequences are potentially devastating.
The Russian government, much less the Assad regime, has never been a reliable partner for peace in Syria. But even after Russia’s alleged bombing of the aid convoy, U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration is still plowing its energies into a deal that aims to work with the Russian government.
But Lister doesn’t accuse Obama of being actually a crazy person, just of acting like a one. Yet the suggestive evidence goes much further than Syria. Whether at social policy (which yielded riots), health policy (which resulted in Obamacare), or economic policy (which has created unemployment), the administration has shown a willingness to double down on failure. In many and varied contexts, it acts like it’s insane.
The explanation, as Michael Barone hints at, is the belief these setbacks are an acceptable price to pay for guaranteed re-election. Because liberal politics succeeds at electing candidates by promising impossible things, it promises them. That it fails to deliver is beside the point, because, quoting Dan McLaughlin at National Review, the Democrats believe their “party had unlocked the demographic code to a permanent majority.” Since misleading the electorate was the key to power, they would continue to turn it.
For all their blunders, “Republicans have lost four of the six presidential elections between 1992-2012” and Obama’s approval rating in the twilight of his term is over 50%. Since there’s no reason to hit the brakes and every incentive to step on the liberal gas, they do.
Two decades ago, lots of self-described moderates and even conservatives voted in Democratic primaries. Not so these days. The slump in Democratic primary and caucus turnout, from 38 million in 2008 to 31 million in 2016, was due to a sharp decline in turnout by self-described moderates.Hillary Clinton’s move from her husband’s 1990s triangulation to her near-total acceptance this year of Bernie Sanders’s left-wing platform was a rational response to changes in the Democratic primary electorate.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t say what she thinks but what her focus groups say the constituency wants to hear. She just channels the base, consequences be damned. Political catastrophe alone, argues Barone, can shock the system back into sanity. Absent negative feedback that hits politicians where they live, no changes can be expected from the party of Washington. Barone’s hypothesis reassuringly asserts that liberal politics is only optionally crazy and that after a few electoral defeats things could return to normal. Sleep tight: we can leave the asylum any time we want. However, he may have overlooked a crucial possibility. In his classic experiment, Yale psychologist David Rosenhan found it was easy to join the ranks of the insane but almost impossible to leave it on terms the asylum would accept.
Rosenhan’s study was done in two parts. The first part involved the use of healthy associates or “pseudopatients” (three women and five men, including Rosenhan himself) who briefly feigned auditory hallucinations in an attempt to gain admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals in five different states in various locations in the United States. All were admitted and diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. After admission, the pseudopatients acted normally and told staff that they felt fine and had no longer experienced any additional hallucinations. All were forced to admit to having a mental illness and agree to take antipsychotic drugs as a condition of their release.
This raises the possibility that dysfunction is rather more permanent than Barone believes. The Rosenhan experiment provides an explanation for the what could be called “the liberal trap,” where there is no way out of an irrational policy regime except on terms that irrational people will accept. In that line of argument, the persistence of Obama’s “insane” foreign and domestic policy is partly the result of being unable to change his policy to anything his constituency can mentally follow. There is no workable escape from Syria, for example, on any self-consistent basis the left would accept and therefore there is no escape.
Being the head lefty doesn’t mean they’re in there with him. It means he’s in there with THEM.
And maybe he can’t get out. Having promised them a fantasy universe, he has to pretend to attain it. By that logic “Hillary Clinton’s move from her husband’s 1990s triangulation to her near-total acceptance this year of Bernie Sanders’s left-wing platform” will make her president yet will confine her as much as it did Obama. The reader will have noted there is of course yet another possibility which will not here be discussed. Our political leaders act crazy because they are. But if that were so, how would we know?
Do people around the world have a right to move to the United States? It’s a bedrock belief of most conservatives that there is no such right. The U.S. sets its own immigration policy, admits whom it chooses, and foreign nationals in foreign countries have no right — a claim that could be pursued in court — to enter the United States.
Now, Hillary Clinton says there is such a right, at least if a tweet from her campaign headquarters can be taken for a policy pronouncement.
This is what happened. In his Monday speech on terrorism and immigration, Donald Trump said, “We want people to come into our country, but they have to come in legally, through a process… No one has a right to immigrate to this country. It is the job of a responsible government to admit only those who expect to succeed and flourish here and really be proud of what they’ve done and where they came from. They have to love our country.”
