Posted tagged ‘Steven K. Bannon’

America moves right, Jewish groups move left

December 4, 2016

America moves right, Jewish groups move left, Israel Hayom, Richard Baehr, December4, 2016

On January 20, the Republican Party will control the White House, both houses of Congress, at least 33 governors’ offices, and over two-thirds of state legislative bodies, including 25 states where the governor is a Republican and the GOP is the majority party in both branches of the state legislature. The Democrats will have similar control in four states. The other states will have mixed party governance. One would need to go back to the 1920s to find a time of similar dominance by the Republican Party. In but eight years, the Democrats have lost a dozen Senate seats, 66 House seats, near 1,000 state legislative seats, 13 governors’ offices, and the presidency.

The president-elect, Donald Trump, won 24-25% of the Jewish vote, according to the national exit polls and a J Street survey. Democrat Hillary Clinton won either 70-71% of the Jewish vote in these same surveys. The margin for the Democratic nominee was the second smallest for any Democratic nominee with Jewish voters since 1988. Only the 2012 Obama vs. Romney race among Jewish voters was closer (69% to 30%).

When the national popular vote total is finally complete (California, supposedly our most technologically advanced state, takes longer than any other state by a matter of weeks to complete its tally), Clinton will have won the popular vote by about 2%, while getting trounced in the Electoral College 306-232 (a 14% margin). Exit polls and final polls before Election Day showed Clinton winning by 4-5%. Given what some analysts are calling “shy Trump voters” who did not want to reveal their support for Trump to pollsters, it is certainly possible that Trump exceeded the percentage of support reflected in the exit poll or J Street survey among Jewish voters. In any case, it is safe to assume that Jewish voters were far more supportive of the Democratic nominee than almost any other group, which occurs in every presidential election.

What is clear since election day is that several major Jewish organizations have chosen to identify with those who seem panicked by the election results, particularly the election of Trump. Charitable organizations rely on contributions, and if two-thirds to three-quarters of Jewish voters went for the Democrat, it is not surprising that many Jewish organizations reflect this partisan split among their members and donors. Nonetheless, there is “a new sheriff coming to town,” and typically, most major Jewish organizations look forward to working with the new president on their issues of concern, rather than going to war with him during his presidential transition.

In the past few weeks, the Anti-Defamation League, led by former Obama staffer Jonathan Greenblatt, was one of the first organizations of any kind to aim fire at Trump’s naming of Breitbart executive chair Steve Bannon as an in-house adviser. The ADL leader was quick to label him an anti-Semite and a leader of the “alt-right.” Most of those scurrilous charges have been walked back after the ADL was hit with pushback by those who have worked with Bannon or for him, and knew him far better than his critics, with several Jews among his leading defenders. But it was clear that the ADL wanted to be early out of the box to show it was not at all concerned with striking a partisan pose, and was part of the team on the left who were committed to making life miserable for Trump, even during the transition period before he took office. Today, the ADL is playing the role of victim, claiming it is under attack from the Right for doing its job.

Accusing Republicans of bigotry is nothing new at this point, and has become part of the standard campaign fare by Democratic candidates and those on the left. A major reason why Hillary Clinton was defeated was the near total emptiness of her campaign in making a case for why she should be president, as opposed to electing her so as not to have Trump in office, due to his temperament, and of course, alleged bigotry. In the weeks since Trump selected Bannon, mainstays of the major media , such as The New York Times and major networks, have given a lot of coverage to a collection of a few hundred white racists meeting at a convention in Atlanta. Clearly, guilt by association was the order of the day — white-power racists equals Bannon equals Trump.

The Bannon selection, which does not require Senate ratification, drew attacks from predictable Jewish groups on the left — J Street, the National Council of Jewish Women, T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, and Uri L’Tzedek (the Orthodox Jewish social justice movement), among others. But a collection of groups associated with the Conservative movement was similarly harsh in attacking Bannon — the Rabbinical Assembly, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the Jewish Theological Seminary, the Cantors Assembly, the Women’s League for Conservative Judaism and the Federation of Jewish Men’s Clubs issued a joint statement of condemnation.

