FrontPageMag

Subscribe to FrontPageMag feed
A project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center
Updated: 11 hours 9 min ago

Video: David Horowitz on the Left in the University

Fri, 12/08/2017 - 05:25

Editor's note: below are the video and transcript of David Horowitz's recent lecture on the destruction of American higher education and his new book, "The Black Book of the American Left, Volume VIII: The Left in the University." Remarks were delivered at the Luxe Sunset Boulevard Hotel in Los Angeles, CA and broadcast on C-SPAN2.

David Horowitz: Last week I was at the University of Houston in Houston, where the week before they had held a national conference for Students for Justice in Palestine. The university hosted it. Students for Justice in Palestine is a creature of the terrorist organization Hamas and is a Hamas propaganda network. I brought along a little clip to show you so you can share with me. 

Clip:

That was seven minutes into my talk, and I had said at the outset of the talk that when I was a radical at Berkeley and Columbia in the sixties, I always wanted to hear what the other side had to say because I felt that would make me a better radical. I would have the arguments. Those days are gone. 

The greatest American tragedy in my lifetime is the destruction of our educational system by progressives and its conversion into an indoctrination and recruitment center for the ideological left. This book that I’ve written, The Left and the University, is the sixth book that I’ve written about the universities and this problem, which has been 50 years in the making. And it has a special interest because it’s really dispatches from a warfront. It’s what I wrote engaging in a battle to restore academic freedom to the university, to restore the modern research university to basically our liberal arts colleges, the principles of it. 

I had based my campaign, which was for an Academic Bill of Rights for students, on the very famous Academic Freedom Statement of the American Association of University Professors, which these days is run by Stalinists who were not happy with my proposals. But I took their 1915 statement, which was really the statement that created the modern research university, basing it on scientific principles and scientific procedures, that is, you have a hypothesis and you confront it with counter opinions, and you try to test it by evidence. 

Of course, in the liberal arts fields, the humanities, sociology, all these fields, political science, there’s no way of conducting the kind of experiments that scientists actually do, so every issue is controversial. And the 1915 statement said it’s not the place of a faculty member in a democracy to indoctrinate his or her students, but to present them with divergent opinions in a fair-minded way because the task of a teacher in a democracy is to teach students how to think, not tell them what to think. 

What’s actually happened over the last 50 years is that the political left – and I suspect a lot of my generation of radicals stayed in the universities and pursued academic careers to avoid the draft and to avoid fighting communism, which they sympathized with – what they’ve done is they’ve reverted the universities, the colleges – obviously not the physics departments and geology departments, but the citizen-training aspects of the university, all the social studies fields and the law and so forth – they’ve reverted them to their nineteenth century origins. In the nineteenth century, all of our colleges were doctrinal institutions, they were religious institutions, Harvard, Yale, and what they were there for was to instill the doctrines of the particular denomination because they were training ministers and priests and so forth. That’s what our universities have become today except that the religious doctrines that they teach and instill are the doctrines of Marxism, identity politics, which is cultural Marxism, which I will explain shortly.

For those of you who are mystified that college students should want to – it’s not just the professors. Believe me, there’s a whole faculty cohort behind these pro-terrorist students and these anti-democratic students and anti-learning students. As I say, when I was a radical, and I considered myself a Marxist revolutionary at the time, I wanted to hear what our opponents were saying. I wanted to be able to answer them, and I was in school to learn how to do that. That’s the way I perceived it. 

If you want to understand why there’s this concerted effort to shut down the other side of the debate, it’s because these are religious institutions now, our liberal arts colleges, and they are not dealing with a divergent opinion, as one would in a democracy. They are dealing with a religious heresy, and what you do to heretics is you burn them at the stake if you have enough power to do that, or you just close them down, as happened, for example, to Charles Murray at the University of Michigan and other conservatives. I mean, this is nothing personal. I don’t take this at all personally.

What happened was, beginning in the 1970s, the left saw the universities as instruments of their revolutionary designs. So the first thing they did was begin a purge of conservatives from faculties by not hiring them, basically, so that today on most campuses, conservatives are as rare as unicorns. They then purged conservative books from the required reading lists. A student, a normal student, an average student can go through four years of a college in our country today and never encounter a conservative adult or read a book by a conservative who hasn’t been dead for 100 years.

The next thing they did was to purge conservative ideas from the curriculum, and they did that by inventing what they called “studies”: American studies, black studies, women’s studies. These are all political fields. They are not scholarly fields, but they are about learning left-wing politics. You couldn’t be a conservative and be a women’s studies professor because women’s studies is not about the academic study of women, it’s about training Marxist feminists. It’s about training students in the thoroughly discredited Marxist idea that the environment determines everything, that we are socially constructed, and that’s how you get this idea that gender is socially constructed, not just socially influenced, but socially constructed. 

If you go over to the neuroscience department or to the biology department, you learn that it’s hardwired into the biological system. Well, this is obvious to any normal human being who hasn’t had their brains glued up by leftist ideology. The fields now are so constructed that a conservative really can hardly be part of them or could not be part of them. There are no conservatives in women’s studies departments. In fact, some of the founders of women’s studies, who actually believe they should be about the study of women, have been purged and treated as enemies by these political radicals on our faculties.

The next thing that they did was to prevent conservative discourse coming in from the outside. Now, when you come to a campus and you get treated like this, of course the Cougar, the newspaper there, their entire report was of the demonstration, not anything that I said. So just basically the university was deaf to my presence, which is the purpose. It’s the agenda of the left. 

But until about 2001, I was reminded of this by one of the chapters in my book, The Left and the University, it's called Ann Coulter at Cornell, and it’s when Ann was pelted with oranges physically, attacked when she was speaking. And if you think having an orange thrown at you at high speed isn’t intimidating, it is. I remember that in 2001 I had conducted a campaign. I thought the idea of reparations for slavery paid 137 years after the fact from people who were never slave owners to people who were never slaves was a bad idea and actually racist and had the indiscretion to say so. 

When I was invited to speak by College Republicans at the University of California, Berkeley, I asked the chancellor, I wrote the chancellor and said – because I knew that Netanyahu had been unable to speak in Berkeley because of the threats of violence which they couldn’t contain– so I asked him to introduce me or have somebody from his office introduce me just to protect the students, and what he did was he assigned 30 armed guards for my talk. When I had to go to the bathroom before I spoke, six guys in flak jackets proceeded me into the bathroom and kicked open the stall doors, and I remember saying out loud that this is an absolute disgrace in America.

But when you have university officials like that, there’s no way to stop it. You have to expel students who do things like these students did or like they are doing now at Reed College where they are demonstrating inside classrooms. They don’t want Aristotle taught because he was white. Wow, that university. Actually I had visited Reed, and I thought it was a pretty good school. Even though it’s a left-wing school, it’s very traditional and the students were all interested in discussing ideas with me, not attacking me politically, but that obviously has changed.

So in 2001, what happened is people started to get physically attacked, and I had a bodyguard for that Berkeley event and I have not been able to go to a college campus. I mean, I’ve been physically attacked before that. I’m trying to think because I’m a little lax about these things, and I visited Butler. I did not have a bodyguard when I was at Butler, and I was attacked. They threw this chocolate cream pie in my face, which isn’t physically damaging, but there’s a picture of me on the Internet looking pretty pathetic. I mean, I was wearing a suit and it was just gooey stuff, but I’ve been physically attacked where violence that would hurt me was intended, and I could never finish a speech if there wasn’t massive campus security. 

The campuses know they have a security problem, so when I spoke at the University of Houston, there were about 10 cops in uniform and there were two undercover cops in the audience. That’s why they marched out because they knew now that they would be arrested if they did anything. But when you go to a campus and that’s the atmosphere, it’s not an intellectual discourse anymore. There’s not going to be an exchange of ideas. 

And let me say, I’ve been on 400 college campuses, and only three times have I been invited by faculty. One by a dean who when I got there he hid from me because he was under assault from his own faculty, and the fact of the matter is that there is no – I mean, I’m sure there are decent people on faculties across this country, but none of them has the courage to stand up for the conservatives and invite them. 

The solution to the Berkeley problem or any of these problems is for the faculty to band together and invite a conservative and lecture the students who come and the students on campus to fight for the right for free speech. There are no such people. That is a huge problem, and that is an indictment of the whole university system, the college system. That is part of the complete conversion of the university into a one-party system in a one-party state. One of the books I wrote with Jacob Laksin is called One-Party Classroom because that’s what it is. It’s a one-party state. You get one point of view.

Now, one of the consequences of this is the miseducation or lack of education of college graduates now. I had the figures here. I think one third of millennials think that George Bush killed more people than Joseph Stalin. Twenty-five percent of the students who actually know who Lenin was, and that’s a minority, think he was a great guy. You know, I could go on and on with these things, but of course, this has affected our judiciary. You wonder why the media is such a disgrace these days.  It’s because of the way people are educated. The communications departments are training grounds in Marxism. 

I’ve been to the University of Texas. When I went there in Austin, a professor of communications who is a Bolshevik – she’s a member of the International Socialists which is a Bolshevik organization which has called for a dictatorship of the proletariat in America – inside the lecture hall where I was supposed to speak she was leading chants exactly like the one you saw at the top of my talk here. And I was only able to continue because it was a vice chancellor who came, and this is in the good old days, and said, you’ll be arrested if you continue this demonstration in here. And it took her a long time to stop people. Usually they come in and they say, these administrators, they don’t say a word to me, but they’ll say, “There’s a safe room for people who are disturbed, distressed by what David Horowitz has to say.”

And to show you how far gone it’s gotten, a couple of weeks ago I was in Washington, DC, and I called up the Chronicle of Higher Education and told them I was coming. Now, 15 years ago, since I was a leading – I was probably the leading conservative critic of what was going on in the universities, the Chronicle actually allowed me to write a piece for them called “In Defense of Intellectual Diversity,” which is in this volume, To the Left in the University. So they invited me when they heard – oh, and I was featured, my profile, on the front page of the Chronicle also because I was such a prominent critic. They invited me, and I told them that I had a new book which I would like them to review, but I sent them a copy so they could look it over. 

And they arranged – the editor, Scott Smallwood, who had treated me well. Fairly, I don’t know if it was "well," I don’t remember exactly, but fairly, somewhat fairly, 15 years ago. He’s the one who invited me. He didn’t show up for the meeting, but they had 10 editors and reporters shoot me questions for an hour. And then they asked me if I would come to a room and videotape an interview for 10 minutes that they were going to put up right away on their website. When I left, I got an email that they are not going to put it up, no explanation, and there isn’t a trace of my visit in the Chronicle of Higher Education. That is the intellectual journal. Well, you can see, there is no dialogue, no dialogue left.

So what is the religion that they teach?  It’s very important. The religion is, as you all already know, is identity politics, which is really cultural Marxism which I’ll explain in a moment. Marxism is a view of the world in which society is divided into warring classes. Remember the Communist Manifesto: the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles, which is bunk, but that’s what Marxists believe. 

Well, so what you have, there’s two ideas here. There are actually three. The first is that people’s class is the determinant factor. When the Bolsheviks came to power, of course, they set out to eliminate classes like the Kulaks, and by eliminate, it was at the point of a gun, which is what they did. So first of all, you erase the individual. Our whole society is built on the idea of individual rights and individual accountability, but if you have a Marxist view, it’s about classes. This is classical Marxism. It’s the Marxism I grew up with. The second idea is that society is divided into oppressors and oppressed, so there’s the ruling class and then there was the working class. And the third idea is that there’s a civil war between these classes, and it’s a conflict that can only be resolved violently.

Now if you think about it, this had a certain coherence, this idea. The idea was, of course, that private property which creates the classes is responsible for all of the social problems: wars, poverty, so forth. So if you have a revolution, the revolution was to take away the ownership of the means of production from the ruling class and put everybody in one class. Well, there’s a certain coherence to that idea because you wind up, after you’ve eliminated the bad oppressor class, where everybody is an equal because nobody is an owner of property. This is a delusional idea, and it led to the deaths of 100 million people in the twentieth century. Very destructive. If you take away people’s identity as individuals, individual merit. In the American idea is so much Martin Luther King’s idea that you judge people by the content of their character. 

However, cultural Marxism, identity politics, is 100 times worse because it sees society as divided into races, ethnicities, genders, and it has this ridiculous – the way they judge who is oppressed is who’s marginal. I don’t know. If you dress yourself up in a dress and have a mustache and, you know, put rabbit ears on your head, of course you are marginal. Just look around you. You are going to be marginal. Now, that doesn’t mean you are oppressed, it’s just a fact. Jews are marginal. We’ve been marginal throughout history and persecuted for that matter. 

