Posted tagged ‘President Elect Trump’

Crying Wolf on Race: Top Sessions Critic Gerry Hebert Has History of Making it Up

November 19, 2016

Crying Wolf on Race: Top Sessions Critic Gerry Hebert Has History of Making it Up, PJ MediaJ. Christian Adams, November 18, 2016

sessions

Gerry Hebert, the leading critic of the appointment of Senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general, has a history of making things up about racial issues — so much so, in fact, that a federal court imposed sanctions in one of Hebert’s voting cases.

Reporters like Cameron Joseph at the New York Daily News (@cam_joseph) have already used quotes from Gerry Hebert, a former Justice Department lawyer, to portray Senator Sessions as a racist. Almost 30 years ago, Hebert and his allies in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department were responsible for sabotaging a judicial nomination for Sessions.

gerry-hebertGerry Hebert

The reporters using Hebert as a source do not mention Hebert’s history of making up stories about purported racism, yet documentation of that history is easily located in the public record. Hebert’s exaggerations about racism in one federal court case resulted in sanctions being imposed by a federal judge, costing the United States taxpayer $86,626.

As I wrote in my book Injustice, Hebert is not to be trusted as a credible source:

In United States v. Jones, the Voting Section was sanctioned $86,626 for bringing a frivolous case in Alabama. The DOJ brought the suit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to block over fifty white voters from participating in an election in a majority black district.The appeals court ruled that the lawsuit was filed “without conducting a proper investigation of its truth [and was] unconscionable … Hopefully, we will not again be faced with reviewing a case as carelessly instigated as this one.”

You can read the entire scolding Hebert received from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals — for bringing a flimsy case that relied on trumped-up exaggerations about racism — here.

The court ruled:

A properly conducted investigation would have quickly revealed that there was no basis for the claim that the Defendants were guilty of purposeful discrimination against black voters …Unfortunately, we cannot restore the reputation of the persons wrongfully branded by the United States as public officials who deliberately deprived their fellow citizens of their voting rights. We also lack the power to remedy the damage done to race relations in Dallas County by the unfounded accusations of purposeful discrimination made by the United States.

We can only hope that in the future the decision makers in the United States Department of Justice will be more sensitive to the impact on racial harmony that can result from the filing of a claim of purposeful discrimination.

So ironically — or of course — the media rushed to press using Gerry Hebert as THEcredible source on perhaps THE ONE TOPIC where Gerry Hebert kinda should be scratched off as a possible source.

Hebert is up to his old tricks, now wrongly branding a good man in Senator Sessions. But it’s worse than that.

Notice the scolding the Court gave Hebert about the damage to race relations caused by these Justice Department lawyers. Hebert’s attack on Sessions is now doing the same, using phony stories to smear a good man.

Hans von Spakovsky covered Hebert’s flimsy racial accusations here:

Not only did Hebert lose, but Justice was castigated by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Jones, 125 F.3d 1418 (1997), for what it concluded was “a very troubling case.” (Hebert is listed as the Justice counsel of record in the district court opinion, U.S. v. Jones, 846 F.Supp. 955 (1994)).

Let’s watch how many reporters continue to rely on Gerry Hebert as a source to smear Senator Sessions.

Let’s see if any of those reporters include Hebert’s history of racial exaggerations, claiming that racism was at play when it wasn’t.

Reporters who take Hebert seriously on charges of racism should be held accountable to their editors.

In the meantime, Hebert is only making it worse for his pals in the Civil Rights Division. Some of the lawyers who attacked Sessions are still working there, and so are their friends and allies. Seems a good time for them to update their resumes.

The Michael Flynn Selection

November 19, 2016

The Michael Flynn Selection, Power LinePaul Mirengoff, November 18, 2016

Donald Trump has selected Michael Flynn to be his national security adviser. The selection is a natural one. Flynn was Trump’s go-to guy on national security matters during the campaign.

The retired Lt. General is already under attack on a number of fronts, both personal and substantive. The focus should be on substance.

I don’t know Flynn’s views on the full range of national security related topics. I agree with his line on two vital issues — ISIS and Iran. His general view of the threat posed by Islam also strikes me as sound, if not always expressed with sufficient nuance.

As for Russia, Flynn will continue to take fire for his recent trip to Moscow. However, as we noted here, Flynn criticized Russian foreign policy while in Moscow.

Flynn’s recent book, discussed below, also comes down on Russia. It takes issue with the view, advanced by Trump, that Russia can be a reliable partner in the fight against ISIS in Syria.

Keep this in mind as those speaking out against Flynn make him out to be pro-Putin. Critics of the Russian autocrat may end of being pleased that Trump is getting advice from Flynn.

Folks who have heard Flynn speak — be it at the Republican Convention, on cable news, or in person — may share my impression that he isn’t very articulate. Flynn probably comes across well in conversation, though. Otherwise, it’s unlikely that Trump would elevate him to national security adviser, however loyal Flynn has been. Indeed, it’s unlikely that Flynn would gotten Trump’s ear to begin with.

Flynn’s views on the all-important issue of combating radical Islam come through clearly in the book, mentioned above, that he wrote with out friend Michael Ledeen — The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies. In evaluating Flynn’s approach to radical Islam, his book, not his tweets or off-hand comments, should be the touchstone.

Finally, when critics complain that Flynn’s selection is just a reward for his loyalty to Trump, think of Susan Rice, the current national security adviser. She got the job after loyally peddling the Obama-Clinton tale that the attacks in Benghazi were due to an anti-Islam video.

Flynn may be loyal, but to my knowledge he never spread falsehoods on behalf of Trump.

Is Flynn an ideal national security adviser? Not in my view. However, he’s the voice Trump wants most to hear on national security issues. I believe that most of what Trump hears from Flynn will be sound.

Nigel Farage on The Year of Political Revolution

November 18, 2016

Nigel Farage on The Year of Political Revolution, Front Page Magazine, November 18,2016

nigelfarage

Below are the video and transcript of Nigel Farage’s address at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2016 Restoration Weekend. The event was held November 10th-13th in Palm Beach, FL.

https://vimeo.com/191621313

Nigel Farage from DHFC on Vimeo.

Nigel Farage: Wow, wow, well, thank you very much indeed, and thank you to David and the Freedom Center, and thank you for that wonderful warm introduction. You know, often there are decades in which very little happens. And occasionally there’s a year in which decades happen, and I think when our grandchildren, great–grandchildren look back at the history of this period of time, 2016 will be the year of political revolution; the year that changed everything.

Now, I never had any doubt after Brexit that what we managed to achieve was possible here in the United States of America, and the parallels, the crossover between the debates and the arguments and the type of people that were motivated to vote for Brexit and vote for Trump are really very interesting. But, what I’m really enjoying, what I’m really enjoying even more than the independence of my own nation, even more than President–Elect Trump, what I’m really enjoying are the faces of the media on CNN.

It is as if they’re in mourning, isn’t it? They simply can’t face up to the idea that there are people out there that don’t share their own very narrow metropolitan view, and I’m enjoying that enormously. My goodness me, they’re right to be worried because this revolution that has taken place in Britain and now on a much bigger scale here in the United States of America is, I hope and believe, gonna roll out over the course of the next couple of years across the entire Western world. We are going to get our democracy back.

Now, I got involved in this — I was actually in business. I had a proper job before politics. How about that? It seems pretty amazing, doesn’t it? You know, certainly Westminster is full of a group of college kids who go straight into the Houses of Parliament in their early 20s who have never had a job in their lives, who don’t really believe in very much, and they are professional career politicians. What they worry about is getting reelected. What they worry about is playing safe, and because of that, and because of the direction of the media, we have suffered now from decades of political correctness where no one dares stand up and speak their mind. They’re frightened of being criticized.