Just days after the Trump victory and the Bannon pick seemed to create a certainty of a dystopian future for many American Jews and their organizations, a Minnesota congressman, Keith Ellison, had his name put forward as a candidate for the next leader of the Democratic National Committee. Remarkably, with the exception of the Zionist Organization of America and a few other politically conservative Jewish groups, most Jewish groups held their fire on Ellison, and seemed to think all was well regarding Ellison and Jews and Ellison and Israel. After all, New York Senator Chuck Schumer immediately endorsed him for the job. That Ellison once had ties to the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan, and had called Israel an apartheid state, seemed to be of no great concern. Greenblatt’s first comment was that he had contacted the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota on Ellison, and they gave him a clean bill of health.

Greenblatt subsequently told The New York Times that he thought Ellison was “an important ally in the fight against anti-Semitism” but held a posture on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “on which we strongly differ and that concern us.”

Now, as other groups have continued digging into Ellison’s’ unsavory history with regard to Israel, the ADL has reversed course, and now argues that he is disqualified for the job. Greenblatt seemed disturbed that Ellison, in a 2010 speech to a Muslim group, had echoed the Stephen Walt-John Mearsheimer thesis that Israel controlled U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East: “The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people,” Ellison said in the recorded speech to his supporters. “A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes.”

Why the did the testimony by Jews who worked for Bannon or with Bannon, and knew of his support for Israel and Jewish causes, including establishing an office in Jerusalem for Breitbart, count for nothing with the ADL and its allies among Jewish organizations, but the presumption about Ellison was that all was well until the anti-Semitic stench got too large to ignore? In one case, the person in question was guilty until proven innocent, and in the other, the reverse.

How will the Democratic Party now deal with the DNC nomination? Will Ellison withdraw his name, or stand and fight, backed by the Sanders/Warren wing of the party for whom Israel is at best a minor issue or annoyance? Rumors were that President Barack Obama was not enthusiastic about Ellison as DNC chair from the start. But the Democrats seem to have concluded after having suffered their third decisive beating in the last four election cycles, that the solution to re-energize the party was to move even further left, and to solidify their identity-group politics and pandering. Jews and Jewish groups will soon find out that they are nowhere near the front of that line, despite their rush to join in the anti-Trump chorus.

Jewish #NeverTrump Site Defends Bannon; Slams Ellison, Schumer

November 30, 2016

Jewish #NeverTrump Site Defends Bannon; Slams Ellison, Schumer, BreitbartJoel B. Pollak, November 30, 2016

charles-schumer-chip-somodevilla-getty-640x480Chip Somodevilla / Getty

Tablet magazine, an online magazine on Jewish affairs, was one of the leading “NeverTrump” websites — but has published an op-ed defending Donald Trump and denouncing Democrats for supporting Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) to lead the party.

The article, by Jeff Ballabon, documents Ellison’s history of supporting and defending rabid antisemites. It also defends the President-elect, as well as adviser Stephen K. Bannon and Breitbart News, from false charges of antisemitism. Ballabon also notes that some of the same Jewish politicians that led the attack on Bannon, such as incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are also leading the effort to elect Ellison as the next chair of the Democratic National Committee. He also notes that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which led the attack on Bannon, has had to “withdraw their accusations.”

Ballabon writes:

It is clear that Ellison trafficked with incredibly virulent, open anti-Semites and supported and defended them until it became politically inconvenient. Then he lied about it—and once in office, he decided to target the Jewish state.

Personally, I don’t care if Ellison ever did or still does hate Jews. He’s entitled to love and hate whomever he wants. What worries me is that a leading member of the extreme anti-Israel wing of the Democratic Party is poised to become the party’s chairman. What disturbs me is that the mainstreaming and elevating of this man—who, at the very least, is clearly more enthusiastic about Louis Farrakhan than he is about the State of Israel—is being done with the support of Sen. Chuck Schumer, and of organizations that claim to represent the interests of American Jewry.