But this is a very pernicious idea that society is divided into an oppressor group, based on race or based on gender or based on sexual orientation, an oppressor group and an oppressed group. And then of course the ideology is one of war. There’s a phrase for it. I’ve discussed this before, but it hasn’t been picked up by people, but it needs to be picked up by conservatives. “People of color.” Now, people of color is not a group. It’s not a group. There’s not an identity of interest. Just ask the Rwandans. Do you think the Tutsis and the Hutus had a common interest?  Do you think that Pakistanis and Indians have a common interest?  They are at war with each other. 

The example I’ve given is Mexico, where you have two main ethnic groups: the descendants of the conquistadors who slaughtered the indigenous Indians, oppressors, and the descendants of the indigenous survivors of the indigenous Indians, the oppressed. But when they cross the border into the United States, they are both people of color, therefore oppressed, therefore marginal deserving special interests, special allowances. You don’t look at what they actually do. If they break the law, and I’m not suggesting that all Mexicans – I mean the left is so good at converting whatever you say into what you didn’t say – but it’s to confer power on these so-called oppressed groups and deprive the oppressor groups. 

Well if you look at the world, the maharajas of India are people of color; beheaders in Syria, ISIS members, they are people of color; Idi Amin and Mugabe and these monsters in Africa, dictators, are people of color. Everybody in the world is people of color except the bad, evil oppressors, white people. 

The biggest social problem we have in America is rampant anti-white racism. People talk now, Democrats, people that you would think had brains, talk about America as a white supremacist nation. It’s idiotic. It’s lunatic. Yeah, there are some Ku Kluxers around. There are some white supremacists. What are there – 500 were in Charlottesville out of a nation of 330 million?  The Ku Klux Klan once had 11 senators and 75 Congressman. Name me the white supremacist, the actual white supremacist, who is a member of Congress. There are some black supremacists in Congress, I will tell you that, but what white supremacist?  

The same thing with Nazis, the neo-Nazis. Those kids are – Hitler youth is what they are, literally. What they were cheering is an organization that wants to exterminate the Jews and says so in so many words, which I actually read war statements from Hamas, but you just have to read the Hamas charter to know that extermination of Jews is their agenda.

Now, I could go on and on about this, but this is the greatest problem our country faces. Why are we so divided?  Because everybody on the left, everybody who’s a progressive, is seeing everything in racial, gender terms and lying about it. Hillary ran a campaign on the idea that women are somehow oppressed in this country by men to the extent that there is a gender wage gap so that women actually earn $0.24 less on the dollar than men for the same work and the same experience in the same jobs. It’s a big lie, and Hillary knows it’s a lie because she was around when a male dominated Congress in 1963, people, passed the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, making it illegal to pay women less than men. 

As I’ve said many times from platforms like this, you can show in one sentence why it’s a lie, and that is, if it were true, employers would fire all their male employees, hire women, and increase their profits 20%. It doesn’t happen because it’s a lie. And yet where’s the media?  Where are the referees?  Where are the sensible people in our public life pointing this out?  They don’t exist, and that’s because of our corrupt, corrupted, destroyed educational system.

The modern research university, that’s where – and I got my model of what I wanted a university to look like from having gone – I went to Columbia in the 1950s as a Marxist. I was never harassed by my professors the way conservative kids are harassed these days. I never knew the politics of my professors. If students in the class took one opinion, they took the opposite to teach us how to think. That was what a university should be. It was one of the great achievements of mankind really, the modern research university that the left has destroyed. It doesn’t exist. What’s going on at schools like Harvard and Yale is disgraceful, and you can see – I mean it’s all over YouTube. You can see it. 

Is there a solution?  Well, there’s two ways of looking at that question. Sure. My Bill of Rights was one attempt at a solution. If they just observed, the universities, the principles that they preached, everything would be fine, but they don’t. They don’t. There isn’t an administrator in this country who has reached out to Milo Yiannopoulos or Ann Coulter or myself or any of the conservative speakers and attempted to reverse this. Not one. So here’s my proposal, and in doing the Academic Bill of Rights, I eschewed any external forces being placed on the university. We passed a few resolutions supporting the idea of those principles that there should be fairness, but no legislation and no wielding of political power. But the left has convinced me that appeals to reason are futile. The campaign I waged failed. 

So here’s how I would fix it today. There are 33 states where Republicans control the state legislatures. The Appropriations Committee in both houses of the legislature in every one of these states controls the lifeline, the oxygen tubes, for the presidents of these universities and the universities. Eighty-five percent of our students go to public universities. All the chairman of the Appropriations Committee would have to do is call the president of the university say, you are constantly coming to me to fund, to underwrite, to make possible this for your university, that for your university, and of course to advance your own careers because you are judged on what you can bring to the university. So I have three things that I want from you, and if I don’t get them, I’m not going to answer your phone calls ever again.

First, I want you to provide me with the required reading lists for every one of your undergraduate courses in the liberal arts. And then I’m going to submit that to one of our conservative think tanks, and they are going to look it over to see if there is parity between the conservative books that you require and the conservative authors that you require students to read and the leftist ones. And of course there’s no parity whatsoever because the conservative books barely exist, and I know this because I did a book called, as I mentioned, One-Party Classroom, where I studied the reading lists of 170 courses, and I can tell you they are conservative book-free. 

And that doesn’t even impose on the professor the responsibility not to ridicule the conservative ideas, but to present them so the students can weigh them. One of the complaints I had – I spoke at the Western New England Law School and the conservative students there, what their complaint was that every time the name Antonin Scalia or Justice Clarence Thomas comes up, they make jokes about them. That’s a way of stopping people from weighing their ideas. Ridicule is a very powerful, powerful weapon. And having submitted those lists to me, I want you, I give you a term to do this, to see that all the required readings for undergraduates on those lists, there’s parity between the required conservative and left-wing texts. 

The second thing I want you to do is to provide me with a list of all the speakers who are invited to your campus, and often paid exorbitant fees if they are on the left. Michael Moore will get $50,000 from a state school during an election year to – election year for the Democrat. He ran this Slackers Tour. The Supreme Court has already said that that means Republicans have to get an exact amount of – the same amount of money just to adhere to the Constitution. Of course, that isn’t happening or hasn’t happened. So I want a list of all the speakers invited by your professors and by your student organizations, and within a year I want absolute parity between Republicans and Democrats, leftists and conservatives.

And the third thing I want is I want you – again, I will have a committee look over your faculties, and I want you to begin an affirmative action program to diversify your faculties. You have a law faculty – I could throw a dart at a board with universities named on it, and it didn’t matter which one I hit – you have a law faculty with 50 or 100 law professors and maximum two or three are Republicans or conservatives. You can’t tell me that Republicans aren’t lawyers. So I want you to begin a program to diversify, and I want a progress report every semester to see your progress on it. And then I will take your phone calls for your projects.

Now, will that happen?  There’s only one Republican – well, actually there are two that I know who would do that. One of them is President of the United States and the other one is Steve Bannon. When I see other Republicans with some spine, I’ll think maybe something like this could happen.

I want to close with the – going back to the University of Houston. This was a national conference. Students for Justice in Palestine was created by the terrorist organization Hamas. Its founder, Hatem Bazian, is an agent of Hamas. Hatem Bazian is the chairman of the board of American Muslims for Palestine, which provides over $100,000 a year for Students for Justice in Palestine, which is a Hamas operation. Hatem Bazian, by the way, is a faculty member at the University of California, Berkeley, and of course, he’s the head of the Islamophobia Studies program, which is a program to defame and libel and slander people like me and try to get people not to listen to us. 

And the entire agenda of Students for Justice in Palestine is to spread genocidal lies about the State of Israel. The State of Israel doesn’t occupy an inch, not an inch of Arab land. The land on which Israel was created belonged to the Turks for 400 years prior. The Turks are not Arabs, nor are they Palestinians.  There never was a country called "Palestine." It’s a geographical term that the Romans imposed on the Jewish homeland. The Jews are the only indigenous people of the land around the Jordan because it’s derivation is Philistine, who are the enemies of the Jews. 

Palestine is a geographical area. It’s like New England. New Englanders. They didn’t exist, the Palestinian nationality or claim to a nationality, until 1964, 16 years after the creation of the State of Israel. Now, you can have all kinds of criticisms of the Israeli government, as you can of any government, but you can’t be spreading genocidal lies that come right out of the Hamas playbook calling Israel an apartheid state. It’s the only state in the Middle East that isn’t apartheid. And putting maps created by Hamas which show a country called Palestine existing in 1947, no such country ever existed, and then invaded by the Jews. 

These are Nazis. They are Nazis on our campuses. These kids are Hitler youth, and they are supported by every university administration, including the University of Chicago, which people have praised it because they – you can’t believe a word that comes out of a university administrator’s mouth these days. Because it’s the universities that tear down the posters that we put up pointing this out. It’s the universities that provide offices for these Hitler youth, Students for Justice in Palestine, and they have the whole left in tow with them. 

The Muslim Students Association, which like SJP is a Muslim Brotherhood creation, but the political left, which is a totalitarian, pro-terrorist left these days, all of them are in tow to do everything that they can to undermine the Jewish state and make them vulnerable to genocidal intentions, whether it is 30,000 rockets from Hezbollah and Hamas and Iran aimed at the Jewish state. This is an utter disgrace and the silence around it, which is a silence also by Jewish organizations that don’t want to upset the Muslims. It’s just amazing. 

Every time there’s an atrocity committed by ISIS, all of the liberals in this country, so-called, rally around the Muslims as though somebody is persecuting Muslims. There’s something like, I don’t know the exact number, but it’s five or seven times the number of hate crimes against Jews in this country as against Muslims.

Just to close this. I have a reform proposal at the end of this book, but it would take administrators with some integrity to carry it out, which I don’t have any faith in anymore. I just think that our country is in grave danger because of this. It goes down. They have corrupted the K-12 system as well. Kids are being indoctrinated from kindergarten. They have no respect for youth, no respect for innocence. 

They are on a mission from their god which is history, what they think is history; they are on the right side of it as though it is moving in any direction. That’s why they are so shell-shocked. They thought it was moving in their direction. Suddenly it isn’t. If Trump hadn’t come in and demolished ISIS, something Obama didn’t even try to do for eight years, who knows what the future would be?  We could be back in the Dark Ages. 

However, it’s a battle that I hope that you all would get involved in. We have websites that deal with this. We have campus campaigns, and I hope that more people on the right join us, and not just on the right. Hillel is an organization that’s gone now because it’s been taken over by the left, but there are some brave members of Hillel too. I’m waiting for them to come out of the woodwork and expose this terrorist network on our campuses. And this is just one piece of a gigantic problem that’s been caused over a 50-year period by the assault of the left on our universities and their conversion into cultural Marxist, religious institutions. Thank you. [Applause]

Moderator: If anyone has a question, I’d like you to stand up and to come to the mic and ask your question.

Attendee: Hello, David. Thank you so much. I fear we are having a problem with a certain viewpoint. You, myself, many people in this room, started off as socialists, communists. We were starting from a base of attempting to be good, decent, moral, ethical people, and we were misdirected, and once we learned about the body counts of how many people were murdered for this utopia, we started rethinking. I fear that’s what’s going on in the university is exactly what the government wants to be doing. You were talking about government funding. If you are trying to create a society of re-enslaving humanity, of tyranny, of undermining constitutions and democracy, they are doing exactly what they want them to do. And it seems like the only alternative is first, to just call them out, for employers, don’t hire people from Berkeley and Yale and Harvard.

David Horowitz: It’s impossible. Look, it’s very sinister what the left has done because you can’t do that. They’ve inserted themselves into – I mean, there are still – a university is a gigantic institution and there are marvelous parts of it, untouched. Well, not entirely untouched because in the medical schools and in the science schools there’s a leftist campaign to intimidate people into adopting all of the myths of identity politics, so there’s a political war going on for the students’ minds. But the fact of the matter is that a university like Berkeley or the University of Houston, a lot of it does really marvelous things in medicine, in physics, in astrophysics, in various technical fields. 

So you can’t tell people, don’t send your kids to Harvard or Yale. They have to get it. Look, it’s a political battle. Conservatives don’t like politics. I mean, this is a huge handicap for conservatives. When I first came into the right, I looked around and I said, where’s the ground army?  There is none. Conservatives – politics is a dirty business that we engage in every 18 months. Outside the 18 months, unless we are trying to get some favors for our companies or something like that, outside the 18 months, we go back to normal life which is creative. We are creating jobs, we are creating products, we are making people’s lives better. That’s what conservatives do. Whereas leftists are at war all the time.

Attendee: Right. Inasmuch as we are the creators, that we created these universities, we can re-create new universities: the Hillsdales, the Prager Universities, the online universities. It isn’t as if information isn’t available now.