Actually, when we use the term political correctness, we aren’t really being accurate. What it really represents is a crackdown on our democratic rights and liberties, a crackdown on freedom of speech. That is what has been going on. And I know exactly what Donald Trump has gone through over the last few months. In fact, I think that Trump and myself are the most reviled people by the media across the entire West, but you know what, I’m happy to be judged by my enemies. I have no problem with that. But my journey on this was as a businessman who had never been actively involved in politics, although I was a massive supporter of Thatcher and Reagan back in the 1980s, and I thought they gave hope and wealth to tens and tens of millions of people.

But, I got involved in politics because I simply could not believe that my country, my ancient country, who had done more than anyone to develop the concept of parliamentary democracy had been happy for a career political class hand–in–glove with big multinational businesses and banks to progressively piece by piece give away our ability to make our own laws, to run our own country, and, crucially, to control our own borders. And, I thought, well the hell with this, I’m gonna stand and fight. And it was a very long fight. In fact, it took me nearly 25 years to win this battle. But, for the last 10 or 15 of them, the reason that I suffered personally at the hands of these people is because I dared to touch on a subject that through political correctness, through the crackdown on freedom of speech, had effectively become banned in the United Kingdom. You were not allowed in British politics to even discuss immigration. It had been banned. And despite the fact that we signed up to complete open borders with nearly half-a-billion people within the European Union, despite the fact we’ve had a growth of international jihadi terrorism, no, we weren’t allowed to even discuss the issue. So, I did talk about immigration, and I did take the brickbats for years, and I’m pleased to say that, actually, the main reason we got Brexit is because ordinary people had simply had enough of open door mass immigration driving down their wages, stopping them getting access to public services, and seeing social change within their communities the likes of which they’d never experienced before.

You know, it’s not just about controlling our borders and numbers and economics. There is an issue of culture here. There is a big issue of culture. You know, I come from a country that is a Christian country within its very constitution, and I believe that you can stand up and defend Christian values and Christian culture without giving offense to any other religious minority, but it’s time we had leaders that recognize that. And I think in the same way in this campaign here in America, Trump dared to talk about issues that everybody had brushed under the carpet that everybody else found too difficult. What kind of message does it send to people in this country if illegal immigrants that come into America from Mexico are given pardons after a few years? What message does that send to Mexicans who have actually gone through the process and done it legally and done it properly? And I have to say I admire Trump. I admire him for having the courage to put immigration at the front and center of this campaign. Well done him.

But something even worse than that had happened to our political classes. It’s what I call in Britain the “victory of social democracy.” It was parties that had been on the left and parties that had been on the right who decided to merge together in the middle where, frankly, you couldn’t put a cigarette paper between the manifestos of these parties at successive general elections. It was part of this process of professionalizing politics. It was part of the not wishing to cause offense. It was part of not wishing to take any risks and certainly, as far as the British political system had become, we were run by a group of people who all went to the same handful of schools, who all went to the same university, who all studied the same degree, who all went straight into politics and who all married each other’s sisters. That is what had happened to British politics.

And nobody was daring to say anything, but at the same time, look, it happened here, didn’t it? I mean, come on, look at the last presidential election. What were the big ideological fault lines that existed between Obama and Mitt Romney? I couldn’t spot them. I genuinely couldn’t spot them. It didn’t actually make a fundamental difference whether you had Obama or Romney. Yeah, sure, there are issues of policy, but there weren’t fundamental issues of principle. And all this was happening whilst our leaders in Britain, but yours, too, in America, were happy to give away increasingly your powers to make your own decisions, whether it’s signing up to the Paris Deal, whether it’s Hillary Clinton’s vision, which I’m pleased we got from that secret Wall Street tape recording where she saw the European Union as a prototype for a bigger form of world government; where you in America increasingly would have had your laws made somewhere else. This fight back matters, and I tell you above all what the history books will say is that 2016 was the year that nation state democracy and people being proud of their own identity came back onto the agenda.

And I was sneered at, condescended to for daring to say that I was proud to be British, for daring to say that I believed in our nation. It was as if I’d said something dreadful. Well, just to prove the point … [Laughter.] And, again, Trump’s big slogan “Make America Great Again.” You’re in no doubt, are you, when that guy speaks that he believes in this country, he believes in its people, and he believes in your ability to take things forward. So that’s good. And I also think what we’ve done similarly together is we have rejected this desperate creep of corporatism; the business by which the big businesses now effectively own the political class. They and the lobbyists basically set the rule book and set the agenda for how industries are run, and while it may be burdensome to big business to put up with laws, it suits them because it puts out of business or it prevents entry into the market of small and medium–sized business. And I think one of the debates that we need to have, and it probably will start in America — isn’t it funny? Normally, America catches a cold, and London sneezes. You are normally 20 years ahead of us in terms of most social and technological trends. I’m pleased to say that with Brexit this time we showed you the right way to go.

But here’s the debate that we need to have. We need to recognize, in my opinion, that we are no longer a free market capitalist society. That is gone. All those things that Reagan and Thatcher did so much to create, environments and societies and communities in which the individual, the small man or woman, could set up a business in whatever sector they chose and if they did well, make money and succeed. Increasingly, that is not happening, and increasingly, the voters who voted Brexit and who voted for Trump are recognizing that this world of big global corporatism gives them no room, and I hope and I pray that Trump quickly puts into place the Reaganite bits of his agenda. When he talked about deregulating small businesses to give them an even break — please, President Trump, do that as quickly as you can.

When he talks about tax cuts and giving people real incentives and giving a boost to spending within the economy, I totally agree and support that and, frankly, I think it is overdue but genius that somebody in this country recognizes that your rates of corporation tax are completely and totally absurd and that if Trump cuts corporation tax hundreds of billions of dollars will flow back into this country. So, I wish him Godspeed with all of those things.

Because it seems to me that for Trump to succeed with the rest of his agenda he first has to get the economy heading in the right direction, and I think all the ingredients are there. It was funny, wasn’t it, on that little video you saw, the IMF bus saying that if we voted Brexit there’d be some terrible economic decline. We also saw Obama coming to my country looking down his nose at us, telling us we weren’t good enough to run ourselves. Gosh, I’m pleased we’re all seeing the back of him.

And what of the future? Well, today is the 11th of November. Today is the 98th anniversary of the signing of the Armistice that ended the first World War, and I think it is worth reflecting. I really do believe it is worth reflecting. In fact, one of the things that got me into politics were the massive sacrifices that the generations that went before us had to make to overcome tyranny and to give us liberty and democracy, and I was damned if I was gonna see all of that sacrifice thrown away by career politicians. I really was.

But it is worth reflecting on today of all days that our two countries, between us, without us there would have been no victory over Nazi Germany. It simply couldn’t have happened. We held the fort, just about. Just about. We were lucky, but we got there, and by the way, we also were led by a man called Winston Churchill, and I want to see his bust back in the oval office. My critics in the British media always say, “Nigel Farage, he’s always photographed with a pint of beer” and “Does he drink too much to be in politics?” To which I always say, “Compared to Winston Churchill, I’m a mere beginner.”

We have done between us some fantastic things for the Free World. We’ve done it at great cost to ourselves. You guys even more than us. You know, we were directly in the line of fire. Yes, you had Pearl Harbor, but you came and helped us. You came and assisted us. And I now believe that a United Kingdom that has voted for Brexit, and a United Kingdom that will get Brexit — yes, of course, there’ll be attempts through the Houses of Parliament and through the courts. There’ll be attempts to slow us down. There’ll be attempts to delay us, but believe me, it isn’t going to work. If we get betrayed, if we were to get betrayed on our Brexit vote, you would then see a political revolution in Britain that we haven’t seen since the English civil war. So believe me, it is going to happen.