In that quote was the fundamental principle: There is no right to immigrate to the United States.
Shortly after Trump’s speech, the Clinton campaign in Ohio tweeted out the story of a Libyan who came to the Unites States on a student visa in 1994, was not able to renew it, and simply stayed in the country illegally. He didn’t exactly live in the shadows, settling in Dayton and founding the Islamic Federation of Ohio and the Islamic Center for Peace. After two decades, he received permanent residency in 2015. In the story, headlined “Donald Trump would have kicked my family out of the country,” the man’s son, whose name was given as Mohamed G., wrote, “There was no way that I could let a person that disrespects my father and other immigrants win the White House.”
On Monday, the Clinton Ohio campaign tweeted Mohamed G.’s picture with Trump’s quote, “No one has the right to immigrate to this country.” The campaign added the comment: “We disagree.”
The same day, the main Hillary Clinton campaign twitter account, @HillaryClinton, retweeted the “We disagree” tweet.
The world right to immigrate to the United States does not appear in the section on immigration on Clinton’s campaign website, nor does it appear in her majorpronouncements on the subject. And perhaps a single tweet, although clear in meaning, is not policy. But it is something Clinton might be asked about, perhaps even at the first debate Monday night.
Hundreds of immigrants mistakenly granted citizenship
The all-out push shows the Obama administration is using levers to help Clinton win, said Dan Stein, president of Federation for American Immigration Reform.
“In the pursuit of a partisan advantage, one party has decided integrity in the system is irrelevant,” Stein said. “They don’t really care about checking backgrounds or verifying status and eligibility – it is more about increasing the number of eligible voters in the upcoming election.”
**********************
An internal Obama administration email shows immigration officials may be literally working overtime to swear in as many new “citizen voters” as possible before the Nov. 8 presidential election, a powerful lawmaker charged Thursday.
The email, from a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services field office chief and part of a chain of correspondence within the agency, urges the unnamed recipient to swear in as many citizens as possible “due to the election year.”
“The Field Office due to the election year needs to process as many of their N-400 cases as possible between now and FY 2016,” reads the email, which was disclosed to FoxNews.com by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who chairs the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
“If you have cases in this category or other pending, you are encouraged to take advantage of the OT if you can,” the email continues. “This will be an opportunity to move your pending naturalization cases. If you have not volunteered for OT, please consider and let me know if you are interested.”
Parts of the email were redacted before it was disclosed to FoxNews.com, but it was sent by the branch chief of the Houston Field Office District 17. It was not clear to whom it was addressed.
“I couldn’t have said it better!” reads the July 21 note introducing the forwarded missive. “It’s the end of the year crunch time, so let’s get crunchy! Go Team Houston! Thanks for all your hard work!”
Johnson and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, in a Wednesday letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, said it appears the agency is trying to swear in new citizens as the election between Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton and GOP choice Donald Trump approaches.
“Your department seems intent on approving as many naturalization cases as quickly as possible at a time when it should instead be putting on the brakes and reviewing past adjudications,” the senator’s letter read.
Johnson referred to a report this week from the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General that found at least 858 people from terror hotspots and other countries of concern had been mistakenly granted citizenship despite facing orders of deportation under other identities.
“Considering that USCIS already has a troubling record of inadequate review of naturalization applications, and mistakenly giving away citizenship to terrorists, criminals and other fraudsters, it is disturbing that they are now in full and blind rubber stamp mode to crank out new citizens,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies.
In a USCIS planning document submitted to Congress earlier this year, USCIS reported it expected to receive 828,000 total applications this year, up from a planned 815,000 last year, an increase of 13,000, Vaughan said.
A DHS official did not immediately offer comment on the matter.
The effort is reminiscent of a similar bid to bring in new voters when Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, said Claude Arnold, a retired U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations.
“I am not at all surprised by this revelation,” Arnold said. “This is a repeat of the Clinton election playbook. Then it was to help re-elect Bill Clinton, this time it is to help elect Hillary Clinton.”
The all-out push shows the Obama administration is using levers to help Clinton win, said Dan Stein, president of Federation for American Immigration Reform.
“In the pursuit of a partisan advantage, one party has decided integrity in the system is irrelevant,” Stein said. “They don’t really care about checking backgrounds or verifying status and eligibility – it is more about increasing the number of eligible voters in the upcoming election.”
There’s something about Hillary. Whatever it is, it’s way different from that something about Mary.