David Horowitz: Well, look. I don’t know very much about Hillsdale, although I have done fundraisers for them, but I’ve never been to Hillsdale, I think because their president is a very traditional conservative who doesn’t approve of my confrontational politics. But the fact of the matter is these are tiny compared – we are not talking about Harvard and Yale. What are their endowments?  Four or 500 billion dollars?  By the way, one of the great things that Trump is doing, and I actually know the guy who proposed this, is that part of this tax bill is an endowment tax on private universities like Harvard and Yale. A 10% endowment tax would pay for all those student loans, wouldn’t it?

Attendee: But I’m just trying to think in a different way, inasmuch as we never had an Internet. We didn’t have the immediate information, instantaneous. We used to buy encyclopedias. We don’t need encyclopedias now. We have it all, and maybe we just have it reorganized.

David Horowitz: Look, I agree. The Internet has greatly, greatly increased the power of conservatives. It’s broken the information monopoly the left used to have. A lot of things are happening. The Trump movement is the biggest grass – it’s the first time, well, it’s the second time. When the Tea Party appeared, I said, “Ahhh, finally at last. A ground army is forming.” Now it’s much, much bigger. So there’s hope in that, but let’s not underestimate the odds. Let’s be sober about that.

Attendee: Hello, Mr. Horowitz. I think the hardest thing for conservatives is how to understand the liberal mind, the logic.

David Horowitz: It’s not logical.

Attendee: Right. I know that Dennis Prager and you have said it’s a religion, and it doesn’t require any – you know, it’s a faith-based type of thing, and I read Evan Sayet’s book on the liberal mind, which helped explain some of it, but children and students are impressionable. Their minds aren’t fully formed, but their professors and the leaders of the progressive movement are adults. And I want to ask you since you were in that – you had that perspective as a young man – how do they envision utopia?  What are they – what is their idea?

David Horowitz: They don’t. Look, I mean, I’ve written so much about this. The second volume in this series, the Black Book series, is called Progressives. It’s in there. The difference is this. Conservatives form their views of the world by looking at the past, which is a record of what human beings are capable of, both good and bad. If you read about the founding of this country, that’s what they did. They studied societies, and they thought the democracy was a really bad system, but it was better than the others on practical grounds. 

Leftists don’t look at the real world that way. They are always looking at an imaginary future. It used to be called communism, then it’s socialism, now it’s social justice, all the same thing. All ultimately the same thing, all headed in the same direction, to treat people as collectives, to erase their individuality, to judge them either on their class position or on their race or gender or sexual orientation, and always to see it in terms of oppressors and oppressed. That is what they are thinking, if you want to call it thinking. 

And for them, it’s tremendous. They think of themselves – social justice warriors, we even use their language to describe them – they are heroic. They are living in a fantasy, a romantic fantasy in which they are saving the world. If you think you are saving the world, you are not going to give that up. I mean, you are not thinking logically. I watch the television like everybody, and I’m thinking, "Ah, if people get run over by a terrorist truck, it’s about gun control." What the hell is that?  Doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.  How can you even begin with a straight face to do things like that?  And it’s because the elimination of guns, which is what their agenda is, is part of creating this world where we all get along. People don’t get along. They haven’t gotten along since Cain killed Abel for crying out tears.

Attendee: Well, that’s what I want to ask you is that, do they just discount history?  

David Horowitz: Yes. 

Attendee: I mean look at Nazi Germany was totalitarian –

David Horowitz: They think they are smarter than everybody else and everybody who existed before them. Look, the Bolsheviks, Lenin, Trotsky, these were very, very smart people. Michael Moore, pffft. You know?  He doesn’t come up to their –

Attendee: But we can look back and see that those – Lenin at the time, that was the first time, that now we’ve had these totalitarian regimes. It never works out.

David Horowitz: Look, how did the left react to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the deaths of 40 million people, the starvation, the gulag? How do they react to it? Oh, that wasn’t real socialism. We are smarter than Lenin, than Preobrazhensky than Lukacs. I could go on and on. That’s the way people think. They are arrogant and they are stupid. What more can you say?  

And there’s so much emotional satisfaction. It’s a religion. It’s a consolation from all the disappointments of life. That’s what it is, and to take that away from them would cause – I mean, I described in my book, Radical Son, the personal crisis I went through when I realized that Marxism is a load of crap. It was everything to me. It made everything I did important, and that’s the way it is for every leftist. 

And you can see, by the way, in their contempt, their utter contempt for people who disagree with them, their arrogance, the lack of respect, it’s astounding. You see it every day on television. You see idiots like Joy-Ann Reid or Lawrence O’Donnell. Pathological liar in the case of O’Donnell, but just a moron in the case of Joy-Ann Reid. Why is she a moron?  Because she can’t – there’s no empathy there. There’s no respect for people who disagree with her. 

Attendee: Thank you, David, for what you are accomplishing. I would like to make a point. You had mentioned, very, very briefly in passing, the problem of K-12. I would like to bring to your attention, if you are not aware of this. For example, my wife is a teacher at LAUSD, the second largest public school district in the United States, second only to New York. And she recently showed me some literature from a course that the teachers are now being exposed to in terms of training the students of LAUSD in the importance of understanding the Muslim faith, the five pillars of the Muslim faith, their prayers, what they signify, when they prostrate themselves, what that signifies. They go into great detail about this. Any other religion, it would be totally banned.

David Horowitz: Correct, and that’s the problem. Not that they are teaching what Muslims believe, but the fact that Christians, Jews, probably atheists aren’t saluted. Why?  Because they are oppressors of Muslims, and there’s a political agenda. In the Edina School District in Minnesota, it’s wealthy suburb of Minneapolis, they are giving first-graders a book – a kids book with big pictures, a big A on the front of it – A is for Activist, X is for Malcolm X, and on and on. I forget the other thing, but it’s a complete leftist agenda. I have a website called Stop K-12 Indoctrination, and on that website is a code of ethics for K-12 teachers which, if you don’t observe, you get suspended and then if you persist you lose your license. That would stop all this, but it requires a political city council, whoever oversees the school district, with integrity. They have to have integrity, and they have to have enormous guts.

Moderator: This is your last question.

Attendee: Mr. Horowitz, I’ve seen a lot of your videos on YouTube before, and I’ve wanted to ask you this question for a while because my grandmother actually had to live in Nazi Germany. The National Socialists in Germany frequently portrayed the Jews as being greedy, rich capitalists who only got rich because they stole everything from everybody else. They, according to Hitler, basically cheated to get to the top, but the concept of white privilege, which is what many liberals talk about today where they accuse white Christians like myself from basically stealing from everybody else. Do you feel that the National Socialist rhetoric of the Jews influenced many liberals today to come up with their rhetoric of white privilege?

David Horowitz: I don’t think it was direct, but maybe I didn’t make myself clear. They are collectivists. The National Socialists were socialists. They pick the outgroup, the group that’s the source of the problems, and the liberals in America who are not liberal, they are bigots. The most intolerant people in America are people who call themselves liberals. They have picked a group to scapegoat, which is white people. It’s quite amazing. The NAACP now wants to ban the National Anthem as the most racist anthem ever. These people, it’s nuts. 

But not if you are inside the religion. Not if you are inside the religion. If you are inside the religion, black people can’t be racists, can they?  Because they have no power. Well, tell that to Barack Obama and the two corrupt attorney generals we had during his administration. I don’t know. It’s amazing to me. Every time there was an officer was killed by individuals incited by Black Lives Matter, who would appear the microphone as the police chief, whether it’s Dallas or New Orleans or Cleveland? It’s always a black cop. 

This country – we are the most tolerant, inclusive society in the history of the world, of any size. Of course, if you have only five black people and everybody else is white like in Switzerland or something, it’s not a big problem. But we have large minority populations, and people who are the age of most of the people in this audience can remember the difference 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. 

The thing that really strikes me is one of the most pampered or the most pampered racist in America is Ta-Nehisi Coates. He’s the darling of The Atlantic and every liberal so-called organization, and he has a pathological hatred for America and for white people, if you read actually anything that he’s written. 

You know, when I see these issues discussed publicly, what’s missing is a simple statement. You know America, the Constitution – Tim Kane the other day, who is a communist, Tim Kane was a Christic. Anybody know who the Christics were?  These were communists supporting the Sandinista and Salvadoran communist guerrillas in the eighties. That’s what Tim Kane is. He attacked General Kelly the other day, and his idea is that the Constitution “enshrined,” as he put it, slavery. 

Actually, the American founding – slavery existed for 3,000 years before anybody said it was immoral, not Jesus, not Moses, nobody. Certainly not Mohammed. The Muslims are still practicing slavery and still think it’s okay. But white Christians led by Wilberforce in England and by Thomas Jefferson here. Thomas Jefferson wrote into our birth certificate that we are all creatures of God. Whatever you think of other people, they could be inferior to you or not, they are creatures of one Creator, therefore equal in his, or I have to say these days her, eyes, whatever. And they have an inalienable right to liberty. Every black in America owes their freedom to Thomas Jefferson, the American founding, the 350,000 Union soldiers who gave their lives to free them, and a president, Abraham Lincoln, who gave his life as well. And when I hear that, then I know I’m in a conversation with rational people and not religious fanatics. 

But I don’t – I watch quite a bit of television, although it’s very hard these days – I don’t see that simple fact recognized. It’s okay to be white. Are you familiar that some brilliant – I’m not good at this, I’m kind of a sledgehammer – but Milo Yiannopoulos, the trolls, I think it was Channel 4 which is a troll channel, conservative trolls put up a sign in Harvard Square, “It’s okay to be white.” And it drove the left up the wall. Why?  Because they are racists. When I see a conservative on television say, “You are a racist” to a Democrat, then I’ll know we are on the road to freedom. Thank you. 

TRUMP’S GREAT AND INGENIOUS GIFTS

Fri, 12/08/2017 - 05:22

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

Trump’s gift to Israel is not merely that 68 years after Israel declared Jerusalem its capital, the US finally recognized Israel’s capital.

In his declaration, Trump said, “Israel has made its capital in the city of Jerusalem, the capital the Jewish people established in ancient times.”

By stating this simple truth, Trump fully rejected the anti-Israel legacy of his predecessor Barack Obama.

In his speech in Cairo in 2009, Obama intimated that Israel’s legitimacy is rooted in the Holocaust, rather than in the Jewish nation’s millennial attachment to the Land of Israel. Whereas the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate rooted the Jewish people’s sovereign rights to the Land of Israel in its 3,500-year relationship with it, Obama said that Israel is nothing more than a refugee camp located in an inconvenient area. In so doing, he gave credence to the anti-Israel slander that Israel is a colonialist power.

By asserting the real basis for Israel’s legitimacy, Trump made clear that the Jewish people is indigenous to the Land of Israel. He also made it US policy to view Israel’s right to exist, like its right to its capital city, as unconditional.

Trump’s extraordinary gift to Israel was an act of political and moral courage. It was also a stroke of strategic brilliance.

To understand why it was both courageous and wise, consider the political, institutional and geopolitical contexts in which Trump acted.

Politically, Trump made his declaration in a poisonous political environment at home.

The Democrats responded to Trump’s victory last year over Hillary Clinton by seeking to delegitimize his victory. To this end, they chose to oppose everything that he says and does.

And so, despite their long-held and recently voiced support for US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, leading Democratic senators including New Jersey’s Cory Booker and California’s Diane Feinstein condemned Trump’s declaration.
The Democrats’ rejection of Trump’s move was an astounding act of hypocrisy. But it was also predictable.

Trump had to know the Democrats would oppose him. And he also had to know that in their opposition, they would empower US allies in Europe and the Arab world to publicly condemn his move in a manner they would be loath to do if the Democrats supported him. And still, despite this sure knowledge, Trump took action.

And it wasn’t only the Democrats, the Europeans and the Arabs Trump willingly opposed. His chief opposition came from within his own government.

Since 1949, the State Department has driven US policy on Israel and on the Middle East as a whole. And since 1949, the State Department’s Israel policy has refused to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Even worse, it worked to undermine any international support for Israel’s sovereign rights to Jerusalem.

For instance, a 1962 State Department memo to then-president John F. Kennedy’s national security adviser McGeorge Bundy laid out the law on Jerusalem.

The memo told Bundy that not only did the State Department oppose Israel’s decision to make Jerusalem its capital. It detailed the efforts the State Department had made over more than a decade to lobby every government that opened diplomatic ties with Israel not to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and not to locate its embassy in Jerusalem.

Over the years, various presidents have taken issue with the State Department’s policy toward Israel. These disputes have been informed both by genuine disagreement with Foggy Bottom’s institutional hostility toward Israel and by political concerns. The American people have been supportive of Israel, and that support has only grown over the years.

But despite their genuine disputes and political concerns, no president who opposed State Department hostility toward Israel seized control over US Israel policy from the State Department.

That is, no one did until Trump did.

On Wednesday, in a very public way, Trump wrested control over US policy toward Israel generally, and Jerusalem specifically, from the State Department. The consequences of Trump’s seizure of the reins over US Middle East policy are enormous, and entirely positive for the US itself. Indeed, two in particular are great gifts to the American people.

In his declaration, Trump said, “Today we finally acknowledge the obvious. That Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do. It’s something that has to be done.”

Under State Department control for 68 years, US foreign policy relating to Israel specifically and the Middle East as a whole was made in deliberate defiance of reality. In the case of Jerusalem, rather than recognize the plain fact that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital city, the State Department insisted on pretending that Israel has no capital. This position was a central component of an overall US Middle East policy that the State Department similarly based on a defiant rejection of observable reality.

So it happened that for decades the US ignored the multiple, systemic pathologies of the Arab and Islamic world and opted instead to predicate its policies on the false assumption that the problems of the Middle East are rooted in Israel’s refusal to sufficiently appease the Arab world.

By rejecting the State Department’s position on Jerusalem, and by noting that its position is rooted in a rejection of reality, Trump initiated a new course for US Middle East policy rooted in reality for the first time in three generations.

The salutary implications of a reality-based policy for America are as self-evident as the fact that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.
This brings us to the second positive advantage America gained from Trump’s Jerusalem declaration.

Over the span of decades, a US president’s power to determine foreign policy was measured by two things: the amount of daylight between White House statements and traditional State Department positions, and the disparity between US foreign policy positions and the positions of Western European governments and the EU. The greater the distance between White House positions and those of the State Department and Europe, the more power the president held over US foreign policy.
The only exception to this rule was Obama. Like the State Department, and like Europe, Obama’s foreign policy was predicated on the need for the US to appease its enemies at the expense of its allies – first and foremost Israel. It was also based on the State Department’s long-held assumption that the US should align its policies with Europe. Given his convictions, Obama could advance his agenda in harmony with the State Department.

During Obama’s tenure, US allies and enemies alike were conditioned to believe that the US would not challenge them and that the State Department controlled US foreign policy. The Europeans came to believe that despite their military and economic dependence on the US, it was the US that had to take their policies into account when it fashioned its foreign policies – and not the other way around. This was certainly the case in the Middle East where Obama eagerly joined them in appeasing Iran and turning the screws on Israel.

As for America’s enemies, Obama and his State Department made it clear to the North Koreans and Iranians that American threats were a joke. The US would do nothing to seriously challenge them. And in the interests of appeasing them, the US was willing to sell out all of its allies.

With this track record, it was clear that Trump would need to take dramatic action to show US allies and enemies alike that the rules of the game had changed in Washington.

Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem did the job.

By recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in defiance of Europe and the Arabs and in the course of wresting control of foreign policy from Europe, Trump showed US allies and enemies alike that he is in charge. And he is willing to act even when doing so provokes US enemies to threaten retaliation, when he believes that his action advances US interests.

Trump’s move wasn’t merely strategically brilliant. It was also a political masterstroke.

Consider the liberal Union for Reform Judaism’s contradictory responses to his recognition of Jerusalem. In the lead-up to Trump’s declaration, URJ President Rick Jacobs condemned Trump’s anticipated move which he claimed would harm chances for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Jacobs’s statement – which was supported by key groups within the Reform movement – effectively divorced Reform Judaism from Zionism. By giving the PLO a veto over Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, Jacobs said that the Reform movement thinks PLO claims to Jerusalem are stronger than Jewish claims.

This self-evidently anti-Zionist position apparently didn’t go down well with the Reform rank and file. Because less than 24 hours after Trump gave his speech, the URJ issued a new statement praising Trump’s move.

And the URJ leaders aren’t the only ones with egg on their face.

Trump risked political support in the opinion polls by deepening US support for Israel in the face of strident opposition from the Democrats, the State Department, the media, the Europeans and the Arabs because he believed it was the right thing to do.
And as it works out, it was also an astute, if incredibly gutsy political move.

By standing up to the Democrats who just months ago called for him to take the very actions he took, but now opposed them because it was Trump adopting them, Trump exposed the likes of Booker and Feinstein as hypocritical opportunists. At the same time, he took ownership of a policy of supporting Israel that enjoys broad and deep public support.

To sum up then, by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Trump made clear that US support for Israel is not conditioned on anything. Israel, the Jewish state, is supported by the US because it deserves US support as an allied democracy.

Trump strengthened himself against his political opponents by taking ownership of a deeply popular foreign policy position.
He took control of US foreign policy from a State Department that opposes his policies. He made reality, rather than the defiance of reality, the foundation of US Middle East policy.

He put US allies and enemies on notice that he is calling the shots in US foreign policy. And he took a large step toward restoring US credibility as a superpower.

Oh, and he accomplished all of these things without spending a dime.

For his gift to Israel, Trump now enters the pantheon of Israel’s friends in the annals of Jewish history.

For his gifts to America he has taken his place among the most astute American statesmen.

And for his political and economic mastery, he enters the ranks of the geniuses of American political history. 

Andrew Torba Discusses Defeating The Social Media Monopoly

Fri, 12/08/2017 - 05:10

Editor's note:  Below are the video and transcript to remarks given by Andrew Torba at the David Horowitz Freedom Center's 2017 Restoration Weekend. The event was held Nov. 16th-19th at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida.

Andrew Torba: How's it going folks.  As you mentioned I was here last year, and I warned you and I told you about what was going on in Silicon Valley, specifically during the election.  They were censoring conservatives, censoring Trump supporters, and they're going to continue to do so, is what I said, and that has proven to be true.  So, let's get started here.  So, this is the Internet, alright?  And, it's very, very centralized, and we let this go for a long time.  Four or five companies own and control all of our data, billions of trillions of dollars, and all the power, all of the control, is really just centralized into four or five hands.  And, for a while we let this happen, because a lot of good things came out of this.  We got innovation and technology.  We got instant communication.  Some of you are sitting on Facebook right now and making them money right now.  But, what happened is this centralized power really became a hindrance, and it became a problem.  So, what consumers have is essentially the illusion of choice.  

So, the top 20 apps in the App Store are owned by about four or five companies.  And, you have Facebook that owns Instagram and Messenger, and WhatsApp, and all of the top communications apps.  So, the consumers think that they have choice, but they actually don't.  All of these apps are owned and controlled by one company, or two or three companies at most, and this is a problem.  When they have this type of power, they can exert this power on us, and they have.  For example, the Reddit CEO admitted to editing user comments that were critical of him, which probably broke Reddit's Section 230 agreement there.  Facebook workers admitted to openly censoring the trending topics product, which is used by over a billion people each and every month, and what they see as what is news and what isn't, they openly admitted that they were censoring conservative news sources, topics, things like what James O'Keefe is doing, for example.  And, this is more recent, so, Facebook is actually banning over a million accounts each and every day for hate speech, or for spam or other things as well.  

And what most people don't understand is that hate speech is completely subjective, and the answer to hate speech is not to censor and suppress it, but rather, more speech to combat it.  Now, pretty much everybody that we heard speak this weekend has been impacted by this censorship of Silicon Valley.  Of course, we know that Milo was banned over a year ago, and he was really kind of the tipping point for this censorship war that has since escalated over the past year.  More recently, Roger Stone was just suspended, in fact, his secondary account was actually suspended again last night, and a rogue Twitter employee ended up suspending the president's account for about 10 minutes.  Now think about this.  This wasn't even actually a Twitter employee, it was actually a contractor.  So, if a contractor has the ability to silence the president of the United States, imagine what they could do if they sent out one tweet, maybe something about North Korea perhaps.  What would the outcome of that be?  

There are some new rules that Twitter just came out with, actually, this week.  So, now not only are you being held responsible for your actions on Twitter, but also off of Twitter, and again, not only your own actions, but if you follow organizations or individuals and support those people, you can also be banned or unverified from Twitter.  In fact, Laura Loomer who's here, she was unverified from Twitter this week, and they grouped her in with a bunch of white nationalists which is pretty interesting, because she's Jewish, and she's been calling them out and actually got one of their discord channels suspended.  So, they're trying to silence conservatives in any possible way, delegitimize conservatives, unverify them, kick them completely off the platform, and nobody was doing anything about this.  

The other thing that I find very interesting that not a lot of people know is that the Democrats love to chat about foreign influence in our elections, and in our technology, and the Russians were running $100,000.00 worth of Facebook ads, and that supposedly swung an election that was a multi-billion-dollar election, right?  

So, a lot of people don't know that there's plenty of foreign influence and foreign actors influencing our technology industry, including the Saudis who have invested billions of dollars into companies like Uber and Twitter, for example.  So, I saw all of this going on.  I saw the censorship continuing to rise.  I saw conservatives being completely blacklisted from the Internet, shut up and censored, and had their reach decline over time, and I decided to step up and do something about it.  And, I think conservatives would love to complain about the bias in media, but nobody ever actually stands up and does something about it.  

So, that's what I wanted to do.  So, I've created this social network called Gab, and it's very similar to Twitter.  It's a microblogging platform.  And we support free First Amendment-protected legal speech.  It's not an anarchist website.  We do have user guidelines, and those guidelines are inspired by First Amendment Supreme Court cases and rule of law.  So, we launched in August of 2016, and we opened publicly in May of this year, and we have 300,000 users from around the world. And I thought that we could build an alternative social network on the current existing infrastructure of the web, and we'd be able to get out mobile apps, and not have any issues, and compete in the free market against Facebook, against Twitter, and against Google, but I was completely wrong.  

And, what we found out is that the centralized gatekeepers of the Internet did not like the fact that we were becoming a very big threat to these established players.  We were also completely bootstrapped for about a year.  We were completely dependent on our users to support us and this July we opened up our very first funding round and raised a million dollars in 38 days.  So, this was not from venture capitalists on Santo Road.  This was not from hedge funds.  This was from our people.  So for the first time in social networking history, we opened up our first funding round and sold equity to our users directly.  And that I'm very proud of.  

And we actually became the seventh company to ever raise a million dollars through crowdfunding on the Internet, which is the maximum allowed by the FCC through Reg CF, the jobs act, one of the very few things that President Obama did in a positive way.  So, our mission is really simple.  We want to provide everyone with a censorship-proof protocol that champions free speech, individual liberty, and the free flow of information online.  It's my mission in life to defend the free and open web that I grew up on for my children, and my children's children, and yours as well.  

So, this is where things got tricky.  I woke up one morning, and I got an email from our domain name provider, our DNS, and they said, "You'll have to censor this post, or we're going to seize your domain."  And, for those of you who don't know, if your domain gets seized, 300,000 people are not going to be given access to the website.  The website's effectively dead.  So, this has never happened before in the history of the Internet, that I know of, where a domain name provider threatened to seize our domain because of hate speech that our users were posting, not us.  And, we also faced backlash from both Apple and Google.  

So, Apple refuses to let our app on their app store for what they call objectionable content.  Now, anybody who has been on Twitter, or Facebook, or Reddit here, knows that there is plenty of objectionable content in much higher volumes than we could even imagine at our size.  And yet, they're allowed to be on these App Stores.  Google actually allowed us to be on their App Stores for about 3 months, and then one day I woke up and got an email and said, "Your app is removed for hate speech."  

So again, I thought that we could participate in free market.  I thought that we could build our infrastructure on the existing centralized web, but I was wrong, because these gatekeepers refuse to let us participate, and refuse to let us innovate, like other players are allowed to do.  

So, what's the cost of fighting for free speech on the Internet?  Well, these are some of the things that I've had to experience personally, and that my family has had to experience.  I've been doxxed.  I've had to move multiple times.  I've had dozens of death threats.  My family has been swatted with fake ISIS threats.  The far left thinks that I'm a Nazi, and the far right thinks that I'm a Jewish plant, so there's some kind of a interesting dichotomy there, so, this is the cross that I carry.  I’m not in this for the money.  

Like I said, I'm in this to defend free and open web for my kids, and for your kids, and for your grandkids, and for generations to come, but this is what it comes with.  And, this is a very personal thing, and my family's been impacted by it, but just know that this is a cross that I carry, and I'm very proud of it, and I'll gladly bear it if it means that people are able to speak freely.  So, where is this all coming from?  What is causing this?  Well, Germany and the EU specifically, have been pushing for hate speech laws on the entire Internet, and what they're doing is they're essentially blackmailing Silicon Valley, and they're saying, "If you don't remove hate speech posts within 24 hours, we're going to fine you €54,000,000 per post."  Now even Facebook, with their billions of dollars in quarterly revenue could never possibly pay these type of fines, and obviously they want to continue to operate in the EU and in Germany.  

So, what they're doing is they're enforcing these hate speech rules on the entire Internet, including on 300,000,000,000 plus Americans who have First Amendment Rights, and on the rest of the world because the EU is telling them to basically.  So we believe that the solution is a peer-to-peer, censorship-proof, social media protocol, and that's what we're building right now.  

And, I won't get into too much of the technical details because it will probably go over everybody's head here, but essentially, email is a protocol, meaning no one company or organization controls email.  There are multiple email services like Gmail, Yahoo, etc., so we want to build a protocol for social networking and for online communication that no government, no single company, no single organization, no single actor, can stop or censor.  And, we're calling that the Exodus Protocol.  We're going to war with Silicon Valley.  

This is truly going to be the people versus the elites.  They are not going to allow President Trump to utilize social media and the Internet, or anybody else by the way, anyone in the populist movement that's happening around the world right now.  They're not going to allow it to continue to happen.  And if we don't do something, if we don't prevent this censorship from happening, if we don't prevent these centralized gatekeepers from cracking down and deciding who can speak freely, who can build on the open internet, or at least what I thought was the open internet, then very bad things are going to happen.  So, we believe it's time for an Exodus, and I want to continue to protect the free and open web for generations to come.  Thank you for your time, and enjoy the rest of the event. 

President Trump’s Jerusalem Move Deals a Blow to Terror

Fri, 12/08/2017 - 05:10

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

Hamas has announced that President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has opened the “gates of hell.” Its Muslim Brotherhood parent has declared America an “enemy state.”

The Arab League boss warned that the Jerusalem move “will fuel extremism and result in violence.” The Jordanian Foreign Minister claimed that it would “trigger anger” and “fuel tension.” 

“Moderate” Muslim leaders excel at threatening violence on behalf of the “extremists”. 

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) warned that recognizing Jerusalem will trigger an Islamic summit and be considered a "blatant attack on the Arab and Islamic nations."

The last time the OIC was this mad, someone drew Mohammed. And wasn’t stoned to death for it.

According to the Saudi ambassador, it will “heighten tensions”. The Deputy Prime Minister of Islamist Turkey called it a “major catastrophe”. And the leader of the largest Muslim country in Europe, France's Emmanuel Macron "expressed concern" that America will “unilaterally recognize Jerusalem." 

PLO leaders and minions meanwhile made it quite clear that now the dead peace process is truly dead.  

The Palestinian Authority’s boss warned that recognizing Jerusalem will “destroy the peace process”. The PLO’s envoy in D.C. threatened that it would be the “final lethal blow” and “the kiss of death to the two-state solution”. A top PA advisor claimed it “will end any chance of a peace process.”

A day later, the peace process is still as alive and as dead as it ever was.

Since the chance of a peace process is about the same as being hit by lightning while scoring a Royal Flush, that “chance” doesn’t amount to anything. The peace process has been deader than Dracula for ages. And even a PLO terrorist should know that you can’t threaten to kill a dead hostage. 

The only kiss of death here came from Arafat.

Peace wasn’t killed though. It was never alive. Because a permanent peace is Islamically impossible.

"The world will pay the price," warned Mahmoud Habash, the Palestinian Authority’s Supreme Sharia judge.

Habash isn’t just the bigwig of Islamic law, he’s also the Islamic adviser to the leader of the Palestinian Authority. And Abbas, the terror organization’s leader, was there when Habash made his remarks.

Previously Habash had declared that the Kotel, the Western Wall of the fallen Temple, the holiest site in Judaism, “can never be for non-Muslims. It cannot be under the sovereignty of non-Muslims.”

While the official warnings from the Palestinian Authority, the Arab League and assorted other Islamic organizations have claimed that recognizing Jerusalem threatens the non-existent peace process, Habash had in the past had made it quite clear that the issue wasn’t land, it was Jihad.

“The struggle over this land is not merely a struggle over a piece of land here or there. Not at all. The struggle has the symbolism of holiness, or blessing. It is a struggle between those whom Allah has chosen for Ribat and those who are trying to mutilate the land of Ribat," Habash had declared.

Ribat means that Israel is a frontier outpost between the territories of Islam and the free world. The Muslim terrorists who call themselves “Palestinians” have, according to the Abbas adviser, been chosen for “Ribat” to stand guard on the Islamic frontier and expand the territories of Islam. 

The sense of Ribat is that the Jihadists may not yet be able to win a definitive victory, but must maintain their vigilance for the ultimate goal, which a Hadith defines as performing Ribat “against my enemy and your enemy until he abandons his religion for your religion." 

That is what’s at stake here.

It’s not about a “piece of land here or there”, as the PA’s top Sharia judge clarifies, it’s a religious war. And Israel is not just a religious war between Muslims and Jews, but a shifting frontier in the larger war between Islam and the rest of the world. It’s another territory to be conquered on the way to Europe. And Europe is another territory to be conquered on the way to America. 

There can be no peace in a religious war. Nor is there anything to negotiate.

“It isn't possible to compromise on or negotiate over Jerusalem,” Habash had said. “In politics there can be compromises here and there... In politics there can be negotiation. However, in matters of religion, faith, values, ethics, and history, there can be no compromises.”

There’s an extremely thin line in Islamic theocracy between politics and religion. But what Habash is really saying is that there might be room to negotiate how many times a week the garbage truck comes to pick up the trash, but not who gives him the orders. Islamic supremacism is non-negotiable. 

The Supreme Sharia judge warned Trump that moving the embassy is “a declaration of war on all Muslims.” Why all Muslims? Because the “Palestinians” are a myth. Islamic conquests are collective.

And it’s not as if any of the Muslim leaders disagree.

Why is Jerusalem their business? It’s not empathy for the “Palestinians”. Kuwait ethnically cleansed huge numbers of them. They aren’t treated all that much better in other Arab Muslim countries.

It’s not about them. The Muslim settlers in Israel are just there as “Ribat”. They’re the frontier guard of the Islamic conquest. Much like the Sharia patrols in the No-Go Zones of Europe or the Jihadists in Kashmir, the Rohingya in Burma and all the other Islamic Volksdeutsche variants of occupying colonists. 

Sunni may fight Shiite. Muslim countries, tribes and clans may war with each other. But the land they’re fighting over belongs to all of them collectively. 

It can never belong to non-Muslims. That is the essence of Islam where conquest is religion.

That’s true of Jerusalem. And of the entire world.

That is what is truly at stake in the war over Jerusalem. When countries refuse to move their embassies to Jerusalem, they are submitting to Sharia law and Islamic supremacism. The issue at stake is the same one as drawing Mohammed. It’s not about a “piece of land”. It’s about the supremacy of Islam. 

Refusing to move the embassy doesn’t prevent violence. Islamic terrorism continues to claim lives in Jerusalem. And Islamic violence has been a constant before Israel liberated Jerusalem or before there was even a free Israel. The Arab League, the Jordanians, the Saudis and the rest of the gang aren’t promising an end to the violence. Instead they warn that if we don’t obey, it will grow worse.

That’s not diplomacy. It’s a hostage crisis.

President Trump made the right decision by refusing to let our foreign policy be held hostage. We don’t win by giving in to terrorists.

We win by resisting them.  Or else we’ll have to live our lives as hostages of Islamic terror.

Jerusalem is a metaphor. Every free country has its own Jerusalem. In America, it’s the First Amendment. Our Jerusalem is not just a piece of land, it’s a value. And the Islamic Jihad seeks to intimidate us into giving it up until, as the Hadith states, we abandon our religion for Islam.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem will do much more for America than it will for Israel.

The Israelis already know where their capital is. We need to remember where we left our freedom. Islamic terrorists win when they terrorize us into being too afraid to do the right thing. 

President Trump sent a message to the terrorists that America will not be terrorized. 

Previous administrations allowed the terrorists to decide where we put our embassy. But Trump has made it clear that we won’t let Islamic terrorists decide where we put our embassies, what cartoons we will draw or how we live our lives. That is what real freedom means. 

Sacrificing Al Franken

Fri, 12/08/2017 - 05:08

With Democrat cutlasses poking his back, Al Franken, the junior senator from Minnesota who can’t keep his hands to himself, has reluctantly walked the plank to boost his party’s image after eight women accused him of sexual misconduct.

The most prominent accuser is radio host Leeann Tweeden who claims the professional vulgarian who has a long, well-documented track record of making crude remarks about sexually assaulting women, kissed and groped her without her consent.

Franken’s speech under duress on the Senate floor yesterday was defiant and bursting with self-pity. Only a true believer would take it seriously. Franken certainly did not. He wouldn’t even commit to a specific resignation date, saying only that he would leave office in the coming weeks, a non-binding promise if ever there was one.

Democrats made Franken retire from public life because it makes sense to do so, according to their cold, business-like calculus for this kind of thing. A decision was made in senior Democrat circles to offer up Franken as a sacrificial lamb to give the party a chance after so many sex-related scandals, to reposition itself in the public eye as champions of women. With the Dec. 12 vote in the Senate race in Alabama between Republican Roy Moore and Democrat Doug Jones approaching, there is no time to waste.

And it costs Democrats little to jettison Franken. They do this knowing that the governor of Minnesota is Mark Dayton, a Democrat who will appoint a Democrat caretaker senator. Frighteningly, jihadist-socialist Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is being discussed as a Franken replacement.

But even if this choreographed contrition fails to get Jones elected down in Dixie, Democrats are optimistic they can make Moore the new face of the Republican Party in 2018 and 2020. Maybe they could parlay Franken’s self-immolation into the impeachment of President Trump. Of course, painting Donald Trump as a big time sexual harasser and worse last year didn’t stop him from winning the election, but left-wingers, the very people who invented sexual harassment, are nothing if not persistent.

It is difficult to feel sorry for Franken, especially after he cheated his way into office.

Franken stole the 2008 election from incumbent Norm Coleman (R), with the assistance of ACORN-aligned Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (D), a former community organizer. As a protracted recount took place, Franken improbably went from a deficit of hundreds of votes to a surplus months after Election Day, which, according to an analysis at the time, was highly improbable, if not statistically impossible. How hundreds of Franken votes materialized out of thin air has never been properly explained. Illegally cast votes from felons also helped get Franken past the finish line in his first election.

As Michael Stokes Paulsen, professor of law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, wrote at the time, “Minnesota is Bush v. Gore reloaded. The details differ, but not in terms of arbitrariness, lack of uniform standards, inconsistency in how local recounts were conducted and counted, and strange state court decisions.”

Even now Franken supports denying others proper due process when they face sex-related misconduct allegations. The senator supports Title IX kangaroo court policies that deprive college students of due process when facing the same kinds of allegations.

The Franken saga is the latest in a still-expanding mushroom cloud of allegations of sexual abuse hurled largely at left-wing elite political, media, and entertainment figures. There are rumors circulating on Capitol Hill that another three dozen or more lawmakers will soon face sexual misconduct allegations.

And to distract from all the Democrats being taken down over sexual allegations, the mainstream media is doing a full-court press to revive the all-too-convenient sexual misconduct allegations against President Trump that suddenly surfaced in the closing days of last year’s election cycle.

One of those Democrats is Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, who used government funds to pay off an accuser. He isn’t seeking reelection now that he has decided to turn his congressional seat into a hereditary peerage belonging to the House of Conyers.

In his speech in the Senate yesterday in which Franken said “all women deserve to be heard,” he did not apologize to those women accusing him of the sexual misconduct that led him to announce his resignation.

His apology would have been worthless, anyway. After a previous incident when he apologized for his awful behavior he later admitted the apology was fake.

As a writer for “Saturday Night Live,” Franken was working on a skit that involved drugging and raping CBS reporter Lesley Stahl.

“'I give the pills to Lesley Stahl. Then when Lesley is passed out, I take her to the closet and rape her.' Or ‘That’s why you never see Lesley until February.' Or, ‘When she passes out. I put her in various positions and take pictures of her,’” Franken was quoted saying in a 1995 New York magazine article.

But in his recent book, Al Franken: Giant of the Senate, he wrote that he faked the apology so he wouldn’t mess up his political career.

“To say I was sorry for writing a joke was to sell out my career, to sell out who I’d been my entire life,” he wrote. “And I wasn’t sorry that I had written Porn-o-Rama or pitched that stupid Lesley Stahl joke at 2 in the morning. I was just doing my job.”

“I learned that campaigns have their own rules, their own laws of physics, and that if I wasn’t willing to accept that, I would never get to be a senator,” he added.