But I think it’s important in this modern world for both of us that we use the opportunity of an independent United Kingdom and a Trump presidency to start talking about some of these issues again, and I generally do. In terms of trade, I completely understand why Trump has reservations about China. I understand why he has reservations about countries undercutting, about countries dumping steel or whatever else it may be, but I do genuinely think that we don’t need to go through a big corporatist dream. We don’t need to go through resolution courts that go above our own parliaments and courts. I just simply believe that if you look at the business relationship between your country and my country we are both massive investors in each other’s country. We share a language, we share a similar legal system, we share many similar economic interests, and I think if there’s one country that President Trump might do a trade deal with, unlike Obama, sneering at us and telling us we’d be at the back of the line, I think Trump wants us to be at the front of the line, and what a great message that would be.

But, I also believe we need to think very seriously about security. Now, one of the reasons I think that in the end that although Trump was the anti–establishment candidate, he began to get the support of a big chunk of the establishment, and by that I mean the military and the police and who knows, maybe some even in the FBI. So, but one of the reasons is that Hillary could not even bring herself to say the words “Islamic terrorism.” Couldn’t even bring herself to say it. She was in complete denial, and I think we’ve all got to be honest and face up to the fact that the great challenge that the world faces, the great challenge our kids face, is this new evil that exists on this earth, and we’re going to have to be resolute and work together as friends and partners to deal with this problem. That, I think, is very important. Very important indeed.

And, then I think we need to talk and debate and think about the future of NATO. Now, NATO has served an enormously valuable role. But the difficulty with NATO is once the Berlin Wall fell, the clear enemy that had existed for all those decades suddenly wasn’t there. And at no point since 1990 have members of NATO sat down and genuinely debated what the role of NATO is in a post-Soviet Union world. I think we need to have a defensive alliance, but I think we need to redefine it, and I’m gonna say, I think President–Elect Trump is right when he says that America should not be expected to go on paying all the bills. I genuinely do.

And I think the conduit between President Trump when he’s there and the rest of NATO members is the United Kingdom. We are the people with a foot in both camps. We are the people, I hope and believe, who can bring us together. Let’s not throw NATO out because it has been valuable to us since the late 1940s, but let’s be grown up and let’s redefine what it’s there for and what it actually means, and that matters. And, I, for myself, have to say what an absolute honor it was to be invited by Trump’s team to come to America and to appear on that stage with him in Mississippi. I’ve tried to make British politics and European Parliament politics a little more spicy than perhaps people were used to. But I regularly get fined for behaving badly and it’s okay. It’s all cheap advertising, you know. But, I have to say coming to a Trump rally was quite unlike anything I’d ever attended in my life. It was amazing. It was amazing, and it’s perhaps worth reflecting that I’m the only elected politician in the entire United Kingdom who had a single good word to say about Trump during that whole campaign. Once again, I was taking abuse from everybody, but I’m used to it. It’s okay. It’s not a problem. No, I was pleased to do that and I was pleased to come back and to attend all of the debates and to act as a commentator from overseas on the relative merits of Trump versus Clinton. I just struggled to find the merits of Clinton. It wasn’t very easy to balance that, but I’m thrilled to have played a part in this, and I’m thrilled that Brexit has provided an inspiration, I think, for many campaigners out there. You know, we showed you that the little guys can beat the big guys. We showed you that a free people, provided their spirit is undiminished, can overcome, bad can beat evil, and you’ve now done it on an even bigger and better scale.

And I’m now gonna be going and doing a bit of tour of Europe. I spoke in Barcelona on Wednesday of this week. I spoke in Stockholm on Friday of last week, and I’m now traveling around the rest of the European Union, and my message to them is this: I am not, as they term me, anti–European. Of course I’m not. I’m married to a woman who was born in Germany. I mean no one needs to tell me about the dangers of living in a German–dominated household. I get it. (I know it’s a cheap shot, but I like it.) The point is this: Europe is very different to the United States of America. These are ancient countries that have no desire to merge together. They are different. There are different religions in the north and in the south. There are different cultures of work, different patents, different means of trade, and I actually want to champion a Europe of democratic independent nation states that work together, trade together, and act as good next–door neighbors with each other. But you could never get to that all the while you’ve got this monolithic European structure that intends to steal powers from all those individual countries. So, I will be going around the whole of Europe taking this message that actually you can beat the system. All you have to do is have the courage to stand up against what you’re being told, and if I’m told that I’ve wrecked Britain’s relationship with the European Union, well, I did my best to get Britain out of the European Union. I now want to get Europe out of the European Union. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I noticed last night when I was bumping into you that lots of you, apart from those who wanted selfies, lots of you wanted to ask questions, and it’s been the same this morning. So what I’ve done is I’ve left lots of time for questions. So, please put your hands up, and we’ve got some roving microphones that are going to go around, and I will do my very best to answer as many of them as I can.

Audience Member:

Thank you, Nigel. It’s okay, I’m American now. Thank you for your bravery. You mentioned Churchill, and Churchill spent years in the wilderness, and we are very grateful for what you’ve done to come out of the wilderness and win the fight. What we’d like to hear from you now is some reassuring words about how the elite can’t disrail the Brexit reality. Can you talk to us about your expectations for the next year or two?

Nigel Farage:

Yes, the elite — they call themselves the liberal elite, and I can’t fathom this because, actually, in a historical sense, they’re the most illiberal people the world’s ever seen. You know, Gladstonian liberalism was about individual liberty and choice and helping the poor and the weak. This lot want to ban everything. This lot want to control everything. This lot have set the agendas of speech through political correctness and this lot don’t accept referendum results or election results that they don’t like. Look at those people rioting on the streets of New York and out in LA. You know, you’re seeing a taste of it here in America, aren’t you? You’re seeing people who simply can’t live up to it.

Now the European Union, when the Danes voted no to Maastricht back in the 1990s, they were forced to vote again until they got the right result. Twice the Irish have rejected European constitutions and been forced to vote again in completely rigged loaded referendums where one side outspent the other side by a factor of 100 to 1. We’ve seen the French referendum on the European constitution, the Dutch referendum on that and the Ukraine deal, and we’ve seen them simply be ignored. So, there is a tradition here of them ignoring. I remember being in the European parliament after the Irish had said no to the Lisbon Treaty, and it was an amazing day. I’d actually used a huge lump of the European Parliament’s money. It’s called the information budget. It’s supposed to be used to promote European Union values to member states. Well, my lawyer said there was nothing to say you couldn’t spend it saying that it was a bad idea. So, I sent a booklet, an eight–page booklet to every house in Ireland telling them why the Lisbon Treaty was a bad idea, and the Irish prime minister the next day said Nigel Farage almost single handedly has derailed the democratic process of Ireland, and I thought, “Oh, please.”

But the point is the victory was very short–lived. I remember that next day, Barroso, Jose Manuel Barroso, he was the European Commission President at the time, a former Maoist, so he was quite well suited for that job, wasn’t he really? I remember him saying, “Oh no, the people didn’t really vote no.” And, I said, “What part of the word ‘no’ don’t you understand?” Look, they’re trying. They’re trying to redefine the referendum result. They’re trying to say it wasn’t about the single market. There are lots of attempts being made and one of the ways that we do need help is we need help from America. Because if President Trump makes it clear that actually the United Kingdom is a priority in terms of security, defense, and trade, that signal starts to put massive pressure on the naysayers in our country, and, indeed, on the Brussels process. So, actually, Trump saying positive things is going to make our life one whole lot easier. They will try and stop us. They will try and delay us, but they won’t be able to because here’s the difference. When the Dutch and the French and the Irish and the Danes were overruled, they shrugged their shoulders, and said, “Oh well, there we are.” That ain’t gonna happen. You know, that isn’t going to happen. And, I promise you, if Brexit by 2019 has led into a betrayal, there will then be an earthquake in British politics and the existing parties will be swept off the table, and because of that they’ll wince, they’ll whine, they’ll moan, they’ll cry a bit on television, which I’ll like, but in the end, believe me, Brexit will mean Brexit.

Audience Member:

Thank you for your courage. I, too, am an American by choice. I guess it’s all immigrants today who are going to speak. But back in the ’60s when I was a young guy I lived in the former English city of London, and during that time you had a politician, Enoch Powell, who gave the famous River of Blood speech. Could you talk about what that speech meant to immigration?

Nigel Farage:

Yes I can. In fact, it was the 20th of April 1968 in Birmingham Town Hall, and I’m not very good at the accent, but he said, “Those whom the gods wish to destroy first they make mad. And we must be mad to allow the unqualified flow of tens of thousands of migrants into Britain every single year.” And he went on to say — and, in fact, he predicted this at the start of the speech. Because at the start of the speech he said, “Even now I can hear the howls of execration. How could I say such a horrible thing?” But he went on to say that if it continued like this — and he was a classical scholar. In fact, he was, just briefly for those who haven’t heard of Enoch Powell, this extraordinary fellow, was the youngest professor in the British Empire. He was professor of Greek at Sydney University age 25. It was then 1939, so he came back to England and joined the Royal Warwickshire Regiment, and by 1944 he was the youngest brigadier in the British Army. I mean, the bloke was extraordinary in every way. But he said, “I feel like the Roman standing on the banks of the Tiber foaming with much blood.” And, of course, it became known as the Rivers of Blood speech.

The problem with that speech was this: That you need to be in politics if you’re there, not just for a career, but you’re there to change things, to move things on, you need to be ahead of public opinion to try and be a magnet and to bring public opinion and bits of the media and change with you. I’ve done that throughout the last 20 years. I’ve tried to keep putting the flag further and further out in the ground, but there’s a problem if you go too far ahead, and you go to a place the people simply aren’t ready to even conceive. And it led to the destruction of the career of, without doubt, the most talented post–war politician in Britain. But it did something else. It also allowed that liberal media elite to make immigration a banned subject. And from 1968 until me in 2003–4, nobody with a sensible voice or view in British politics dared to touch the subject, so the irony was that Powell was right in many ways, not in every way, but right in many ways. The irony was he stopped it being a debate, and that’s my analysis.

One last quick point on Powell, he was the first Euro-skeptic. He was the first person who saw the European Union not as a common market but as a political project. And in the general election of February 1974 he said he would not stand as a candidate in the election, and nobody could quite believe that a man who was not very far away, perhaps, from becoming a prime minister at one point, wouldn’t stand in the election. And he, two days before the general election, booked the City Hall in Birmingham, his home city, and gave a speech at which he said he urged British voters to vote for the Labor Party. Now, my parents just simply couldn’t believe this. You know, how could the buttoned–up, conservative brigadier, the darling of the right of British politics, advocate voting for a socialist party, but the reason was that the socialists said we could have a referendum on our common market membership. So the very highly principled man — and there was an amazing moment in that speech when somebody at the back of the room shouted at Powell, “Judas.” And he stared at the man and he pointed. He said, “No, Judas was paid; I’m making a sacrifice.” How about that?

Moderator:

All right, we have time for one more question, and then after this question, we’re gonna move back into the breakout room. But last question here.

Audience Member:

I’m sure that President Trump would be honored to have the bust of Winston Churchill back in the White House. Do you think you can make arrangements to have that done?

Nigel Farage:

Yeah, I’ll tell you what. I’ll do my very best, and I’m gonna go one better than that in some ways. I was at the convention in Cleveland, which I went to. I became friendly with the Mississippi delegation, and I went down and stayed with the governor, Phil Bryant, in Mississippi, and he has got so many books and memorabilia about Churchill. I think we all admire, all of us in the Western world who believe in freedom and liberty, admire this amazing man who, of course, had an American mother, so the link is incredibly strong. Anyway, Governor Bryant is coming to England next April to the Farnborough Air Show, big international air show, and I’ve already agreed that I will take Governor Bryant to Chartwell, Churchill’s home, and give him a personal guided tour. And if anybody else wants to come and see Chartwell, I’m your man to show you around, so there you are. And can I just say thank you very much for this invitation, this opportunity to speak to you today, to meet many of you, and remember what I said at the beginning that in years to come people will look back in 2016 as the year that changed everything, and now we have to be strong. We have to be full of resolve. We have to make sure we don’t give any daylight in that door to let those bad people who gave away our democracy and risked our liberty and freedom a chance to come back. We’re in charge now, let’s stay there.

How Trump Can Stop Obama from Closing Gitmo

November 18, 2016

How Trump Can Stop Obama from Closing Gitmo, American ThinkerEd Lasky, November 18, 2016

Donald Trump can stop Barack Obama from continuing to free terrorists, and the sooner he acts, the better.

Barack Obama is a lame-duck president and, empowered by his pen and a phone (the only weapons he has ever held, no doubt) is determined to continue to carve out a dubious legacy for himself. He had promised to close Guantanamo prison during his first presidential campaign and on the second day in office he issued one of his numerous executive orders to come, this one directing that the prison be closed within one year.

Terrorists were big supporters of Barack Obama. At Gitmo they were chanting “Obama! Obama! Obama!” during election night and when he won started chanting to their guards and prosecutors the refrain “Hey, hey…goodbye”

President Obama was stymied in his efforts to transfer many of them to American prisons when Republicans led an effort (joined by many Democrats) to pass a law that forbade prisoners from being moved into American prisons.  But Barack Obama has found another way to release these terrorists (or “detainees” as liberals call them) by working to depict them as less of a threat than they are and then releasing them into the custody of foreign governments.

As Stephen Hayes has written in a Weekly Standard column, “Lying About Gitmo,” Obama and his team have been lying about the backgrounds and records of these terrorists to downgrade their threats to Americans and others around the world:

Let’s begin with the conclusion: Barack Obama is releasing dangerous terrorists against the recommendations of military and intelligence professionals, he’s doing so at a time when the threat level from radical Islamists is elevated, and he is lying about it. He is lying about how many jihadists he has released and lying about their backgrounds, all part of his effort to empty the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay.

Hayes assembles quite the collection of examples of anti-American jihadists that Obama has given a get out of jail card. Included among them are the so-called Taliban Five, terror masterminds released in return for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. All five had worked for Al Qaeda before 9/11.

Hayes writes:

Obama has also downplayed the threats from released Guantánamo prisoners in other ways. He describes the detainees as “embittered,” as if the hatred that inspires them grows from their time in Guantánamo rather than their devotion to a murderous cause. Instead of rejoining the war, the recidivists are merely “trying to link up with their old organizations.” Perhaps most bizarre is his description of the process he’s using to determine which detainees can be transferred or set free. “The judgment that we’re continually making is: Are there individuals who are significantly more dangerous than the people who are already out there who are fighting? What do they add? Do they have special skills? Do they have special knowledge that ends up making a significant threat to the United States?”

Those are the criteria? Detainees can be released if the White House determines that they are no more dangerous than, say, the leaders of ISIS, AQAP, Boko Haram, Jabhat al Nusra, the Haqqani network, the Khorasan group? If this is actually the way the administration evaluates potential releases, it would explain why so many veteran jihadists have been freed. It’s a process that prioritizes emptying the facility over the security of the country.

Obama has been dishonest about his policy and has downplayed threats from Islamic terrorism from the first day of his presidency to the (thankfully) last days to come. Pentagon and other national security experts have decried this minimizing of threats to America. His actions have been condemned by Congressman such as Edward Royce, the Republican head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who accused the White House of “doubling down on policies that put American lives at risk” and “recklessness.”

Climate change is a greater threat in Obama’s mind.

Barack Obama seems laser-focused on closing Gitmo as part of his legacy. This would cause irreparable harm to the security of America: released terrorists have a very high recidivism rate (killing is what they live for, and released “detainees” have been implicated in subsequent attacks on Americans) and Gitmo has a very unique legal status that makes it absolutely crucial in our battle against terrorism. If Obama succeeds in closing Gitmo and, perhaps, turning it over to the Castro brothers (who no doubt will be glad to have more prison space for their political prisoners), it will never again be an American asset in our fight against Islamic terrorism.

Obama has justified his actions by being able to claim formally that these terrorists are not being freed; instead he has been transferring them to other nations who supposedly will monitor them to prevent their return to terrorism. In practice, this monitoring has been a farce as the various nations, some but not all of them of them Muslim nations, have looked the other way as the terrorists “go back to work.” Detainees have vanished; they have gone off the radar screen and found their ways back to join their fellow terrorists.

What can be done in the next two months to stop Obama?

Donald Trump has vowed to keep the prison open, and to “load it up with some bad dudes.” But he can’t keep his promise if Obama empties the prison and fulfills his promise to close Gitmo.

President-elect Donald Trump and a Republican Congress can put foreign nations on notice that change is coming to Washington and America in January and that nations that cooperate with Barack Obama in his terrorist release program will be scrutinized in the years to come when it comes to foreign aid, trade pacts, security cooperation and a range of other measures. Some of the nations that have taken the terrorists are oil-rich Middle Eastern nations, but others are less wealthy South American nations. Would Uruguay be willing to take any more terrorists if faced with warnings from the incoming administration that moves to take them will be “looked at with disfavor” (to be diplomatic) in the years to come? Even Arab nations, who certainly have no reason to seek to please Barack Obama, might be reluctant to displease a President Trump who they will have to engage with the next four years.

President-elect Donald Trump has a chance to do a great deal to help defend America even before he becomes Commander-in-Chief.

 

San Francisco Teachers’ Union Offers Sick Anti-Trump Propaganda as Lesson Plan

November 18, 2016

San Francisco Teachers’ Union Offers Sick Anti-Trump Propaganda as Lesson Plan, PJ MediaDebra Heine, November 17, 2016

fakhra-shah-sized-770x415xc

Left-wing indoctrination in the public schools has been a problem for decades and it’s getting worse. Remember the early days of the Obama administration when liberal teachers literally had their students singing songs of homage to our historic new president? Creepy and alarming videos kept emerging online showing kids praising President Obama as if he were some sort of deity.

In February of 2009, for instance, children in one class were taught “The Obama Song,”  featuring the following lines: “Obama is the President! First African America in history 44th president of the United States! The ground has shifted, the world has changed!  Oooo I’m a proud American Oooo yes yes yes yes YES WE CAN!”

And who can forget the infamous “Mmm mmm mmm!” song, which seemed to be loosely based on “Jesus Loves the Little Children,” but substituted Jesus with Obama.

I only mention this because in the wake of the 2016 election, liberal teachers are at it again. Only this time, instead of laudatory songs that praise the new president, a sick new anti-Trump lesson plan that demonizes President-elect Trump and his supporters has already been offered to teachers in the San Francisco area.  High school social studies teacher Fakhra Shah apparently drew up the lesson plan in a fit of spite and rage in the wee hours of the morning of November 9, right after Trump was elected. The school district reportedly has no problem with the plan, which characterizes the new president and his supporters as racist and sexist bigots.

Via ABC News:

San Francisco’s public schools have been offered a classroom lesson plan that calls President-elect Donald Trump a racist, sexist man who became president “by pandering to a huge racist and sexist base.”The union that represents city teachers posted the plan on its website and distributed it via an email newsletter to its more than 6,000 members. The school district has more than 57,000 students.

It is unclear how many teachers have used the plan, outlined by a Mission High School teacher, but it appears to have the tacit support of city education officials.

School district spokeswoman Gentle Blythe said the plan is optional and not part of the official curriculum.

“Educators are entrusted to create lessons that reflect the California standards, support students’ social and emotional well-being and foster inclusive and safe school communities,” she said in a statement that neither praised nor rebuked the lesson plan. San Francisco schools serve diverse populations and teachers are encouraged to include multiple perspectives in lessons, she said.

The Republican Party in San Francisco reacted sharply.

“It’s inappropriate on every level,” said Harmeet Dhillon, a Republican National Committee member from California. She called it “inappropriate propaganda that unfairly demonizes not only the campaign that Donald Trump, the winner, ran but also all of the people who voted for him.”

The lesson plan was written by social studies teacher Fakhra Shah, who said she hadn’t planned for it to spread citywide — that was a step taken by the teachers’ union. She wrote it at 2 a.m. Nov. 9, just hours after news networks declared Trump had won, to help teachers at her school struggling with how to answer students’ questions and concerns about his becoming president.

“I think a lot of people were lost for words, wondering, ‘What do we say? What do we do?’ ” said Shah, whose Latino, African American, white, Muslim and LGBTQ students are worried about a surge in hate crimes since the election.

“We’re calling him out,” she said. “If he’s our president, I have the right to hold him accountable and ask him to take a stance that is anti-hate and anti-racist.”

Shah warned teachers that some students may lash out at the new president using foul and obscene language. She even encouraged this because it is how kids living under white supremacy lift themselves up and fight oppression at school. Or something.

“I know that they might curse and swear, but you would too if you have suffered under the constructs of white supremacy or experienced sexism, or any isms or lack of privilege,” she wrote.

This is not “empowering” or “uplifting.” It is seriously deranged and destructive. The songs of Obama praise were disturbing and inappropriate, but this kind of propaganda is just plain evil. Instead of helping students deal with an election that maybe didn’t go the way they wanted, they are encouraging them to wallow in anger and self-pity and branding over 60 million Americans as racist and sexist bigots.

A KPIX reporter asked Shah if there are “safe spaces” for students whose parents may have voted for Trump. “They absolutely will be given safe space,” she answered. “They’ll be asked to explain, ‘how is he not racist?'” she added.

So — not actually a safe space at all. Kids are sent to school to receive a basic education and learn how to think critically, not to be forced to defend how their parents voted in a contentious election in a hostile environment where they have already been branded as racists. That, it seems to me, is the exact opposite of a “safe space.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf48t5uXq0w

Panama and Donald Trump

November 17, 2016

Panama and Donald Trump, La Estrella Panama, Marco A. Gandásegui, Hijo, November 17, 2016

(Translation by Google. Distorting history for fun and profit. And Panama, where my wife and I have lived for more than a decade, is one of the more Gringo-friendly nations in Latin America. This sort of tripe rather frustrates me.– DM)

trandtrump

Panama and the US Have had a difficult relationship for more than a century and a half. The isthmus of Panama became increasingly a key element in the expansion plans of the American capitalists. The construction of the Trans-Isthmus (1850-1855) and the Panama Canal (1904-1914) was strategic in consolidating the new empire that stretched over a continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Subsequently, Panama became a huge military base for the US wars. Against Japan (1941-1945) and then against Korea and Vietnam (1951-1975). The bases in the former Canal Zone also served to intervene and invade all Latin American countries, becoming the ‘backyard’ of the United States.

During more than 175 years Panama has dealt with dozens of governments and their executives. Cousins Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Bush (father and son), Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan are some of the most remembered, for good and for very bad. The US President Have led invasions, coups d’état, conspiring in assassinations and have mocked the Panamanians.

President-elect Donald Trump appears on the horizon as a novel and unpredictable political phenomenon.For the financial world, the entrepreneur is a question and his rhetoric against the so-called ‘free trade’ has shaken trading markets in all continents. President Juan Carlos Varela, in answering a question about Trump’s election, failed to fathom a coherent answer. The Panamanian government still has no policy to deal with the new White House tenant.

Washington has had a very clear policy for Panama since the military invasion of 1989. How does this position of the United States fit together? About Panama with Trump’s ideas? It is a question whose answer we will know, as they begin to square (if they fit) the objectives of the foreign policy of the new administration.

US foreign policy Has three objectives in Panama since the 1989 military invasion: First, to ensure that transit through the Channel is not interrupted. Second, to serve as a link in its militarist policy on a regional scale. At the same time, be useful in your policy of ‘war on drugs’. Finally, to develop the neoliberal guidelines of the ‘Washington Consensus’, explicit in the Free Trade Agreement signed by both countries.Politically, USA. Delegated to a small Panamanian elite the responsibility to govern the country. The elite have done it quite badly, speculating on the extraordinary revenues generated by the operation of the Panama Canal, creating a growing deficit and destabilizing the political regime with the increasing corruption resulting from militarization. In 20 years it ruined agriculture and industry, destroyed health and education systems, and the system of political representation has fallen into the hands of an insatiable mafia.

President-elect Donald Trump has no personal interests in Panama. (Only the name in one of the hotel towers that adorns the sky-line of the capital). Five years ago Trump did say about the Panama Canal and the way in which the negotiations (1977) culminated that allowed its delivery to the Panamanian government.

On a business visit to Panama City in 2011, Trump declared that ‘Panama is doing very well with the Canal, there are so many workers, there is so much employment. Thinking that stupidly US Gave him the Canal for nothing ‘. Trump was only repeating President Reagan’s insistence after the signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties (1977) until his death. A minister of the Panamanian government in 2011 predicted (with great skill) that what Trump intended with his statements was to launch his candidacy for the presidency of his country. Incidentally, the City Council of the city declared persona non grata.

Following its campaign logic, Trump could ask Panama to contribute part of its revenue, for Canal tolls, to the ‘war on drugs’ (increase the purchase of arms to the US, build more air bases And to train more repressive forces in the facilities of the School of the Americas (Fort Bragg). It could also require Panama to eliminate the few tariffs remaining to flood the market with its agricultural products ( Agro Panamanian).

* PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PANAMA AND INVESTIGATOR ASSOCIATE OF CELA.

Hugh Fitzgerald: Arsalan Iftikhar and Trump’s Reign of Terror

November 17, 2016

Hugh Fitzgerald: Arsalan Iftikhar and Trump’s Reign of Terror, Jihad Watch, November 17, 2016

arsalan-iftikhar

The Muslim hysteria is upon us. I don’t mean hysteria about Muslims, for none is discernible; rather, it is the hysteria of Muslims, or many of them, their expressions of supposed terror – in the newspapers, the airwaves, and the Internet — over what a President Trump will do. These reports of “terrified” Muslims are appearing all over the place, short on facts but long on fear. For what exactly has Trump said or done to strike such putative terror? He’s suggested that the vetting of Muslim migrants leaves a lot to be desired. Given how many Muslims have been admitted to the United States in how short a time, and given that our government has been a positive hindrance to those of its agents who would like to find out more about the ideology of Islam, and given, too, how hard it has been to read the minds of Muslim migrants, at least some of whom we have good reason to believe (see New York, Washington, Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, Orlando, San Bernardino, or outside this country, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, London, Madrid, Moscow) may be intent on sowing murder and mayhem among the Infidels, doesn’t Trump; have a point? On December 7, 2015 (for Muslims, a date which will apparently live in Trump-infamy), Donald Trump called “for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” This was apparently beyond the pale, as “ far-right” or as “white nationalist” (the newly-fashionable term of opprobrium for anyone who voted for Trump) as all get-out.

Was it really? What exactly had Trump called for? It had not escaped Trump’s notice that since 9/11/2001 there have been nearly 30,000 terrorist attacks by Muslims around the world, and that quite a few of those terrorists have the habit of quoting from the Qur’an and Hadith to justify those attacks, while others remain quiet about their plans; officially, we in the Western world (see Tony Blair, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Pope Francis, Angela Merkel) are all encouraged to believe that these attacks “have nothing to do with Islam.” But res ipsa loquitur, as the lawyers like to say, the thing speaks for itself. Confusion is piled upon confusion when it comes to Islam. And since many people seem still to be unfamiliar with what is in the Qur’an and Hadith, and many in the American government, as elsewhere in the West, are fearful of offending Muslims by suggesting there might be something in those texts to worry about (which is why Robert Spencer found himself a pedagogue non grata as far as those now running the Homeland Security industry were concerned, when he insisted on reading the texts rightly), so it was perfectly sensible for Trump to say that in these matters the government has a duty to “figure out what the hell is going on” before even more Muslims are admitted, given the life-and-death stakes. There is nothing outrageous about that. Just because so many others have been derelict in their duty is no reason for Trump to score easy points by following suit.

One example, among so many, of hysterical fear-mongering is provided by Arsalan Iftikhar, a Muslim “international human rights lawyer,” who the day after the election was quick off the mark with a piece in the Washington Post that appeared under the scare headlineBeing a Muslim in Trump’s America is frightening.”

Now I haven’t – have you? — noticed any round-up of Muslims en masse, heard about any raids on mosques and madrasas, or gestapo-knocks in the night at the homes of Muslim families. That’s right – more than a full week has gone by since the election, and yet nowhere in this country has a single Muslim been subject to a single raid. In France on July 16, two hundred mosques were raided. A few days ago, there were nearly 200 raids on mosques, offices, and homes of Muslims, in Germany. But in the United States since the terrifying Trump was elected? Nothing at all, and not the slightest suggestion of similar raids to come once Trump is actually sworn in. The only “terrifying” thing since Trump’s election has been this unending series of articles telling us that we have a positive duty to rally around Muslims, give them moral and other kinds of support, lest they feel any anxiety about their position in American society, for that would never do. And if non-Muslims for some reason feel anxiety? Well, they have it coming to them.

The “terrified” Arsalan Iftikhar, having been hounded into appearing in The Washington Post (try getting into The Washington Post if you are the least detectable bit unsympathetic to Islam and its adherents) offers a piece that is instructive, though not in the way that he imagines.

Here’s his first sentence:

In the seismic aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, there is only silver lining [sic] for millions of women, African Americans, Hispanics, people with disabilities and 7 million American Muslims like me. Now, every minority demographic group in the United States must now feel a sense of collective urgency to mobilize together for the future of our multicultural society based on what we witnessed during this presidential election.

The first thing to notice is that he starts his piece with a Big Lie casually tossed off. He inflates – more than doubles – the number of Muslims in the United States, from the 3.3 million in the latest Pew Report to “7 million American Muslims like me.” Iftikhar doesn’t justify this number, doesn’t explain why it should be accepted instead of the numbers in the Pew Report. Where did he get this figure of 7 million Muslims? He plucked it from the air, he made it up. He wants you to believe that there are more than twice as many Muslims in this country than any reputable compiler of statistics has suggested; by next year, you may see Iftikhar suggest, with the same casual authority, a figure of 7.5 or even 8 million Muslims. Muslim numbers must be inflated; the more numerous they are, the more politically powerful they will be. Of course, at the same time, Muslims are being depicted as a persecuted and powerless minority. Iftikhar, like so many Defenders of the Faith, wants it both ways.

In the same first paragraph, Iftikhar attempts to convince us that there is a commonality of interest between Muslims and every other group whom he thinks Trump has insulted. So he wants “millions of women, African Americans, Hispanics, people with disabilities” to make common cause with “Muslims like me.”

But a moment’s thought would make any fair-minded person realize that it is bizarre to think that men who adhere to the relentlessly misogynistic faith of Islam and “millions of women” can “make common cause.” Why do I call it “relentlessly misogynistic”? According to the Sharia, Muslim women can inherit half as much as men (Qur’an 4:11); their testimony is worth half that of a man (2:282); polygamy is licit (Muhammad, the Perfect Man, allowed himself twelve or fourteen wives, depending on whether or not one sex slave is counted as a wife) and so are female slaves, “those whom your right hand possesses”; a Muslim man is allowed to beat his disobedient wife, though “lightly”; a Muslim man need only pronounce the triple-talaq to divorce his wife; and women are described in the Qur’an as inferior to men, for “the men are a degree above them” (2:228); and in the Sahih Bukhari (6:301) “[Muhammad] said, ‘Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man? They replied in the affirmative. He said, ‘This [is because of] the deficiency in her intelligence.