It might have something do with her health. It might have something to do with her continuing struggle to impersonate an authentic human being. She may have lost her true self somewhere along the way.
Whatever it is, it is apparent in the video address she delivered on Wednesday to the Laborers’ International Union of North America. She spoke weirdly at an elevated volume as she sought to inject interest by means of dynamics, adapting the magic of heavy metal to the union crowd.
At the Free Beacon, Alyssa Canobbio has worked hard to make the video watchable by “adding other instances of people raising their voices to to get their points across.” It’s amusing if you can suppress the thought that the star of this production may have the last laugh.
Quotable quote: “Having said all of this, ‘Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?’ you might ask?”
Writing in a joint op-ed yesterday in The New York Times, after a weekend that saw four Islamist terror attacks in the U.S., the mayors of New York City, London and Paris made an astonishing statement: “In our experience, they wrote, “militant violence is vanishingly rare.”
Only they didn’t write that. A correction appeared today at the end of the article noting that the phrase was added by an editor without the approval of the authors.
In the article, titled “Our Immigrants, Our Strength,” Bill DeBlasio, Sadiq Kahn and Anne Hidalgo, mayors of NYC, London and Paris respectively, argue that, “Investing in the integration of refugees and immigrants is not only the right thing to do, it is also the smart thing to do. Refugees and other foreign-born residents bring needed skills and enhance the vitality and growth of local economies, and their presence has long benefited our three cities.”
Just to make sure the Times’ readers didn’t get nervous about an influx of refugees, a zealous editor added the sentence about vanishing “militant violence” (code word for Islamist terrorism).
While one can argue the point the authors are making — that “policies that embrace diversity and promote inclusion are successful” (ask voters in Germany who recently gave Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open door policies an enormous thumbs down) — no one can say that “militant violence” in the world is vanishing.
In fact, London’s Mayor Kahn said the day after the NY/NJ bombings that urban dwellers might as well get used to terror attacks, because they are now “part and parcel” of city life.
The Democratically-aligned mainstream media’s desire to shape world events by whitewashing reality or by shockingly adding words, opinions or (in this case) entire sentences to falsify the narrative seems to have gotten out of control this election season.
Consider the following facts (which are not an endorsement of any particular candidate, but rather an indictment of the mainstream media):
When Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump expressed his support for profiling to weed out terrorists, CNN added the word “racial” to Trumps comments. Headlines on CNN screamed: “Trump says ‘racial’ profiling will stop terror” and “Donald Trump defends racial profiling in wake of bombs.” (Trumps actual words were: “As you know in Israel they profile, they’ve done an unbelievable job — as good as you can do,” Trump said. “And they’ll profile, they profile. They see somebody who’s suspicious, they profile, they will take that person and they’ll check [them] out.”)
When Trump called the bombing in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan a “bombing,” the press blasted him for not calling it an “explosion” in the early stages.” When Democratic presidential candidate Hilary Clinton did the same thing (called out the explosion as a bombing), CNN removed that sentence in her statement.
Speaking on Meet the Press, NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd said, “My friends won’t even read any — if I do interviews with Trump. They won’t read them. And basically, they would like to censor any stories about Trump and also censor any negative stories about Hillary. They think she should have a total free pass because as she said at that fundraiser recently ‘I’m the only thing standing between you and the abyss.’”
On PBS newsman Bill Moyers’ website, acclaimed journalist Neil Gabler wrote of the media bias against Trump, “Call it partisan bias if you like. I call it journalism.”
Univision and Fusion anchor Jorge Ramos, who is against Trump, advocated that journalists be partial when it comes to covering Trump. “Neutrality is not an option,” he said.
CNN contributor and progressive activist Sally Kohn argued that the atmosphere on college campuses that has prevented those from expressing views that run contrary to the “progressive agenda” is a good thing. Kohn was commenting on tactics such as disruptive protests and hostility from peers and professors. “If they feel like they can no longer speak against positive social change, good,” she said.
A society and its press that makes it its project to distort reality and stomp on the free expression of opinions will end up being tyrannized by those very concepts.
Lack of free speech and expression are the hallmark of fascism and totalitarianism. But before a society gets to that rock bottom, a lot of blood can be shed.
Ironically, today marks the 34th annual International Day of Peace. While the world today is far from attaining international peace, a small step in that direction would be a commitment to honesty and fair play by the media, on college campuses and in our country at large.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments