Posted tagged ‘Islam – the religion of peace and tolerance’

Merkel: Europe Must Take More Migrants, Islam Is Not The Cause Of Terrorism

February 19, 2017

Merkel: Europe Must Take More Migrants, Islam Is Not The Cause Of Terrorism, BreitbartJack Montgomery, February 18, 21017

(According to Islamic scholar Merkel, “The Europeans alone could not cope with fighting international Islamist terrorism. We need the strength and the power of the United States of America, and their support.” Somewhat inconsistently with her reference to “international Islamist terrorism,” she observed, “we will be able to convince people that it is not Islam that is the problem, but a falsely understood Islam, and the religious authorities of Islam have to find strong language in order to delineate themselves and distance themselves from this fundamentalist and terrorist [version of] Islam.” Al-Azhar University, “Sunni Islam’s most prestigious university,” was asked to do just that last year by President Al-Sisi and refused. “Now the highest Muslim authority in Egypt has made clear that Al Azhar never had any intention of changing anything, that the ‘religious discourse’ articulated in the Medieval era—one of hostility and violence for the other, in a word, jihad—is the only ‘discourse’ Muslims can accept.” — DM)

merkelselfie

Angela Merkel claims that the European Union still has a “responsibility” to take in more so-called refugees, and pleaded to Islamic governments to help convince people that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.

The 62-year-old German chancellor began her speech by acknowledging that “the European Union right now is in a very difficult situation due to the result of the British referendum … which is very regrettable”.

While calling on the bloc “to do more to integrate our military capacity”, she also confessed it could not fight terrorism without U.S. president Donald Trump’s assistance.

“Let me address this very openly. The Europeans alone could not cope with fighting international Islamist terrorism. We need the strength and the power of the United States of America, and their support,” she said.

“I say this because the external borders of the European Union, in a way, are the border that actually separates us from Islamist terrorism, and that very much has an influence on Europe.

“So co-operation with the United States of America is most important for us, but what’s also very important to me is that Islamist, Muslim states have been incorporated in this coalition, because I think those countries, first and foremost, have to give a contribution.”

(Video at the link. — DM)

According to Chancellor Merkel, however, working with such states is the only way “we will be able to convince people that it is not Islam that is the problem, but a falsely understood Islam, and the religious authorities of Islam have to find strong language in order to delineate themselves and distance themselves from this fundamentalist and terrorist [version of] Islam.”

“We cannot do this, we Christians,” she said. “It has to be done by the Islamist clergy and by the religious authorities.”

Having claimed that Western institutions have no authority to tackle extremist ideology, however, the chancellor went on to insist that Europe does still have a duty to absorb more migrants.

“We have a responsibility. The European Union has a responsibility to bear, accepting those refugees.

“Just think, Cyprus, after all, is a neighbouring state to Syria, so you see the external borders of the Union are the borders that separate us from those areas where people amass in great numbers … [W]e cannot simply say it’s got nothing to do with us; we have to deal with this issue.”

Cyprus does not in fact share a land border with Syria, being an island nation some 315 miles from the Syrian coast.

Humor | More Loony leftist nonsense and a response

February 10, 2017

More Loony leftist nonsense and a response, Vermont Loon Watch, February 10, 2017

(Fake news which I wish were true. — DM)

Sometimes it is wise to take these crazies seriously and threaten to give them what they want, IN SPADES.

The Canadians know how to handle complaints. Here is an example:

A Canadian female liberal wrote a lot of letters to the Canadian Government, complaining about the treatment of captive insurgents (terrorists) being held in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities. She demanded a response to her letter.

She received back the following reply:

National Defence Headquarters
M Gen George R. Pearkes Bldg., 15 NT
101 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa , ON K1A 0K2
Canada

Dear Concerned Citizen,

Thank you for your recent letter expressing your profound concern of treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists captured by Canadian Forces, who were subsequently transferred to the Afghanistan Government and Thank you for your recent letter expressing your profound concern of treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists captured by Canadian Forces, who were subsequently transferred to the Afghanistan Government and are currently being held by Afghan officials in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities.

Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinions were heard loud and clear here in Ottawa .. You will be pleased to learn, thanks to the concerns of citizens like yourself, we are creating a new department here at the Department of National Defence, to be called ‘Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers’ program, or L.A.R.K. for short.

In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided, on a trial basis, to divert several terrorists and place them in homes of concerned citizens such as yourself, around the country, under those citizens personal care. Your personal detainee has been selected and is scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence in Toronto next Monday.

Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud is your detainee, and is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint. You will be pleased to know that we will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with your recommendations.

Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his ‘attitudinal problem’ will help him overcome those character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling, however, we strongly recommend that you hire some assistant caretakers.

Please advise any Jewish friends, neighbours or relatives about your house guest, as he might get agitated or even violent, but we are sure you can reason with him. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless in your opinion, this might offend him. Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills either in your home or wherever you choose to take him while helping him adjust to life in our country.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters except sexually, since he views females as a form of property, thereby having no rights, including refusal of his sexual demands. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him.

You also should know that he has shown violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the dress code that he will recommend as more appropriate attire. I’m sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the burka over time. Just remember that it is all part of respecting his culture and religious beliefs’ as described in your letter.

You take good care of Ahmed and remember that we will try to have a counselor available to help you over any difficulties you encounter while Ahmed is adjusting to Canadian culture.

Thanks again for your concern. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job and care for our fellow man. Good luck and God bless you.

Cordially,
Gordon O’Connor
Minister of National Defence

The Left and Islam: Brothers from Another Mother

February 7, 2017

The Left and Islam: Brothers from Another Mother, PJ MediaMichael Walsh, February 6, 2017

(Please see also, Toronto Muslim speaker: “We must celebrate our way of life…until their way of life dissipates under our feet”. — DM)

amishterror

“Bleak” and “dark” — according to the New York Times in an extraordinary piece of pro-Muslim agitprop the other day, this is the view of Islam held by President Trump and his top aides. And this, needless to say, is a very bad thing:

It was at a campaign rally in August that President Trump most fully unveiled the dark vision of an America under siege by “radical Islam” that is now radically reshaping the policies of the United States.

On a stage lined with American flags in Youngstown, Ohio, Mr. Trump, who months before had called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim immigration, argued that the United States faced a threat on par with the greatest evils of the 20th century. The Islamic State was brutalizing the Middle East, and Muslim immigrants in the West were killing innocents at nightclubs, offices and churches, he said. Extreme measures were needed.

“The hateful ideology of radical Islam,” he told supporters, must not be “allowed to reside or spread within our own communities.”

Mr. Trump was echoing a strain of anti-Islamic theorizing familiar to anyone who has been immersed in security and counterterrorism debates over the last 20 years. He has embraced a deeply suspicious view of Islam that several of his aides have promoted, notably retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, now his national security adviser, and Stephen K. Bannon, the president’s top strategist.

Please read the story at the link and parse it carefully, for this is how the mouthpieces of the Left masquerading as news organizations will henceforth attempt to take down the Trump administration, strangling the baby in its cradle if it can, but promising four years of biased, negative coverage. It’s all part of the “Resistance,” the movement to delegitimize the new president even before he has fully taken the reins of office.

This worldview borrows from the “clash of civilizations” thesis of the political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, and combines straightforward warnings about extremist violence with broad-brush critiques of Islam. It sometimes conflates terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State with largely nonviolent groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots and, at times, with the 1.7 billion Muslims around the world. In its more extreme forms, this view promotes conspiracies about government infiltration and the danger that Shariah, the legal code of Islam, may take over in the United States.

Those espousing such views present Islam as an inherently hostile ideology whose adherents are enemies of Christianity and Judaism and seek to conquer nonbelievers either by violence or through a sort of stealthy brainwashing.

Islam’s inherent hostility toward the West seems to me utterly inarguable. From the time the Arab armies swept out of the desert, the adherents of the Religion of Peace have waged continual war upon Christendom, the formerly Christian middle east, Hindu India, Zoroastrian Persia, and Indonesia. To deny that is simply irresponsible.

Of course, Not All Muslims, etc. But that doesn’t matter. A good Muslim, as many good Muslims have pointed out, including Erdogan of Turkey, must believe in the triumph of Islam, forcible or otherwise; a good Christian must perforce resist. Hence the Left’s partially successful attempt to de-Christianize the West, and why a latter-day Restoration or Reconquista is so important. The West has done it before — with punishing victories over Islam Tours, Lepanto, Vienna, Omdurman — and it can do it again. All that’s needed is the will.

But the cultural sappers at the Times and elsewhere cannot have that, of course. And so they persist in framing the issue of Muslim “immigration” to America as some kind of civil-rights issue; they cannot be bothered in defending the very culture that gives them the liberty to do so. Since the attacks of 9/11, Muslim bylines have flourished in the America media, Muslim “charities” have been left largely alone, and creeping shariah has begun to spread from colonized England to the States.

And is where George W. Bush so signally failed his country, by going into the kind of defensive crouch that has given us vastly increased immigration from the ummah and the TSA here at home. Barack Obama, of course, only pushed the pedal to the metal even harder. That the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to this day is to America’s everlasting shame.

Beyond the restrictions the order imposed on refugees and visitors from seven predominantly Muslim countries, it declared that the United States should keep out those with “hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles” and “those who would place violent ideologies over American law,” clearly a reference to Shariah.

Rejected by most serious scholars of religion and shunned by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, this dark view of Islam has nonetheless flourished on the fringes of the American right since before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. With Mr. Trump’s election, it has now moved to the center of American decision-making on security and law, alarming many Muslims.

Who cares what “most serious scholars of religion” think? The question of what to do about Islam is not primarily “religious” — in which case the liberals will use the Constitution as a sword, citing the text but not the meaning or the context of its proscription of religious tests for public office and pretending that applies to immigration — but historical and cultural. Islam, unchecked, destroys everything it touches — representational art, painting, music, libraries (“Boko Haram” translates as “Western education is forbidden”). Churches are demolished or, with the great cathedral of Sancta Sophia in Constantinople, turned into mosques. And all Western notions of secularism are eliminated in favor of an established “faith.”

This is what the new administration is fighting. That the Left now openly sides with our religious, political and cultural enemies is something with which every American must reckon.

“They’re tapping into the climate of fear and suspicion since 9/11,” said Asma Afsaruddin, a professor of Islamic studies at Indiana University and chairwoman of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. “It’s a master narrative that pits the Muslim world against the West,” appealing to Trump supporters who know nothing of Muslims or Islam beyond news reports of terrorist attacks, she said.

Since 9/11, Americans have seen all they need to know of Islam. The great question of our time is what to do about it.

Virginia Church Hosts Lecture on “Islamophobia,” Professor Claims It’s Driven By “Imperialism”

January 28, 2017

Virginia Church Hosts Lecture on “Islamophobia,” Professor Claims It’s Driven By “Imperialism”, Jihad Watch

todd-green

“I have lots of relationships with Muslims. They have taught me compassion and peace,” stated Luther College Professor Todd Green during a January 22 presentation at McLean, Virginia’s Lewinsville Presbyterian Church (LPC). Here this self-proclaimed “scholar of Islamophobia” and “anti-Islamophobia activist” reiterated his fantasy that interpersonal relationships with Muslims can refute supposed “Islamophobic” prejudices arising from Western sins like imperialism.

Green, author of the 2015 book The Fear of Islam:  An Introduction to Islamophobia in the West, is currently a Franklin Fellow at the United States Department of State, where Green “assesses and analyzes Islamophobia in Europe.” He has had ample opportunity to expound the book’s themes in various appearances in radio (see here, here, and here) and online, as well as public presentations such as at the 2016 Peacestock conference of the leftwing Veterans for Peace. He also writes for left-leaning publications such as the Huffington Post and Sojourners.