And why should those lumped together as “Latinos” – almost all of them Christians – decide to make “common cause” with Muslims, who regard themselves as the “best of peoples” and Christians and Jews as the “vilest of creatures”? Hasn’t the unending spectacle of Christians being attacked and murdered in Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Egypt and Nigeria, in Iraq and Syria, in Libya and Algeria, in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, in Bangladesh and Kosovo, and Ethiopia and the Sudan, done enough to dissuade Latinos from being manipulated into supporting Muslims on the basis of a factitious commonality of interests? Any “Latino” — a word one uses with many reservations — need spend only a few minutes scrolling through the record of Muslim attacks on Christians in recent years, in several dozen countries all over the world, to see what’s so sinister about Iftikhar’s proposed alliance. And what contempt he must have for those whom he thinks will forever remain unaware of that record.

As for African-Americans, what common cause should they make with Muslims when black African Christians are being kidnapped and killed by Boko Haram in Nigeria, as they had previously been killed before the days of Boko Haram, since the late 1960s, with more than a million massacred in the “jihad” (the word used by Colonel Ojukwu in the Ahiara Declaration to describe the Muslim war on Christians), that is, the Biafra War of 1967-69? What common cause should African-Americans make with those Muslim Arabs who raped, looted, and murdered their way through the villages of black African Christians in the southern Sudan, for more than 20 years, until international pressure finally led to the creation of a separate Republic of Southern Sudan? Will African-Americans forget that Nasser sent Egyptian Migs to bomb Nigerian Christian villages? And will they overlook Darfur, where Muslim Arab raiders, the Janjaweed, seized property from black Africans, and killed them by the tens of thousands, even if they were fellow Muslims, because they were black Africans and not Arabs? Arsalan Iftikhar chooses not to recognize that not only are Muslims “the best of peoples” and Unbelievers the “vilest of creatures” but that within Islam, Arabs are seen as superior to non-Arabs; this “universalist” faith actually is a vehicle for Arab supremacism. Hence the attacks of Muslim Arabs on Muslim blacks in Darfur. The attempt of Muslims, including Arsalan Iftikhar, to presume that others should be their natural allies overlooks the ideology of Islam, where Muslims are the “best of peoples” and Arab Muslims the best kind of Muslim.

Iftikhar again:

In addition to his blatant misogyny and anti-immigrant xenophobia during his presidential campaign, we have also seen Donald Trump’s political campaign successfully normalize Islamophobia as part of the current national Republican Party platform as it exists today.

As to “blatant misogyny,” please see above the discussion of how women are regarded and treated in Islam, and compare that institutionalized misogyny, which is fixed forever in the Qur’an and Hadith, with an unseemly handful of sentences expressing individual bad taste and locker-room bragging.

Has Trump exhibited “anti-immigrant xenophobia”? Has he expressed hatred of foreigners? He has not. Or opposition to legal immigrants? He has not. Again and again he has distinguished illegal immigrants from legal ones, has merely maintained that he thinks the laws concerning immigration deserve to be obeyed, that every country has a right to decide whom it wants to allow in (immigration is not, pace Pope Francis, a right but a privilege) and to bar or expel those who refuse to observe the laws put in place to regulate immigration.

As for Arsalan Iftikhar’s predictable charge of “Islamophobia,” the correct response to this remains always the same: the word “Islamophobia” properly describes the irrational fear (and hatred) of Islam. There is plenty of evidence – in the Qur’an and Hadith, in the history of Muslim conquest over the past 1400 years of many non-Muslim lands and the subsequent subjugation of many non-Muslim peoples, and in the observable behavior of Muslims toward non-Muslims all over the world today — that fear (and hatred) of Islam is not irrational for well-informed Unbelievers to feel. All this evidence is being downplayed or ignored in the Western world by the political and media elites who keep insisting that there is nothing about Islam to worry about, and in the countries of the West, political and media elites have convinced themselves that whatever problem may arise is merely a justified Muslim response to, and resentment of, how they are treated in the West, and the more understanding and welcoming we Unbelievers are, the more all manner of things shall be well. It’s up to us, not to Muslims, to solve whatever problems arise. And no one asks the simple question: Why? Why should the Western world have to accommodate Muslim demands, change its laws and customs in order, it is forlornly hoped, to better “integrate” Muslims?

The possibility that there are problems with a large-scale Muslim presence not just in “Trump’s America” but in Hollande’s France, and Merkel’s Germany, and May’s United Kingdom, and that those problems are not susceptible of solution, given that they have their origin in the Qur’an, which is regarded by Muslims as immutable, and which clearly teaches permanent hostility toward all non-Muslims, is too disturbing for many non-Muslims to allow themselves to acknowledge. So they don’t, and instead allow the arsalan-iftikhars to peddle their taqiyya wares of victimization without fear of refutation.

Here’s what Iftikhar reports as an example of what he considers a nasty little response by Trump:

In a rare display of journalistic pushback, after Trump once confirmed to reporters that he would set up a database for Muslim Americans, an NBC News reporter asked him point-blank in response:

“Is there a difference between requiring Muslims to register and Jews in Nazi Germany?”

“You tell me,” Trump replied while walking away.

Iftikhar thinks the meaning of this exchange is obvious: Trump, embarrassed by the reporter’s piercing question, which pointed up a supposed similarity between Trump’s plan for having a database for Muslims, and the registration of Jews in Nazi Germany, did not know how to reply, and could do no better than “you tell me” and – presumably mortified at having of the similarity of his plan and that of the Nazis pointed out – then walked away.

I read this exchange quite differently. I read it as Trump being so disgusted by the comparison that he did not think it deserved anything more than being turned back against its asker. His “you tell me” meant “you tell me what similarity could there possibly be between the ‘database’ that might be set up to identify those Muslims most likely to engage in terrorist attacks and the registration the Nazis required of Jews in order to better round them up to be killed.” What kind of idiocy must someone possess to suggest that proposals for keeping track of Muslims in the West by means of “databases” (already being used by the anti-terrorist police in Europe), which presumably would contain such obviously relevant information such as whether the subject logs onto Islamic websites, or has travelled to IS-held parts of Syria, Iraq, or Yemen, or spent a lot of time at a mosque that is known for the dangerous views of its imam, given that there have been nearly 30,000 terrorist attacks by Muslims around the world since 9/11/2001, have anything in common with the Nazis forcing entirely inoffensive Jews, who were no threat to anybody, to register with German authorities so that they could be more easily seized and, as ultimately happened, murdered? A database designed to prevent mass murder is very different from a database intended to facilitate mass murder. Far from being, as Arsalan Iftikhar thinks, horrific, Trump’s answer was one of his finest moments, because, he knew, only one decent reply was possible: “You tell me.” What Arsalan Iftikhar describes as admirable “journalistic pushback” was, in fact, an example of moral myopia. I’m not sure there’s a prescription strong enough to correct that level of impairment.

Meanwhile, we can all wait for the Reign of Trump Terror to begin, with the knocks at midnight, and the sound of mechanized tumbrils rolling, and for America to become – why, it’s halfway there already, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, mein damen und herren – the new Nazi Germany, and Muslims will be, why, according to them they already are, the new Jews, and what will we tell our children we did in this time of testing? Did we stand with the brave truth-teller Arsalan Iftikhar or with the likes of Donald Trump?

FULL INTERVIEW — Ted Cruz SLAMS the hypocrisy of Democrats over President Elect Donald Trump’s big win!

November 17, 2016

FULL Ted Cruz SLAMS the hypocrisy of Democrats over President Elect Donald Trump’s big win! Fox News via YouTube, November 17, 2016

(I had hoped that Senator Cruz would support and help President Elect Trump. He seems to be doing so. — DM)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyP4qIDAklQ

Transition: The Mainstream Media Does Its Duty – or Not

November 17, 2016

Transition: The Mainstream Media Does Its Duty – or Not, PJ MediaRoger L. Simon, November 17, 2016

trumptower

The mainstream media – whose biased reporting during the 2016 presidential election will be the subject, one imagines, of numerous books – is still trying to justify that bias during the transition to the Trump administration.