Franken couldn’t resist smearing Republicans in his goodbye address.

I of all people am aware there is some irony in the fact I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party. 

In fact President Trump has never acknowledged committing sexual assault. In the old “Access Hollywood” recordings that surfaced during last year’s election cycle, Trump engaged in vulgar locker room talk with Billy Bush, saying in essence that when you’re a rich and famous man seducing women is easy. This banal observation is not exactly a sentiment for which Trump should be commended, but it is not sexual assault or harassment, either.

As to the reference to Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore supposedly preying on young girls, the all-too-convenient allegations from four decades ago have not been proven and although evidence may yet surface damning Moore, the former judge denies doing anything wrong. Part of the left-wing attack squad, feminist ambulance-chaser Gloria Allred has already produced what appears to be a forged signature and inscription from Moore on a young woman’s high school yearbook. In the statement Moore offers polite, non-incriminating compliments. Even if the yearbook statement turned out to be authentic, it would merely be evidence of Moore’s Southern courtesy.

The above sentence from Franken’s speech in particular telegraphs the entirety of what will be Democrats’ 2018 and 2020 campaign platforms should Moore win on Dec. 12. Despite having standard-bearers like serial sexual predator and credibly accused rapist Bill Clinton, former Rep. Barney Frank who allowed his boyfriend to run a brothel out of his apartment, and legendary lady-killer Sen. Edward Kennedy, Democrats intend to whitewash their own party’s history. And let’s not leave former Vice President Joe Biden, whose inappropriate touching of women is exhaustively photographically documented, off the list. (Who can forget that campaign trail photo in which flirtatious Biden looks like he’s about to get flattened by a jealous biker in a diner because his girlfriend is practically sitting in Biden’s lap?)

Meanwhile, conservative champion Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) unexpectedly announced his resignation last night, effective Jan. 31 in the new year. If the reason for his departure stated in a Washington Times article is correct, it appears Franks is being railroaded by GOP leadership for the sake of crass political expediency.

Franks and his wife have dealt with infertility by having twins through a surrogate mother, and he acknowledges discussing surrogacy around his congressional office. He just recently learned that these discussions made two female staff members “uncomfortable.”

Of course, even if some might frown on discussions of surrogacy around the water cooler, this is not exactly what reasonable people consider to be actionable sexual harassment, nor is it grounds for ending a decent man’s political career.

But Franks doesn’t want to fight. In the midst “of this current cultural and media climate, I am deeply convinced I would be unable to complete a fair House Ethics investigation before distorted and sensationalized versions of this story would put me, my family, my staff, and my noble colleagues in the House of Representatives through hyperbolized public excoriation,” he said.

House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wisc.) office said the complaints against Franks were “credible” and that the speaker pressed Franks to resign. Apparently, again assuming the reasons reported for Franks’ resignation are true, Ryan has embraced an expansive definition of sexual harassment.

Very broadly speaking, Republican office-holders tend to be ashamed when sexual improprieties are made public. Without much ado they resign. Democrat politicians accused of the same tend to fight to the bitter end.

So end the political careers of Al Franken and Trent Franks.

Vilifying the Counterjihadists

Fri, 12/08/2017 - 05:08

“That's a really good one,” the clerk told me. 

I was the only customer in the bookstore, and when he'd seen me paging through a slim new volume about the current wave of “populism” in Europe, he'd left his cash register, walked over to me, and begun waxing enthusiastic about it. He explained that he was just about finished reading it, and he repeated, not once but twice, that it was just plain terrific. 

It was last Friday, and I was at the Oslo Airport, and he turned out not to have in stock the book I was looking for, so I bought the one he recommended: Simen Ekern's Folket, Det Er Meg (I Am the People). I was struck by buyer's remorse even before I'd actually paid for it – first, because, even with today's strong dollar, it cost the equivalent of $42 (welcome to the land of state-mandated book prices), and second, because on the way to the sales counter I'd recognized Ekern's name. Within a week after July 22, 2011 – the day Anders Behring Breivik massacred seventy-seven people in and near Oslo, proclaiming that he was motivated by hostility to Europe's Islamization – Ekern, then a staffer at the newspaper Dagbladet, argued passionately that critics of Islam shared blame for the murders. My name led his list. He questioned our right to freedom of speech, because “our society is not improved by cultivating ever more ‘honest’ and ‘brave’ warlike Crusader rhetoric directed against Islam.”

Ekern wasn't alone. In the days and weeks after July 22,  pretty much the entire Norwegian establishment sought to use the Breivik massacre as an excuse to demonize and silence critics of Islam. Some of the nation's most respected commentators talked seriously about curtailing our free-speech rights and making arrests. With his op-ed, Ekern, a relatively young man, made it clear to the big boys that he was with them – a solid establishment lackey. I see that he's profited well from his loyalty: last December, I see, he was awarded two million kroner ($200,000) in taxpayer funds to write about foreign affairs. This is how things work in Norway: the proles are overtaxed, and much of that dough is then used to propagandize them: the nation's top media organization, state-run NRK, is a shameless tool of the political elite; major dailies get government subsidies (without them, Dagbladet would probably have folded years ago), and hacks like Ekern are paid handsomely to churn out establishment agitprop disguised as journalism. 

Which is exactly what Ekern's new book is. Bearing the subtitle The Growth and Future of Right-Wing European Populism, it professes to be a work of reportage about what you or I might call the counterjihad movement – as well as of that overlapping body of Europeans who want out of the EU. In fact, it's pro-elite PR. Still, I ended up being glad I bought it, because it proved to be a near-perfect example of its genre, and therefore worthy of study. To read it is to enter into the mind of a card-carrying member of the European establishment – a fellow who wants the deplorables to shut up and let their betters (himself included) go back to running things.

Although he specializes in skirting facts, Ekern kicks off his book – wisely – by getting out of the way those facts that are simply too big to ignore – which is to say, he quickly lists the major recent terrorist attacks in Europe. But he doesn't dwell on them, doesn't admit that they're rooted in mainstream Islamic theology, doesn't acknowledge that many “moderate” European Muslims cheer violent jihad, and doesn't point out that terrorism is, indeed, only one aspect of a full-court European jihad that involves a range of gradual cultural and social transformations. He also denies – and this is the fulcrum on which his whole argument turns – that Europeans' legitimate concerns about Islam (even when combined with their anger at politicians and the EU) are enough to explain the rise of “right-wing populism.” No, according to Ekern, the reason why so many Europeans have rejected mainstream parties is, quite simply, that they've been misled and manipulated – whipped up into an artificial frenzy by people like Geert Wilders, who don't really care about immigration or freedom, only about power.

While he derides Wilders and other “populists,” Ekern cites with respect and deference a host of establishment nabobs. He approvingly quotes European Council president Herman Van Rompuy, for example, to the effect that populism, not Islam, is the chief danger facing Europe today. He gives a thumbs-up to Olivier Roy's contention that violence by European Muslims is rooted not in their religion but in the supposed fact that they inhabit an “identity vacuum” that makes them neither truly French nor truly Algerian or Tunisian or whatever. (Why is it always Muslims, and never members of other immigrant groups, for whom such excuses need to be invented?) Ekern also approves of Sudhir Hazareesingh's assertion that those who prophesy France's doom at the hands of Islam are extremely light on facts. Bull: one book alone that comes immediately to mind, Laurent Obertone's 2013 La France Orange méchanique, is almost nothing but facts, a paralyzing litany of what Obertone calls acts of “violence of conquest” by Muslims in France. 

By contrast to Obertone, Ekern is a master at evading facts – immigration numbers, crime statistics, the percentage of Muslims in this or that country who favor sharia law and support jihad. He sneers consistently at the “populists'” who claim to be speaking for “the real people,” but he never faces up to the fact that ordinary European citizens – yes, “the real people” – were never asked whether they wanted their countries to be flooded by Muslims. Nor does he admit that most Europeans want a full halt to Muslim immigration. He ridicules the idea that “fundamentalist Islam” is “a totalitarian ideology.” He's disgusted by ethnic Europeans who consider some European-born Muslims part of the “other.” (Never mind that millions of such Muslims dream of a sharia-run Europe.) Ekern actually describes the counterjihad movement, which is all about defending free civilization and fighting barbarity, as a campaign “against cultural and economic liberalism.” He acts as if the movement is hostile to all immigrants. He even portrays it as a reaction to “modernity.”

What, Ekern asks, are the roots of Europe's “populism”? If he were more honest, he might have told the story of Enoch Powell, the brilliant, supremely decent British MP whose 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech destroyed his career and is now recognized as remarkably prescient. Or Ekern might have summed up the heroic career of Pim Fortuyn, the gay, left-wing sociology professor whose awakening about the dangers of Islam led him from the academy into politics and, in 2002, thanks to a pro-Islam assassin, into an early grave. 

But no: Ekern would have us believe that the father of today's counterjihad movement in Europe is the 89-year-old Jean-Marie Le Pen – a Jew-hater who shrugs off the Holocaust and liked Mussolini. Ekern spends a whole chapter reminding us, over and over, just how despicable Le Pen is – and implying that if we support border controls or hate the EU, we're in league with this old fascist. Ekern spends another chapter trying to convince us that Le Pen's daughter, Marine, head of France's National Front, shares her dad's beliefs: it's only a matter, you see, of “decoding” her rhetoric. (One is reminded here of the White House correspondents to whom every word out of Donald Trump's mouth is a “dog whistle.”) 

In his taxpayer-funded travels, Ekern interviews “populist” leaders from France, Italy, Germany, and elsewhere. But not Wilders. (A planned meeting with the Dutch leader is mysteriously cancelled, and Ekern wonders aloud whether it's because one of Wilders' people read about Ekern in my e-book. The very thought delights me.) But he doesn't talk to any ordinary Europeans who have seen their worlds turned upside down by mass Islamic immigration. He doesn't meet any Muslim imams or any of the innumerable Muslim women who, though living in Europe, are as deprived of basic civil rights as they were back in their homelands. Muslim gays? Nope. 

Nor does he interview a single author who has made a specialty of this topic. He obviously considers me and his fellow Norwegian Peder Nøstvold Jensen (“Fjordman”) to be beyond the pale – but what about Britain's Douglas Murray, Germany's Henryk Broder, Italy's Giulio Meotti, and France's Guy Millière, just to name a few? These are smart, well informed, and deeply humane guys – not to mention splendid writers – who have arrived at their dire forecasts about Europe's Islamic future after long and sober reflection. One suspects that Ekern prefers interviewing insurgent politicians to interviewing serious writers because the politicians' rhetoric is easier to mock and their motives easier to question.

Avoiding conversations with writers like Murray, Broder, et al., also makes it easier for Ekern, in his closing pages, to sum up his ideological adversaries' views in a way that absolutely none of them would recognize. They want, he says, a government with “an uncompromising attitude” toward immigrants. No, they just don't want their countries flooded with illegal aliens, foreign criminals, instant welfare recipients, and ISIS fans. On his very last page, Ekern introduces subjects that haven't figured at all in his book. Suddenly, and bizarrely, he wants us to believe that European “populism” isn't really about Islam at all but about – get this – opposition to same-sex marriage, distaste for contemporary art, and a desire to be able to slur dark-skinned people with impunity. How, asks Ekern, can leaders like Wilders and Le Pen say that they speak for ordinary people, when ordinary people “are also women, minorities, gays, cyclists, and contemporary artists”? Cyclists? Art? What? (As for gays, it's not Wilders & co. who want to throw them off roofs.) 

I started reading Ekern's book at Oslo Airport, and stayed with it on the flight to Hamburg. After taking the subway from Hamburg Airport to the main train station, I walked toward my hotel down a street called Steindamm. The first thing I noticed was the armies of women in hijab on the sidewalk. The second thing I noticed was that more of the signs on the stores I passed were in Arabic or Turkish than in German. There were a couple of travel agencies, with window posters advertising flights to Ankara, Islamabad, Peshawar, Shiraz, Kabul. Then, on the right, rising above the tops of the buildings, I saw a steeple – no, not a steeple; a minaret. 

Turning onto a side street, I found my hotel – right next to a small shop with a sign in both German and Arabic that identified it as several things at once: an Internet café; a place where you could “buy” and “sell” (it didn't say what); a “repair service” (but, again, it wasn't clear what they repaired); and a place where you could carry out money transfers. Over the course of the weekend, at various hours of the day and late into the night, I saw streams of young non-German men – no women – going in and out of that shop, and what was odd that none of them took anything in or brought anything out, and all of them emerged almost immediately after entering, not having spent enough time in there to transfer money, go online, or do much of anything else. Perhaps it was all entirely innocent, but it certainly got my attention and aroused my curiosity. 