It is also hard to miss the fact that these same politicians and groups are now diverting attention away from actual threats to a campaign of politically-motivated fictions and calumnies directed against Donald Trump, a man who has spent decades supporting an impressive array of Jewish causes and of the State of Israel—and whose daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren are Orthodox Jews. Trump’s daughter Ivanka chose to join the Jewish people, and she did so by all accounts with the approval and full support of her father. Perhaps Keith Ellison, despite his associations and activities, is secretly a great friend of the Jewish people and the State of Israel, and Donald Trump, despite his friends and family, is secretly the raving anti-Semite his detractors allege. But even the most extreme partisan would have to admit that the evidence for either proposition is quite thin. In fact, the ADL and friends have also had to withdraw their accusations of anti-Semitism against Trump’s adviser Steve Bannon and Breitbart news, which briefly flourished after Trump’s win, since they could not point to any actual evidence that either charge was true: In fact, Bannon and Breitbart have demonstrably been among the most dedicated supporters of the State of Israel and most vociferous opponents of BDS and campus hate in the America media.

Read the whole article here.

ADL ignores Ellison anti-Semitism, attacks pro-Israel Bannon

November 24, 2016

ADL ignores Ellison anti-Semitism, attacks pro-Israel Bannon, Israel National News, Morton A. Klein, November 24, 2016

(Ellison seems highly qualified to head a substantially antisemitic, anti-Israel, pro-Islamist organization. — DM)

It seems that with each passing day, more information comes to light about the alarming anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and extremist radical Islamist involvements and positions of Muslim U.S. Congressman Keith Ellison a/k/a Keith X. Ellison a/k/a Keith Hakim a/k/a Keith Ellison Muhammed (D-Minn.) – which should disqualify Ellison from heading the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for which he is the Senator Schumer-supported leading contender.  Ethical issues have also come to the fore.

On Monday, we learned that the House of Representatives Ethics Committee had opened an investigation into Rep. Ellison (D., Minn.) after he failed to disclose that the Muslim American Society – a group that Muslim Brotherhood members founded to be the “overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.” – paid $13,350 for Ellison to visit Mecca, Saudi Arabia in 2008.  (See Muslim Brotherhood-Tied Group Paid for Keith Ellison to Visit Mecca in 2008: Group was founded as ‘overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.’,” by Brent Scher, Washington Free Beacon, Nov. 21, 2016.)   The Muslim Brotherhood is the “parent” organization of Hamas, al Qaeda and other terrorist entities.  Egypt, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UAE, and Kuwait have all designated the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization.

Last week, my organization, the ZOA, published a release, urging that Ellison should not be appointed to head the DNC.  Per the extensive sources cited in ZOA’s release, Ellison’s dangerous positions and involvements, have included the following:

During a DemocracyNow! TV interview, Ellison suggested that the Israeli “occupation” was to blame for a “humanitarian crisis” and lack of sewage processing in Gaza – while ignoring that Israel withdrew from every inch of Gaza, and that Hamas diverts the electricity needed to operate Gaza’s sewage treatment plant to Hamas’s terrorist tunnels and operations.

Also in 2016, Ellison tweeted a sign falsely accusing Israel of expropriation and “apartheid.”  And just two months ago, Ellison defended the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) on the House floor.  ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, involved in funneling money to Hamas.

In 2015, Ellison co-authored and spearheaded a letter (and obtained signatures on the letter of 23 Democratic Members of Congress) demanding that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress about the Iran deal be delayed until after the sanctions deadline – when the visit would have been useless.

In 2014, Ellison was one of only 8 Congresspersons who voted against the bi-partisan bill to provide $225 million to Israel’s “Iron dome” missile system.  Ellison’s position would have left innocent Israeli civilians at the mercy of Hamas rockets.

In 2012, Ellison traveled from Minnesota to raise funds and speak at mosques in New Jersey, urging Arab-American residents of New Jersey to defeat pro-Israel Democratic Jewish Congressman Steve Rothman.

In 2010, Ellison spearheaded and convinced 53 other Democratic Congresspersons to sign his infamous “Gaza 54” letter to President Obama, which falsely accused Israel of humiliating and wreaking “collective punishment” on Gaza residents and demanded that President Obama should pressure Israel to lift the Gaza blockade – thereby enabling Hamas to obtain more weapons to kill and terrorize innocent Israeli civilians.

The leading anti-Israel, anti-Semitic boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) group in the U.S. still uses the anti-Israel smears in Ellison’s “Gaza 54” letter to promote BDS.

In a 2010 DemocracyNow! Interview, Ellison also argued that the U.S. should not kill a leading terrorist located in Yemen, who was responsible for numerous deaths of Americans and was continuing to foment some of the worst terror attacks on Americans, because the terrorist would consider his own death to be a “reward.”

Ellison also received substantial campaign contributions from groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, spoke at Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) dinners, and defended CAIR on the House floor.   Materials handed out at CAIR’s 2008 dinner (where Ellison spoke) called America a terrorist organization, and called for the destruction of Israel and the United States.  CAIR is another unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, involved in funneling money to Hamas.

In 2007, Ellison analogized President Bush’s prosecution of the war on terror after 9/11 to Hitler’s rise to power and activities after the Reichstag fire.

From approximately 1989 until at least 1998, Ellison was an active leader in Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic Nation of Islam.  Ellison raised funds and led anti-police chants to support cop-killers; co-sponsored a vicious anti-Semitic speech by Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael), entitled “Zionism: Imperialism, White Supremacy or Both?” while ignoring Jewish law students’ pleas to Ellison not to sponsor the speech; and spoke at a public hearing on behalf of the Nation of Islam in support of a woman alleged to have said “Jews are among the most racist white people I know.“

Back in 2007, the ADL criticized Ellison’s analogy of President Bush to Hitler.

However, the ADL is utterly silent about Ellison now – when the leadership and direction of the Democratic party is at risk of falling into the hands of someone with a longstanding record of anti-Semitic, anti-Israel activities.  Instead of calling out the real danger from Ellison, the ADL has been busy falsely accusing President-elect Trump’s appointee Stephen Bannon of anti-Semitism.

ADL’s failure to condemn Ellison’s overwhelming record of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic activities displays rank partisanship, and is an abdication of the ADL’s stated mission of combatting anti-Semitism.

The ZOA thus again urges the ADL to join us in speaking out against appointing Ellison to the extraordinarily powerful position of head of the DNC.

The ‘Big Lie’ Is Back

November 22, 2016

The ‘Big Lie’ Is Back, Center For Security Policy, Frank Gaffney, Jr., November 22, 2016

lie

Source: Breitbart

In 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to use “some old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” against those whose exercise of free speech “we abhor.”

At the time, she had in mind specifically perpetrators of what the OIC, the Muslim Brotherhood, other Islamic supremacists and their enablers on the Left call “defamation of Islam.” But the same playbook – in the tradition of Mrs. Clinton’s mentor, Saul Alinsky – is now being followed with a vengeance against what is abhorred by the cabal best described as the Red-Green Axis.

Much in evidence among such “old-fashioned techniques” now being employed is what’s known as “the Big Lie.” It entails the endless repetition of outrageous falsehoods to defame, and ultimately silence, one’s political opponents.

Three good men Donald Trump has selected for key strategic and national security positions are currently getting the Big Lie treatment: his White House Counsel Steve Bannon, Attorney General-designate Senator Jeff Sessions, and incoming National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. They are being relentlessly vilified as “racists,” “bigots” and “haters.”