Without specific definitions, Green has concluded that “Islamophobia is an irrational fear, hostility, or hatred of Muslims and Islam” and is “one of the most acceptable prejudices in the United States today.” This presents a “cultural racism” in which “Muslims are essentialized; they are treated as a race,” he elaborated at LPC. Nonetheless, he has previously vaguely qualified that critical study of any such posited bigotry “is not an attempt to cut off critical conversations about Islam.”

Green has assessed that “imperialism is one of the main factors driving Islamophobia in the past and in the present,” resulting from historical “imperial tension and imperial competition” between Christians and Muslims. “In the seventh century when Islam came on the scene, it spread very quickly and Islamic empires developed quite quickly,” he has stated, while leaving unmentioned the Islamic supremacist jihad doctrine that propelled such conquests. With shifting power balances between Western and Islamic civilization across the centuries, Islamic empires gave way to the European colonialism that subjugated many Islamic lands.

Westerners colonizing Muslims, Green has argued, realized that “with imperial projects there must be some ‘other’, and this ‘other’ must be demonized and dehumanized in order for the imperial nation to galvanize popular support.” The “neo-imperialism” of rival Cold War superpowers followed European colonialism. Even post-Cold War, “much of U.S. foreign policy is incomprehensible apart from understanding that we are still engaged in the imperial project.”

Casting Muslims as passive victims of Western aggression, Green believes that such stereotypes influence Americans today who “have seen and continue to see Muslims in many parts of the world as obstacles to our imperial ambitions.” In the Huffington Post, he emphasizes the “history of Western interventionism in Muslim-majority contexts, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. exploitation of energy resources in the Middle East, the legacy of European colonialism.” The oft-debated question “Is ISIS [the Islamic State in Iraq and (Greater) Syria] Islamic?” is merely a “thinly veiled form of Islamophobia intended to heighten our fears of Islam while absolving the U.S. of its own responsibility in contributing to the rise to ISIS.”

“Religion is rarely the driving force behind terrorism,” Green’s article claims, befitting his oft-disproved analysis that socioeconomic disadvantage, not Islamic doctrine, lies behind jihadist violence. At LPC, he described Muslims joining ISIS because of factors like discrimination in Europe or oppression from Middle Eastern dictatorships, just as socioeconomic factors might influence Westerners to join rightwing movements. “White Christians have an empire to hide behind.  Many of these young men joining ISIS don’t.  When you are politically disenfranchised you will sometimes find other ways to find power.”

In identifying “Islamophobia’s” past and present purveyors, Green resorts to well-worn, hackneyed tropes. He embraces the fraudulent Edward Said’s Orientalism thesis that “knowledge about Islam coming from Orientalism was being distorted by the imperial project.” Past Western Islamic studies served not intellectual inquiry, but rather “knowledge for the sake of control” over Muslims.

Green today castigates “professional Islamophobes” supposedly motivated by pure malice, such as Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes, Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer, and Geert Wilders. “From the time they wake up in the morning to the time they go to bed at night, their job is to figure out ‘how can I better demonize Muslims today.’” While “Islamophobia” often appears among conservatives, it is “more dangerous in the way it manifests itself among those who claim to be liberal,” such as talk show host Bill Maher, Green noted at LPC. He meanwhile makes the common yet baseless claim that “Islamophobia” forms a well-funded “powerful industry,” while the “anti-Islamophobia side does not pay quite as well” for individuals like him.

Contrastingly, in Green’s estimation Islamic belief seemingly can cause no harm, as he rejects “misconceptions” that “sharia law is somehow incompatible with democracy or with the West.” “The overwhelming majority of Muslims” globally “really are trying to practice their religion that helps them and their fellow human beings flourish,” he has argued. At LPC he added that “I hate the language of ‘radical Islamic terrorism’” and its “simplistic understanding that Islam programs people to be violent.”

Islamic rule past and present thus raises few concerns for Green while he condemns the United States for having supported dictators like Iran’s shah. Like many academics, he whitewashes Islam’s often brutal, subjugated “status of dhimmis or protected minorities” for non-Muslims, stating that “for much of the history of Islam Christians and Jews were protected and lived in peace with Muslims.” Today Americans in the Middle East should “be very consistent when it comes to supporting democratic movements, even if that means risking losing an alliance with an autocratic government,” irrespective of such “democratic” results in 1979 Iran and 2011 Egypt.