Anyway, the bottom line is clear. A new Europe is being born. Whether you consider it a delight or a disaster, the change is real, dramatic, colossal. And yet Simen Ekern, like so many other media hacks on the old continent, is determined to downplay it all – determined to pretend that the European masses, far from reacting to the palpable, world-historic transformation of their own towns and cities, are being hoodwinked by a handful of haters.

Donald Trump’s Art of the Insult

Fri, 12/08/2017 - 05:06

“You speak your mind,” says Megyn Kelly in the early going. As Joel Gilbert's new film Trump: The Art of the Insult confirms, Donald Trump does indeed speak his mind. His greatest hits are all here, from the “fat ugly face” of Rosie O’Donnell, to “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz, “total dope” Lindsey Graham, “idiot” John Kerry, to “Crooked Hillary” Clinton and of course “fake news.”

In The Art of the Insult, candidate Trump says he would “bomb the shit out of ISIS” and that the San Bernardino shooter was a “son of a bitch,” and that Mexico would pay for the wall. Someone who speaks his mind like that, even a casual observer might think, would stand no chance of becoming President of the United States. To give away the ending, he did become president and the film helps explain the victory.

In the early going, some journalist wonders why Trump has to fire back every time someone goes after him. He was one of the first to push back hard because, as he said, “the last thing I want to be called is weak.” The aggressive candidate found a target-rich environment in both political parties.

The “Never Trump” Republicans got after him for not being a conservative, and Jeb Bush called him “a jerk.” Trump fired back that Jeb Bush was a “low energy person” and “a stiff,” who doesn’t use last name because there are “lots of problems with that name.”

When Jeb Bush said his brother George kept us safe, Trump said the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center didn’t make him feel safe. “We haven’t won anything,” candidate Trump said, because “we have people who are stupid.”

Bush’s brother and father had been president but Jeb duly dragged out his mother Barbara to vouch for him. Jeb Bush called Trump a “loser” but his own campaign went nowhere.

“Worse than Jeb Bush,” as Trump said, was “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz. Trump called Cruz a “joke artist,” and a “liar.”  As Trump noted, Cruz had no mathematical chance to win, yet he named a running mate, Carly Fiorina. “Look at that face,” Trump said, but he also went after Fiorina’s record at Hewlett Packard, and the facts were on his side. If insulting is to be an art, the insulter must know what he’s talking about.

Trump called Marco Rubio a “con artist” with the “worst voting record in the Senate.” With that, he “couldn’t run for dogcatcher,” and his campaign suffered an “epic meltdown.”

Rick Perry said Trump was putting on a “carnival act.” Trump said the newly bespectacled candidate should take an IQ test before the debate. Rival Ben Carson, Trump said, “makes Bush look like the energizer bunny,” but he was a nice guy. The film shows Carson telling a newsman that “real nice gets you nowhere,” another moral of the story.

From Gilbert’s previous film, Dreams from My Real Father, and Paul Kengor’s The Communist, the 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney had solid evidence that the 44th president, formerly known as Barry Soetoro, wasn’t exactly who he said he was. Romney held off but did call Trump a “fraud” and a “phony.” Trump said Romney was a “failed candidate,” and also “a total stiff. He’s a dope.”

The Art of the Insult shows Hillary Clinton calling Trump followers “deplorables,” racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and so on. Trump called her “Crooked Hillary,” and he knew the facts on the emails she destroyed, and how she lied about it. The film helpfully includes her “what does it matter?” line about the four American deaths at Benghazi, and the quip about wiping the server with a cloth.

Trump goes after Bernie Sanders as a “Communist” and a “socialist,” and as an entrepreneur says he would like his chances against someone like that. The socialist would have been the Democrats’ candidate but Crooked Hillary rigged the primaries and bought off the DNC. Knowing that will not lessen the impact of the film, in which the strident Elizabeth Warren plays a brief role as “Pocahontas,” a fake Indian.

Trump really gets down to it with the media, the “fake news” outlets packed with “lying disgusting people.” At Trump rallies, the people chant “CNN sucks!” and that network also serves up some laugh lines in the film. 

“I’m president and they’re not,” Trump says at the end, and the progressive Hillary Clinton, the media’s favorite candidate, isn’t president either. There can be little doubt that Trump’s willingness to push back and play it tough played a major role in his victory. As he said, the last thing he wanted to be called was weak.

One year later it’s all worth recalling and preserving for posterity. Trump: The Art of the Insult is cinéma vérité at its finest, endlessly entertaining and, for all but the willfully blind, hugely instructive.

Trump Recognizes Jerusalem As Israel’s Capital

Thu, 12/07/2017 - 05:59

President Donald Trump made history yesterday officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, almost 70 years after the United States became the first country in the world to extend diplomatic recognition to the Jewish state.

“Jerusalem is not just the heart of three great religions, but it is now also the heart of one of the most successful democracies in the world,” President Trump said in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House.

Over the past seven decades, the Israeli people have built a country where Jews, Muslims, and Christians, and people of all faiths are free to live and worship according to their conscience and according to their beliefs. Jerusalem is today, and must remain, a place where Jews pray at the Western Wall, where Christians walk the Stations of the Cross, and where Muslims worship at Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted thanks to Trump for the “historic decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The Jewish people and the Jewish state will be forever grateful.”

Of course the usual suspects were broken records, apoplectic on cue.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas warned there would be “dangerous consequences.” His office issued a statement declaring that “East Jerusalem is the key to war and peace and any solution must guarantee East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state.” Palestinian politicians are calling for “days of rage” in the streets to protest Trump’s decision, and are hoping the violence goes global.

Predictably, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Trump's move was a "red line" for Muslims, whatever that means.

Jordan’s foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, warned U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that Trump’s proclamation could “trigger anger across the Arab and Muslim world, fuel tension and jeopardize peace efforts.”

These are the same tedious things Islamists always say whenever the United States does anything perceived as supportive of Israel.

In making the proclamation about Jerusalem, Trump honored a campaign promise, one to which plenty of politicians on both sides of the aisle have given mere lip service over the years.

President Trump’s courageous, unprecedented proclamation finally ends the long-running charade that Jerusalem is legally or politically different from or somehow not legitimately a part of sovereign Israeli territory. And it confers on Israel as a whole a special kind of political legitimacy well beyond what President Harry Truman provided May 14, 1948 when he extended U.S. diplomatic recognition to the nascent State of Israel.

Recognizing a sovereign nation without recognizing the capital it claims as its own is only a half-measure. While better than nothing, that quasi-recognition by the world’s only superpower has needlessly left Israel vulnerable and given its enemies plenty of wiggle room over the years, it could be argued. Dangling the prospect of full recognition, that is, of recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, hasn’t been the bargaining chip to promote Middle East peace so many members of the foreign policy establishment have claimed; it’s more of an albatross around both Israeli and American necks.

Thanks to President Trump, Palestinians and their terrorist allies will no longer be able to threaten to open the gates of hell every time an American president talks about moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It will no longer be an available talking point; it will be a fait accompli.

For years American presidents have signed waivers under the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 that encouraged the federal government to move its embassy to Jerusalem and recognize that city as Israel’s capital, President Trump said.

Yet, for over 20 years, every previous American president has exercised the law’s waiver, refusing to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem or to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city.

Presidents issued these waivers under the belief that delaying the recognition of Jerusalem would advance the cause of peace. Some say they lacked courage, but they made their best judgments based on facts as they understood them at the time. Nevertheless, the record is in. After more than two decades of waivers, we are no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result.

Jerusalem was the capital the Jewish people established in ancient times and it is right to give it the recognition it deserves, President Trump said.

Today, Jerusalem is the seat of the modern Israeli government. It is the home of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, as well as the Israeli Supreme Court. It is the location of the official residence of the prime minister and the president. It is the headquarters of many government ministries.

Now is the time to stop walking on eggshells around the Jerusalem question and recognize the status of Jerusalem within Israel, the president said.

American presidents “have declined to acknowledge any Israeli capital at all,” Trump said. “But today, we finally acknowledge the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. This is nothing more, or less, than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do. It's something that has to be done.”

Trump explained that he has directed the Department of State to begin preparations for relocating the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. “This will immediately begin the process of hiring architects, engineers, and planners, so that a new embassy, when completed, will be a magnificent tribute to peace.”

Some left-wing Israel-haters have complained about President Trump’s so-called unilateralism on the Jerusalem issue. They say he is going around the oh-so-sacred peace process, not strengthening it.

But Palestinians and their allies have been leveraging international bodies such as the United Nations for years in an attempt to get their way outside of the peace process.

This is exactly what President Barack Hussein Obama did in his final parting shot at Israel before leaving office.

Former Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, a Nevada Democrat, attacked Israel-hating Obama in fairly blunt terms in the final weeks of his presidency.

Obama stood by and did nothing when the United Nations “stooped to a new low … passing a Security Council resolution with the transparent goal of delegitimizing Israel and damaging the prospects for a lasting negotiated peace with the Palestinians.”

The Obama administration’s decision to abstain, allowing the UN’s highest body to condemn Israel in such harsh and biased terms, declare settlements an illegal obstacle to peace, and call the eternal capital of the Jewish people “occupied,” is unprecedented and dangerous. The resolution passed by the Security Council suggests that the location of the most holy site for the Jewish people, the Western Wall, is not in Israel, and that the Old City of Jerusalem is a "settlement."

What a difference a presidential election makes.

Global Islamophobia Follows Trump’s Embassy Move

Thu, 12/07/2017 - 05:58

President Trump displayed more courage and integrity Wednesday than Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama ever did when he ended twenty-two years of waivers postponing the U.S. Embassy to Israel’s move to Jerusalem, declared that the U.S. recognized that Jerusalem was Israel’s capital, and announced that preparations for the embassy move would begin forthwith. And the world reacted with…Islamophobia.

“Today,” Trump said, “we finally acknowledge the obvious. That Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do. It’s something that has to be done.” He added: “This decision is not intended in any way to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians….The United States remains deeply committed to helping facilitate a peace agreement that is acceptable to both sides. I intend to do everything in my power to help forge such an agreement.”

Nonetheless, the reaction was predictable. Pope Francis obliquely denounced the move, saying: “I appeal strongly for all to respect the city’s status quo, in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions.” A spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel said: “We do not support President Trump.” French President Emmanuel Macron said that Trump’s move was “regrettable.” British Prime Minister Theresa May called the move “unhelpful for peace prospects.”

Why were all these leaders, and many more, lining up against the move? Because Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas “warned of the dangerous consequences such a decision would have to the peace process and to the peace, security and stability of the region and of the world.” And Jordan’s King Abdullah said the move would “undermine efforts to resume the peace process.” 

Egypt’s President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi urged Trump “not to complicate the situation in the region.” Saudi Arabia’s King Salman got to the heart of the matter when he said that the move “would constitute a flagrant provocation of Muslims, all over the world.” Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag warned on Twitter: “Declaring Jerusalem a capital is disregarding history and the truths in the region, it is a big injustice/cruelty, shortsightedness, foolishness/madness, it is plunging the region and the world into a fire with no end in sight.”

Those threats and others made the likes of Merkel, Macron, May and Pope Francis quail. They’re afraid that now that Trump has declared Jerusalem to be Israel’s capital, Muslims around the world will respond by rioting and killing innocent people. That is, after all, what Abbas means by “dangerous consequences,” and Bozdag by “a fire with no end in sight.”

But – the Islamophobia! Are Merkel, Macron, May and the Pope actually suggesting that we must tiptoe and walk on eggshells around Muslims, lest they react violently to the slightest “provocation” and innocent people get killed? All four of them would vie with one another to be the first in line to insist that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. So how can they be thinking that Muslims will react in any other way to Trump’s announcement than with calm, equanimity, and a renewed determination to return to the negotiating table?

If any other people had assumed that Muslims would riot and kill over this announcement or any other, May, Merkel, Macron and the Mad Pontiff would be the first to denounce them for “Islamophobia.” But since they are the guilty parties in this case, I will have to do the job: I hereby point the finger and utter the J’accuse to all four of them, and any other non-Muslim leader, who is warning today of the imminent danger caused by this “provocation”: you are revealing your “Islamophobia,” and contravening your own stated principles.