I feel these able public servants’ pain. Indeed, I know what it’s like to be subjected to the Big Lie. For years, the Islamists and their allies on the hard Left – notably, the discredited (for example, here and here) Southern Poverty Law Center – have used character assassination and vitriol against me (for example, here, here and here) to protect what they otherwise cannot defend: the totalitarian program its adherents call Sharia. The false assertion last week that I had been asked to serve on the Trump transition team sent these rogues into fresh paroxysms of hateful denunciation, repeated like a mantra by their media echo chamber (for example, here, here, here and here).

I am hardly alone in being diagnosed by such charlatans with the made-up condition of “Islamophobia.” Indeed, I am proud to be included in the company of men and women being pilloried for what Islamic supremacists and their enablers would have us believe is “defamation of Islam.” In fact, it is simply informed, astute and courageous truth-telling about the global jihad movement and threat it poses. Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions and Mike Flynn are under assault for doing the same in this and other contexts.

It seems that critics are particularly unhinged by the clarity of these three men and the president they will serve about the fact that Islamic supremacism is not simply a menace overseas. The Red-Green types are determined to prevent Donald Trump from operationalizing the plan of action he described in a major address on the topic on August 15, 2016. Among its highlights are the following:

Our new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt the spread of Radical Islam. All actions should be oriented around this goal….Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam….

In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today. In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country….

Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the effort to take down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of every federal investigator and prosecutor in the country. To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one. Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home. (Emphasis added)

In short, the Red-Green Axis is having conniptions because the American people have now chosen to lead them a president and an administration that will not just be sensible about this threat. It is also determined to do the job Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their minions have adamantly shirked: protecting us against, rather than accommodating, Sharia. So the Big Lie and “other techniques of shaming and peer pressure” are now being applied with abandon to outstanding public servants in the hope of reducing their effectiveness and that of the presidency they will serve.

The transparent falsity and political agenda being served by such lies should, instead, discredit their perpetrators. For that to happen, however, the so-called “mainstream press” will have to stop lionizing the Big Liars and uncritically promoting their handiwork.

Are Bannon’s Critics for Real?

November 18, 2016

Are Bannon’s Critics for Real? Front Page MagazinePaul Gottfried, November 18, 2016

Trying to make sense out of senseless accusations — and an even more absurd double standard.

bannon

I’m beginning this commentary on the recent assaults on Steve Bannon by quoting my response to questions that a CNN-Digital reporter asked me concerning President-elect Trump’s friend and adviser:

There’s no indication that Steve Bannon, the Breitbart executive and Donald Trump adviser, who has been characterized as a white nationalist, is a racist or anti-Semite. Bannon is not a white identitarian or race realist. He comes from the world of Washington politics and journalism, not white identity politics. Although I don’t know the man, I doubt Bannon hangs out with people who burn crosses on other people’s lawns.

I expressed this view, more or less, not only to CNN-Digital. I also expressed it in a phone-call marathon to representatives of a Danish daily and the Jewish Forward and, in an hour and a half German conversation, with an editor of the German conservative weekly Junge Freiheit. In all these exchanges I had to answer the question of whether Steve Bannon was in fact an anti-Semite and racist, a judgment that was coming from, among others, such exemplary American “conservatives” as Glenn Beck, Jonah Goldberg, and writers for the Wall Street Journal. I was also asked whether as the co-inventor of the term “Alternative Right,” which has now been shortened to “Altright,” I could tell if Bannon, who likes the term in question, enjoys the company of “white nationalists.”

I tried to explain that the exceedingly elastic term “Altright” has been claimed by a number of groups that belong to the non-establishment Right. All those on the Right who are at war with the GOP establishment and neoconservative politics and who are combatting PC with particular ferocity have embraced the designation “Altright.” This is especially true of Millennials who scorn establishmentarian positions.  But it’s not at all clear to me that those who write for Bannon’s website publication, some of whom are Orthodox Jews, have much to do with white identitarians who also use the term “Altright.” I would doubt that these writers go out to drink with the Philonazi blogger Matt Heimbach, who also claims the Altright moniker.