More often than not, non-Muslims draw Green’s criticism. Writing in Sojourners, he approved of President Barack Obama’s regurgitation of the common canard that the Crusades were unjustified aggression, not a just war defensive response to jihadist conquests. “Obama did his best at the National Prayer Breakfast in February [2015] to address the legacy of violence carried out in the name of Christianity.” Green also has falsely relativized that the “Bible has its fair share of violent texts” along with the Quran, thereby ignoring fundamental differences between violent verses in these two scriptures.

Green’s Huffington Post writings betray a less than stirring defense of free speech against jihadist censorship. Geller and Spencer’s 2015 Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, where security guards killed two Muslim assailants, merely exemplified “hate rallies that engage in Muslim-bashing under the pretense of defending freedom of speech.” Reviewing Iran’s 1989 blasphemy death sentence for British writer Salman Rushdie, Green mused that “minorities rarely have possessed the same opportunities to shape public opinion as those with political power or cultural capital.” Therefore, “Rushdie and some of his more outspoken supporters adopted a fairly uncritical approach to freedom of expression, assuming at times that this freedom benefits all members of Western societies equally.”

For Green, individual relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims are the antidote to what he has called a “perfect storm of Islamophobia” in a French television interview. He laments supposedly skewed media representations emphasizing Islam’s violence while “there simply are not enough strong relationships in the West between Muslims who are in the minority and the non-Muslim majority.” As one venue for interfaith outreach, he advocates the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)-derived Muslim Students Association (MSA), which he addressed in 2010 at Minnesota’s St. Cloud State University.

One of Green’s book interviewees, Muslim congressman Keith Ellison, currently under fire for his anti-Israel statements and extremists Islamist affiliations, presents for Green the kind of Muslim people should befriend. “If you have a really jaded, negative view of politicians and think that they are intellectually disengaged, you should have a conversation with Keith Ellison, and you will change your mind,” Green has stated about the Minnesota representative. Accordingly, Green’s wife and fellow leftist, Tabita, has written about how he took Luther College students from their Iowa campus on a field trip to Ellison’s Minneapolis mosque, where the radical imam Siraj Wahaj has been a featured speaker. Tabita also noted that the field trip included a visit to the Minnesota chapter of the Hamas-derived Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) “to learn about their civil rights work.”

Green’s tweets round out his Islamist sympathies. In one, he calls the radical, anti-Semitic Woman’s March on Washington organizer Linda Sarsour a “shining star in the battle against racism and bigotry” and therefore “#ImarchwithLinda.” In another, his CAIR and MSA affiliations apparently make him worry that “[d]esignating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist org. will open the door to witch hunts aimed @ Muslim civil liberties groups.”

Yet even Green recognizes that interfaith relations with Muslims are not without their pitfalls. “You want to see a nonstarter happen,” he has indicated in his various appearances, including at LPC, then introduce the subject of “Palestine” between Jews and Muslims. Before tackling such hot topics, he recommends that interfaith groups undertake noncontroversial community projects like Habitat for Humanity homebuilding; “I tend to prefer more organic relationships to evolve,” he has stated. Apparently then, Jewish legal legend Alan Dershowitz should build a house with Ellison before deciding to leave the Democratic Party if he becomes the Democratic National Committee chairman.

Reality belies Green’s “getting to know you” thesis in which individual relationships with Muslims dispel reservations towards Islam that actually come from the faith’s hard facts, not imagined prejudice. Numerous Christians from Muslim-majority countries have impressed upon this author Islam’s oppressive nature towards non-Muslims, even though these individuals lack no opportunity to meet Muslims as Green bemoans in the United States. Likewise Europe’s significantly larger Muslim populations, recently increased by an influx of “refugees,” have done little to improve Islam’s popularity.