Two current memes are the sleazy claims of anti-Semitism against Stephen Bannon and the seemingly more serious allegations that said transition, only just over a week old, is badly disorganized and fraught with infighting.

Just one of many examples of the latter is this morning’s dispatch from Bloomberg:  “The news about key contenders for Cabinet positions in the future Trump administration came after the transition team gave its first detailed update on Wednesday night amid reports of infighting and disorganization.”

If you say so.

On a newly-instituted daily press phone briefing regarding the transition Thursday morning,  Trump communications advisor Jason Miller and RNC strategist Sean Spicer seemed to me anything but disorganized or indicative of a particularly high degree of infighting, but what I do I know?

For that matter, what does anybody else really know?  Common sense dictates that the types of people who aspire to great power in our (or any) society would be jockeying for positions at a time like this.  That’s essentially “dog bites man,” but our press is easily willing to abandon such a hoary watchword of reporting for any possible reason to denigrate the man who so deceived them by actually getting elected.

The comic version of all this was the chorus of complaints when Trump snuck out of his Tower without telling the media for dinner with his family at 21. One wag on television insisted the reason this was so dangerous was that no one would know where to find him in case of another 9/11, as if Donald didn’t have the most recognizable face of the planet now that Michael Jackson has expired. (The patrons of the restaurant gave him a standing-o on his arrival.) More to the point, Barack Obama is still president in case of a disaster and easily found, one assumes, at the Acropolis or Peru or somewhere.

Although a good start and worth holding, this first daily briefing was not especially revelatory if you have been paying attention. It mainly consisted of the names – already, for the most part, publicly available – of those who would be meeting with Trump in the next day or so or have met with him.  Some of these people are potential cabinet members and others, like Henry Kissinger, at this point hors de combat but on the short list of grey eminences normally consulted.

Many of these cabinet positions – state, defense, attorney general – have been discussed ad infinitum in the press but one that seems to have been relatively ignored – education secretary – may ultimately be the most important.  For some time now, the US has been spending close to the most per student of any nation while getting, for a first world country, some of the worst results.  Why? When watching what is going on our streets and campuses right now – this revolt of the “snowflakes” – we might be getting a clue.  What our kids have been receiving is too often indoctrination, not education. Nothing could be more perilous for our future.

One candidate for education secretary reported to have met with Trump was fellow New Yorker Eva Moskowitz. Though a Democrat, Ms. Moskowitz wandered off the reservation of her party as a strong advocate for charter schools and school choice. According to the AP, she took herself out of the running, but  other candidates Michelle Rhee and Jeanne Allen have similar views.  If Trump, with the help of one of these women, revitalizes our moribund educational system, he will have achieved changes of lasting significance.

If there is one area where there has been some – in this case very positive – disruption in the transition is the ejection of lobbyists from the team, many associated with Chris Christie.  Trump pledged in his Gettysburg speech to disconnect lobbying from public service, promising a five-year ban on such activity after serving.  This ban would be permanent when associated with foreign countries.  On this one, so far, the president-elect seems to be following through.

A final press claim that Trump was ignoring foreign leaders seems particularly absurd.  As of midday Wednesday, he or vice-president-elect Pence had spoken with twenty-nine, including the twin powerhouses Putin and Xi-Jinping.  Tonight Trump has his first face-to-face meeting with a leader – Japan’s Shinzo Abe.

Despite the press disinformation, these people are indeed moving quickly, possibly quicker than any recent administration.  An indication:  the phone briefings I was on will continue Saturday and Sunday.  There goes the weekend!

 

Hypocrisy Watch: Networks Pound Bannon, But Ignore Democrat Ellison’s Radicalism

November 17, 2016

Hypocrisy Watch: Networks Pound Bannon, But Ignore Democrat Ellison’s Radicalism, MRC News Busters, November 16, 2016

bannonbacklash

Since Sunday evening, ABC, CBS and NBC (along with a host of other establishment media outlets) have been engaged in a feeding frenzy over Donald Trump’s appointment of Steve Bannon, with reporters relentlessly employing phrases such as “white nationalist,” “white supremacist,” “extremist,” “racist” and “anti-Semitic” to solidify the image of Bannon as a dangerous pick for a top White House position.

But since Friday, those same networks have been blind to the controversies surrounding the top candidate for Democratic National Committee Chairman, Rep. Keith Ellison. Ellison has been accused of ties to the radical Nation of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, and once suggested the 9/11 terrorist attacks were akin to the infamous Reichstag fire used to propel Hitler’s Nazi party into absolute power in 1933 Germany.

From Sunday night through Wednesday morning, MRC analysts found the Big Three had already churned out 41 minutes, 46 seconds of coverage devoted to Bannon’s appointment. An analysis finds that nearly three-fourths (74%) of all references to Bannon were negative; the only positive comments viewers heard came from interviews or soundbites with other Trump campaign officials or Republican officeholders.

Reporters threw everything at Bannon, including the kitchen sink. On ABC’s World News Tonight on Monday, correspondent Tom Llamas labeled him “a champion of the alt-right, a conservative movement many say is fueled by racism, sexism and anti-Semitism.” NBC anchor Lester Holt said Trump was “lifting a man with ties to white nationalists into the heart of the White House.”

On the CBS Evening News, reporter Chip Reid told viewers about long-dropped charges of “domestic violence,” and unsubstantiated accusations from Bannon’s ex-wife that he didn’t want his children “going to school with Jews.”

The coverage has been so ridiculously excessive, The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro — who dislikes Bannon — said it was evidence the media had “gone nuts” over the appointment:

They claim that he’s personally anti-Semitic and racist and a white nationalist and anti-Israel, without evidence. This is ridiculous. And all it does is provoke defense from the right. For God’s sake, I’m now defending Steve Bannon! The media can’t stop their overreach, because everybody on the right is Hitler to the media, which means that Bannon must be Super-Duper-Hitler. [italics in original.]

Contrast that with news coverage of a Democrat accused of radicalism. Since he was first mentioned as a potential candidate on Friday, Rep. Ellison’s bid to take over the DNC has received only two minutes, nine seconds of network airtime, and none of it has focused on his controversial comments or associations.

The only spin network viewers heard was positive. On NBC’s Today show on Sunday, MSNBC’s Joy Reid was brought on to sing his praises: “Keith Ellison as a young legislator, as a Muslim, as an African-American, he really feels like sort of an ideal candidate.”

hypocrisy2016

Ellison has been endorsed by incoming Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer, a move which has led to protests against the New York Senator. While CBS has not mentioned those protests, their New York affiliate has done the reporting:

On a trip to Israel last summer, Ellison posted a photo of a sign in Hebron declaring Israel to be an apartheid state. He also proudly defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan against accusations of being anti-Semitic.

“(H)is vile beliefs… ought to disqualify him outright,” said Joel Mowbray, a consultant to Jewish groups. “If Chuck Schumer actually did his due diligence and is supporting Ellison anyway, that’s shameful.”

FoxNews.com explained that “in 2007, Ellison made a comparison between Bush and 9/11 to Hitler and the 1933 Reichstag fire.”

“‘9/11 is the juggernaut in American history and it allows… it’s almost like, you know, the Reichstag fire,’ Ellison said, according to a Daily Telegraph report at the time. ‘After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted.’”

Longtime terrorism expert Steve Emerson in 2010 documented that Ellison had financial “donors with a history of Muslim Brotherhood connections.” And in  March 2010, according to Emerson, “Ellison attended a private fundraiser at the northern Virginia home of a man who led a group tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Add it all up, and Ellison sounds at least as controversial as Bannon. So, if charges of extremism against a potential Republican White House aide are worth massive network coverage, where is the similar coverage of the radical ties of a Congressman who hopes to lead the Democratic Party?