Like David Horowitz, David Goldman, Rudolf Giuliani, and dozens of other commentators, I find the charges leveled against Bannon to be outrageous slander. I am also horrified by the double standard in play when Bannon, who may or may not have complained to a now divorced wife about Jewish students in a private school, is depicted as the reincarnation of Hitler. At the same time, attacks on Jews or other ethnic groups coming from the Left are given short shrift by the media.

Disparaging descriptions of blacks, Latinos, and Catholics that have emanated from Hillary’s staff (and which have been revealed by Wikileak) occasioned a yawn from the mass media here and in Europe. And so has Hillary’s hateful obscenity about her husband’s Jewish campaign manager, which has never received the same critical scrutiny as Steve Bannon’s totally fictitious anti-Semitism and racism. What would happen to Bannon’s or any Republican’s career if, like Hillary, he referred to someone as a “f-cking Jew bastard”? Presumably that person would not be the darling of the media establishment and the presidential candidate of George H.W. Bush, Robert Kagan, Max Boot and Alan Dershowitz.

I intend to raise these questions the next time someone calls on me as an expert on the Altright who can document Steve Bannon’s possible connection to neo-Nazi websites. Perhaps the interviewers would be interested in knowing what Hillary and John Podesta said about certain groups. Even more relevant, they might want me to explain how it came to pass that the Democratic National Committee is about to nominate as its new director Congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim convert and close friend of Louis Farrakhan. Ellison is entirely explicit in his anti-white and anti-Jewish views and unlike Bannon, does not require reinvention to be turned into what he’s not. The fact that Ellison is heartily endorsed by such presumed idealists as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren is not likely to hurt the reputations of either social justice warrior.

But one must wonder what would happen to a Republican politician who praised David Duke as warmly as Warren and Sanders have extolled the firebrand Keith Ellison. Why are the Black Muslims less distasteful racists than the white supremacist Duke, who by the way quit the Ku Klux Klan decades ago but who remains a code word for (Republican) racism? Or why does Al Sharpton remain a respected confidant of Democratic political leaders, after leading a black race riot against Jewish merchants in Harlem and after engaging in other demagogic incitements to racial violence. (All of Sharpton’s misdeeds are meticulously listed and documented in Carl Horowitz’s Sharpton: The Rise of a Demagogue.)

Meanwhile Steve Bannon is condemned internationally for having possibly said, at least according to an estranged wife, that he objected to spoiled Jewish students in a private school? Perhaps the kids there were spoiled. Why should I even care what he said on this subject, if he really said it?  Another accusation leveled against Bannon is that he allowed Bill Kristol, who made a fetish of belittling Donald Trump, to be attacked as a “renegade Jew.” But that charge, hardly a proof of anti-Semitism, came from the fervently pro-Israeli David Horowitz. In a recent comment Horowitz laments that the “Left has lost touch with the American people.”

Given the Left’s ridiculous double standards, one has to wonder on what planet the Left and the rest of Bannon’s haters are standing.

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?

Why the Big Lie about Steve Bannon?

November 15, 2016

Why the Big Lie about Steve Bannon? PJ MediaDavid P. Goldman, November 15, 2016

(Gosh Darn! Trump should have appointed Keith Ellison or some other “acceptable” leftist, anti-Israel, antisemitic, pro-Islamist. Please see also, The Ellison Angle and Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism?. — DM)

All the existential rage of the defeated and humiliated elite is now focused against Steve Bannon, the architect of Trump’s victory, the media genius who won the battle with less than a fifth of the financial resources at Hillary Clinton’s disposal.

I know Steve Bannon, and have had several long discussions with him about politics. Steve is fervently pro-Israel, and it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that he is anti-Semitic. Other observant Jews who know Bannon, for example Joel Pollak, attest to his support for Israel and friendship for the Jewish people.

All we have learned from the sewage-storm directed at Bannon is that the Establishment plays dirty and that the formerly Republican #NeverTrumpers aren’t just misguided ideologues, but also yellow-bellied, gutter-crawling, backstabbing, bushwacking liars. Hell hath no fury like a self-designated elite scorned. All the existential rage of the defeated and humiliated elite is now focused against the architect of Trump’s victory, the media genius who won the battle with less than a fifth of the financial resources at Hillary Clinton’s disposal.