The arguments of Green, who by self-admission is by training a student of American and European religious history, not Islamic studies, might impress his fellow leftists as indicated by his largely positive reception at LPC. Paralleling the Obama Administration’s State Department, LPC has made an appeal to “Actively Support the Boycott of Products Made in Israeli Settlements” and is pro-LGBT. Yet individuals like James Lafferty, head of Christians Against Radical Islam (CARI), indicated during audience questions why skepticism is warranted. He recalled a local presentation 25 years ago by Anwar al-Awlaki, an imam once feted as a Muslim “moderate” and later killed in Yemen as an Al Qaeda supporter by a 2011 American drone strike. “He said many times exactly the same words I have heard tonight,” Lafferty noted.

Kerry: People can’t tell ‘what’s real and what isn’t’

December 3, 2016

Kerry: People can’t tell ‘what’s real and what isn’t’, Washington ExaminerJoel Gehrke, December 2, 1016

(Alas, soon John Kerry will not have an official podium from which to tell us, the stupid little people, what’s true and what’s false. — DM)

kerryandlittlepeopleKerry lamented Friday that technology has allowed the quick spread of false information. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

“There are divisions and places where they divide, but there’s a fundamental oneness, sameness, body of basis,” he said. “And I would respectfully submit to all of you that every single major philosophy, every single major religion, all have a basis in some pretty fundamental things like the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love other people. You can run the list of the verses or — I think we all refer to them as verses, actually — that are of a common foundation.”

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

Secretary of State John Kerry lamented Friday that technology has allowed the quick spread of false information to the point that people are struggling to “know what’s real and what isn’t.”

“This is one of our chief challenges today, is to manage information and to do it in a way that average folks at home can know what’s real and what isn’t, what’s true, what’s false, and try to build consensus around a common set of understandings,” Kerry said during the Mediterranean Dialogues Conference in Rome. “Technology has brought the world closer, yes; but it’s also enabled bigots and demagogues to spread messages of divisiveness and hate with the click of a button, with the push of a finger.”

That focus on misinformation was apparent whether he was talking about the risk of jihadist recruiters propagandizing young Muslims or pushing back against the trade skepticism now regnant in the United States. “Now, none of us should have any illusion about the challenges that we face. They are real, and frankly, they require our collective courage,” Kerry continued. “And, I might add, they require all of those things based on truth.”

He offered counterarguments to such ideas throughout his talk, beginning with the problem of terrorist propaganda. Kerry argued, contrary to jihadists, that all the great religions of the Mediterranean world share a common set of ethics.

“There are divisions and places where they divide, but there’s a fundamental oneness, sameness, body of basis,” he said. “And I would respectfully submit to all of you that every single major philosophy, every single major religion, all have a basis in some pretty fundamental things like the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love other people. You can run the list of the verses or — I think we all refer to them as verses, actually — that are of a common foundation.”

More broadly, Kerry faulted media outlets for contributing to an unnecessary degree of fear among their audiences and lamented the skepticism of trade agreements and climate change science that undermined some of the Obama administration’s top second-term priorities. “Despite what some pundits write in the daily headlines that cause people a lot of fear, the world today is not falling apart,” Kerry said. “On the contrary, I think it is in many respects coming together. But it’s coming together with this clash of modernity and culture and religion and the fear of the dislocation that comes with it.”

Environmental policy and trade policy were two areas where Kerry suggested misinformation had taken hold in the west. “There are some truths, folks. Hard sometimes for people to discern, but it is true that the Earth is warming even as we have climate deniers in the world today,” he said.

He seemed particularly annoyed at “politicians running today damning the concept of trade,” following an election year that saw both Hillary Clinton and President-elect Trump campaign against the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that he helped negotiate.

“Ladies and gentlemen, 85 percent of the job loss in the United States of America comes from technology, not trade,” Kerry said. “But if you think we’ve seen dislocation to date, just wait ’til artificial intelligence comes down the road. We have challenges that we need to get ahead of, and we have an extraordinary breach, if you will, between those who want to sort of take the simplistic road of pretending they have answers for these things but shooting at the wrong target versus those who are willing to think about facts and deal with science and build on experience and talk reality to the people of whatever country it is that they’re talking in.”