They hate Steve Bannon because he beat them fair and square on the battlefield of social media. He is the President-elect’s most effective general. Trump’s enemies can’t reverse the results of a national election, but they can try to cut the incoming president off from his popular base.

The charges against Steve Bannon are a tissue of lies without a modicum of merit.

Anyone can search the Breitbart Media archive for posts on Israel, Jews, and related topics, as I have, and determine that Steve Bannon’s hugely successful media platform is 100% pro-Israel. Not only that: Breitbart consistently reports on the dangers of anti-Semitism around the world. Not a single article appeared in Breitbart.com during the past two years that could not have appeared in Israel Hayom, the leading Israeli daily.

But that is not what one hears from Ian Tuttle at National Review, who complains that “in May, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol was labeled a ‘Renegade Jew.’ He was indeed, by another Jew, David Horowitz, who argued that Kristol had betrayed Jewish interests by trying to torpedo Trump–a point Horowitz emphasizes here. Tuttle knows this but chooses to twist Horowitz’ headline into its opposite. Tuttle’s colleague Jonah Goldberg also inveighs against Bannon but his post is too silly to quote.

Generously, Tuttle allows that Bannon is not Goebbels. No, he isn’t, but the Establishment (including conservative Establishment) media drumbeat against Bannon takes its cue from Goebbels doctrine of the Big Lie: repeat it often enough, and people will believe it, no matter how absurd it is.

NeverTrumper John Podhoretz meanwhile penned an underhanded a attack on Steve Bannon on the Commentary website yesterday. One has to read this a couple of times to appreciate how sleazy it is: “The key moral problem with Steve Bannon is that as the CEO of Andrew Breitbart’s namesake organization, he is an aider and abetter of foul extremist views, including anti-Semitic ones. He used the site to promote the alt-right, which has retailed anti-Semitism as well as general outright racism and white nationalism. The distinction may seem like a minor one, but it isn’t; the hatred Breitbart has channeled is too general for it to be singled out for its anti-Semitic content.”

Note the construction of Podhoretz’ sentence: Breitbart isn’t anti-Semitic, but in some vague, unnamed way, he has facilitated anti-Semitism from the alt-Right (whatever that is). The man is an embarrassment to the venerable Jewish monthly. It’s time for Commentary to find a new editor.

Those are facts, indisputable, accessible, and easy to verify. Anyone can enter the terms “Jews” or “Israel” and “site:www.breitbart.com” into the Google search engine and obtain everything that Breitbart has published on the subject. I looked through roughly a thousand articles and found nothing but pro-Israel, pro-Jewish articles that might well have appeared in Israel Hayom. There is not a shred of evidence–not a single article–that supports Podhoretz’ allegation that Bannon and Breitbart aid and abet anti-Semitic views. In lieu of other evidence, the the supposedly offensive David Horowitz piece has been cited dozens of times in the past 24 hours (including by the Times of Israel!).

Of course, one expects the Establishment media to lie at two hundred decibels. Yesterday’s email blast from the usually staid Financial Times began, “Donald Trump has chosen Reince Priebus, the establishment head of the Republican National Committee, as his chief of staff, while naming Steve Bannon — his campaign chair who ran Breitbart News, a website associated with the alt-right and white supremacists — as his chief strategist and counsellor.” To claim that Breitbart is associated with white supremacists is a despicable lie. , but the FT feels compelled to say such things because polite opinion requires ritual anathemas of Trump.

And the liberal Jewish website The Forward wrote, “The reaction was quick and furious from Jews and anti-hate groups. The Anti-Defamation League, which stays out of partisan politics and vowed to seek to work with Trump after his election, denounced Bannon as ‘hostile to American values.'” The Forward headline asks, “Will Steve Bannon bring anti-Semitism into Trump’s inner circle?” It is shameful that Jewish organizations cry “wolf” over anti-Semitism in pursuit of a patently political agenda.

“A world is collapsing before our eyes,” tweeted France’s Ambassador to the United States as the returns came in early in the morning of Nov. 9. The “liberal world order” of elitist social engineering has come to an end. The Weekly Standard and Commentary Magazine have no more reason to publish than do the New York Times or the New Republic. The world simply has moved away from them. And symbolizing their humiliation is one man who who took on their vast media machine with seemingly insignificant resources, and defeated them. They will stop at nothing to destroy him.

Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism?

November 15, 2016

Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism? Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, November 15, 2016

(Please see also, The Ellison Angle.– DM)

sd

When is anti-Semitism not anti-Semitism? When it comes from the Left, of course. 

President-elect Trump has enraged the establishment media by choosing Steven K. Bannon as his chief strategist, because Bannon, they claim on the flimsiest of evidence, is a white supremacist and an anti-Semite. Meanwhile, that same media is hailing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) for announcing his candidacy for Chairman of the Democratic National Committee – despite Ellison’s very real links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, two groups that are outdone by no one in anti-Semitism.

“A chorus of critics took to Twitter,” said the New York Times, “to lament what they said was a frightening normalization of the fringe views that Mr. Bannon promoted as the chairman of Breitbart News. The site has for years given voice to anti-Semitic, racist and white nationalist ideology.”

The evidence? Slim to none. As David Horowitz pointed out Monday, the source for the claim that Bannon is anti-Semitic is “a one sentence claim from an angry ex-wife in divorce court no less, that Bannon didn’t want their kids to go to school with Jews.” Horowitz noted in response that Bannon had wanted to produce a Horowitz biopic: “I find that particularly amusing since Bannon wanted to make a film to celebrate this Jew’s life.”

Horowitz also noted that CNN hit Bannon over “a headline at Breitbart.com calling Bill Kristol a ‘renegade Jew.’” Surely that proves Bannon’s anti-Semitism, right? Wrong. Said Horowitz: “In fact, neither Breitbart nor Bannon is responsible for that statement. A Jew is. I wrote the article, which was neither requested nor commissioned by Breitbart. And I wrote the headline: ‘Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,’” because “Kristol and his friends betrayed the Republican Party, betrayed the American people, and betrayed the Jews when he set out to undermine Trump and elect the criminal Hillary Clinton. Obama and Hillary are supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that launched the Arab drive to destroy Israel and push its Jews into the sea (that was their slogan).”

Joel B. Pollak, senior editor-at-large at Breitbart News and an Orthodox Jew, declared: “I have worked with Stephen K. Bannon, President-elect Donald Trump’s new chief strategist and senior counselor, for nearly six years at Breitbart News. I can say, without hesitation, that Steve is a friend of the Jewish people and a defender of Israel, as well as being a passionate American patriot and a great leader.”

Meanwhile, the same Democrats who are howling about Bannon are applauding Ellison’s announcement that he is running for DNC Chair, despite the abundant evidence of Ellison’s links to anti-Semitic groups. Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.”

It gets worse. In 2008, Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Muslim American Society is a Muslim Brotherhood organization: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” That’s from the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb.

Also, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events. Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused todenounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

Hamas has declared: “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.” Ellison has spoken before several groups that have ties to Hamas, and has accepted money from a Muslim Brotherhood group; Hamas styles itself the Muslim Brotherhood for Palestine. Does Keith Ellison also, then, think that “killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah”? No establishment media “journalist” would ever dream of asking him that question, but it’s a fair one: Hamas repeatedly demonstrates genuine and murderous anti-Semitism, and Ellison has repeatedly shown himself willing and even eager to associate himself with Hamas-linked groups.

That’s the real story of anti-Semitism in American politics this week. But the media propagandists are most certainly not going to pause in their hysteria over Trump and Bannon to take any notice of it. Their hypocrisy is obvious, their dishonesty unrelenting, and their moral authority absolutely nil.