You are also admitting, inadvertently, that you know the truth: that the numerous incitements to violence and hatred in the Qur’an and Sunnah do tend to lead to Muslims behaving violently at the drop of a hat, or the move of an embassy. If this be “Islamophobia” to point out and oppose, then every sane person should be an “Islamophobe.” This is the case I make in my new book Confessions of an Islamophobe, the book that demonstrates that everyone who cares for human rights and free societies should be an “Islamophobe.” Get your copy here.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Confessions of an Islamophobe. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Annie Taylor Award Recipient: Ron Robinson

Thu, 12/07/2017 - 05:09

Editor's note: Below are the video and transcript to remarks given by Ron Robinson, the president of Young America’s Foundation, at the David Horowitz Freedom Center's 2017 Restoration Weekend. Robinson was this year's recipient of the Annie Taylor Award (along with James Damore and Jesse Watters), given to people who exhibit great courage by “going over the ledge when others would be afraid to even go near it.” The event was held Nov. 16th-19th at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida.

Introduction by David Horowitz: I was a recently ex-radical, a New York Jew, aggressive, confrontational and cocksure that I knew it all, and was certainly going to tell you what I thought.  Ron was a Buchanan conservative who had grown up in a working-class family in Buffalo.  He had all the virtues you might refer to as "Christian."  He was well mannered, quiet spoken, kind of avuncular, civilized, and humble.  It was hard to get a rise out of him.  I don't think I've ever seen him raise his voice.  There was no hint, if you met him, of the extraordinary leader he is, or that he could engineer our profound change within the conservative movement, but he has.

My main concern at the time I met him, which was only a couple of years after I had left the left, was this:  Where's the conservative army?  Where's the conservative SDS and a dozen other, or maybe a hundred other similar fighting organizations?  What we desperately needed on the right were fighting organizations on every campus to take the battle to the left.  This was not, of course, a problem confined to conservative student organizations, of which there were several.  When you looked at any conservative organization, it was concerned mainly about spreading the ideas of William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk, putting copies of the Constitution in every one's pocket, and polices in Washington.

Conservatives seemed to think politics took place every 18 months during the election cycle.  It was about policies in Washington, not about the wars the left was waging every day and in every way, over issues like gender and how you must refer to black people, formerly Negroes, and now not blacks, but African Americans.  Those battles didn't seem to be political at all.  My own experience with conservatives was that they were very nice to me as a defector to the cause, but kept their distance of the chance that I might cause trouble down the line.  Ron Robinson was different.

Despite the cultural Grand Canyon that separated us, he became a political ally, sponsoring me as a speaker on campuses.  He also invited me to leadership events that his organization, Young America's Foundation, put on. Conservatives need to be aggressive, to fight fire with fire, even if that means displaying bad manners.  If you had asked me back then if such ideas were going to take hold in conservative minds, I would've said no.  It didn't take me long to see that the problem wasn't actually conservative ideas, it was the conservative upbringing and temperament: civilized, temperate, well-mannered.  Pretty much the virtues reflected in the personality of my patron, Rob Robinson.

But I was wrong, and I should've known it from the way he took me under his wing.  The turning point, as best I can pinpoint it, occurred 9 or 10 years ago.  In 2006, Ron arranged for me to debate Ward Churchill, the infamous Ward Churchill, at George Washington University.  He's the professor who said that the victims of 9/11 were "little Eichmanns."  Ron took flack from the right for inviting Churchill, and of course, paying him, but he was not dissuaded.  I enjoyed the debate.  Churchill was so high on drugs, I hardly had to answer him, and was able to get out our message, which was broadcast on C-SPAN reaching a much larger audience.

Afterwards, I was struck by the fact that the debate had been sponsored by a student chapter of Young America's Foundation.  I was aware that the foundation had representatives on a thousand campuses, but this was the first time I had heard of an actual chapter.  When I asked Ron if he had others, he said no, this is the only one.  When I asked him why, he said his board was wary about creating student organizations because you never knew what trouble young people could get into, and that might hurt the image of the national organization.  I threw up my hands.  It was everything I had already concluded about conservative bad habits that were holding up the cause.  Conservatives were good, decent people who cared about the principles on which this country is founded, but they didn't have the stomach for a street fight, and were never going to be able to defeat the left.

But within a few years of that conversation, Ron turned the world upside down.  Today, Young America's Foundation has chapters on 400 campuses and representatives on 2,000.  Just as important, Ron turned his organization into an activist vanguard.  It began with a program to remember the victims of communism, an epic tragedy created by progressives, which they prefer to forget, and worse, wanted to repeat.  This was followed by a program of campus demonstrations called "Never Forget 9/11," where Ron had his students plant 3,000 American flags to commemorate the victims.  The left, of course, went ballistic, revealing as they always do when they're outraged, their real commitments and agendas, which are anti-American to the core.  Ron's organization is today the chief sponsor and funder of conservative speakers who come to college campuses.  When the speakers are obstructed or shut down as they were at Berkeley, he hires lawyers to sue the university administration.

He has started a high school ring of his organization.  He has built the Ronald Reagan Center in Santa Barbara, which trains conservative students in Reaganite conservatism.  He has created a system of points to grade his student leaders for their activism, and he holds an annual meeting of the highest scorers, which I have many times addressed.  In fact, the director and organizer of all the campus activities of our own Freedom Center, Lonnie Lightner, is one of the student leaders who 15 years ago came to one of those year-end meetings at which I spoke.

Because he is civilized and self-effacing, Ron will probably never get the recognition he deserves.  But in my eyes, Ron Robinson is a revolutionary within the conservative movement who has created its most important youth organization and inspired others like Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA.  I am proud to give him this Annie Taylor Award, but in truth, he deserves so much more.

Ron Robinson: David, thank you very much.  I appreciate your very, very kind words.  You know, after hearing Steve Bannon's wonderful remarks, you have to reflect on the crisis that our country faces, and sometimes the campuses seem secondary or tertiary to that.  But President Lincoln is often quoted as saying the philosophy of the classroom today is the philosophy of government tomorrow.  And the philosophy of government in the recent years has, in fact, been the philosophy on the college campuses 30 years ago.

Our organization, Young America's Foundation, has been very much influenced by Ronald Reagan.  Ronald Reagan said there's a spark in all of us, if struck at just the right age, will light up the rest of your life.  We try to ignite that spark in young people around the country.  We do it in part by preserving President Reagan's western White House, the Reagan Ranch, our national journalism center programs, the 9/11 project that he also mentioned, more than 20 conferences and seminars we have every year, but especially through the more than 400 college lectures, high school lectures around the country that David and Robert Spencer and Steven Bannon and others have spoken to, and especially David's contribution to those over time.

For our students, who really are the heart of the organization, it's often a lonely fight.  Often, they are on their campuses alone at the outset, and they need conferences to pull together, just as each of you have enjoyed being with other like-minded people here, that is so critically important to a young person in their high school or college years to realize that they're not alone, that they can be with others that share their exact experiences, and that, in fact, is why our conferences have been so important to these young people, and why the appearances of people like Jesse Waters and Steve Bannon, and especially David Horowitz, has been such an inspiration to our students around the country.  So, our students are the heart of it.

The speakers Young America's Foundation has had, we've been very blessed.  There's a number of speakers in the hall tonight that have spoken for the foundation, and I hope will continue to do so, and I thank them, because there'd be no award for Young America's Foundation if it wasn't for our speakers.  The same is true for our supporters, and there's a number of our supporters around the hall tonight, and I greatly appreciate your confidence in us, and your confidence and help for the students.  And the staff of Young America's Foundation has been absolutely superior.  If, in fact, David was to attribute one talent to me, I would say that talent that is most important, that God has blessed me from time to time to have the opportunity to exercise, is choosing good staff members on the staff of Young America's Foundation, and I have a great set of colleagues on the team.

I made one other important decision that has helped guide the organization and helped us make some of the right decisions along the way.  I've mentioned the speakers.  I've mentioned the students, the supporters and the staff.  But the final S is my spouse, Michelle Easton, who I met, ironically enough, in the headquarters in Greenwich Village 45 years ago this fall.  We've been married 43 years, and we've been able to strategize these activities over the course of the period of time.  For a while, she left to go to the Reagan administration, and then the Bush administration.  Forgive her for that.  She served as President of Virginia's Board of Education, and then she formed the Claire Booth Luce Policy Institute.  So when I go home at night for the past 43 years, I have someone to strategize with, and believe me, that has added greatly to our activities.

I have to say that I particularly found it fitting that on any award was an Annie Taylor Award, because I grew up basically on the banks of the Love Canal, just a stone's throw from Niagara Falls, and I learned a lot about the people who were crazy enough to go over Niagara Falls through the years.  Before I knew the name Annie Taylor, I knew about people taking big risks.  Our students, and indeed our speakers, especially speakers like David Horowitz and Robert Spencer, take great risks.

Let me just leave you with one important statistic that has changed in the last year.  We did a study of our speakers prior to November 2016, prior to last year's election.  In 12 percent of our programs around the country, faced staunch opposition, people trying to cancel it, including college presidents, to people trying to disrupt the speakers, 12 percent.  So when David and Robert and others go to the campus, that's what they faced at that particular time.  Since last November's election, in over 400 events around the country, that number has risen almost fourfold to 46 percent.  It seems to me that the left believes they've lost the election because they weren't obnoxious enough.

So, I want to thank David for the award.  It is great to receive an award from really – he called me his mentor – really, truthfully, David has been our mentor.  He's been the mentor of so many young conservatives around the country.  Greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with him.  He understands thoroughly what Ronald Reagan said time and time again to our national audiences.  He said freedom isn't won at any one moment in time.  We must struggle to preserve it every day, and freedom is never more than one generation from extinction.  Thank you very much, David.  Thank you very much.

A Conyers Civil War in Detroit’s Dirty Dynasty

Thu, 12/07/2017 - 05:08

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

After spending almost 60 years in Congress as a politician and a staffer, Rep. John Conyers II has to decide which of his many relatives to pass Michigan’s 13th congressional district to. It’s like King Lear, if Shakespeare’s fictional monarch had been forced to step down after groping a woman in church.

The 13th is a very nice district to inherit. Conyers has won it by 77%, 79% and 82%. Fidel Castro couldn’t ask for better elections. Whichever Conyers clan member gets it will be staying in Congress for 60 years.

And will inherit Rep. Conyers’ government Cadillac Escalade. 

The Conyers fief stretches from Detroit to Highland Park to Garden City in Michigan’s lower peninsula. It’s majority African-American. A quarter of the population is unemployed. Median household income is $29K. Only 14% of the serfs on the Conyers political plantation even have a college degree.

It’s a typical Democrat plantation where only the politicians have a future.

One day, Rep. John Conyers took John Conyers III up a hill or toxic waste dump overlooking the parts of Detroit, the failed schools, murder hospitals and burned out buildings that are the legacy of the Conyers family and said, “Son, one day all this will be yours.”

When John Conyers II announced his retirement on a Detroit radio show, he did say, "My legacy can’t be compromised or diminished in any way by what we’re going through now. This too shall pass. ... My legacy will continue through my children."

When your legacy is nepotism, it really can’t be diminished. But nepotism is a better legacy than propositioning your staffers in your underwear or groping them in church.

“I have great family here and especially my oldest boy, John Conyers III, who incidentally I endorse to replace me in my seat in Congress,” John Conyers II declared. “We're all working together to make this country a better one, to make equality and justice more available."

This is what a civil rights icon looks like. 

What better way is there to get “equality” and “justice” than by treating political offices as an inheritance to be passed on to your oldest son?

But while Rep. Conyers deeded the seat to his son, John Conyers III, also known as Civil Rights Icon Jr, just like King Lear’s legacy, the political inheritance of the Conyers Seat is already being contested.

By a Conyers.

Senator Ian Conyers (of Michigan, not America) smelled blood a few days ago. Ian is the grandnephew of Congressman Conyers.

“If he resigns or retires, I will run for the seat,” Senator Ian Conyers announced. "The work of representing the working families must continue.”

The working families in question are all named Conyers.

You can’t just wait around a McDonald’s parking lot waiting to be handed envelopes of sewage cash. You have to work hard for it. 

Monica Conyers, John’s wife and (presumably) the mother John Conyers III, went to prison for accepting envelopes of cash in a McDonald’s parking lot to sway a $1.2 billion Detroit wastewater contract. The company that got the contract was Synargo, the largest processor of sewage sludge in the country, outside the Detroit City Council where Monica once served as president pro tempore.

In Detroit Latin, president pro tempore means you serve until you get convicted of something.

The last president pro tempore was George Cushingberry Jr, an associate pastor and bankruptcy lawyer whose law license was suspended twice while in office, and was caught with booze and pot in his car. Cushingberry not only, allegedly, put his girlfriend on his payroll, but the other guy with him in the car. He also had bold ideas for making Detroit great again like breeding the animals in the Detroit Zoo for sale, “massive marijuana production” while using “hemp cloth to make alternative seating" for cars.

But enough about Detroit’s bright political future of getting high on car seats and breeding ligers.

It’s about who inherits Michigan’s 13th congressional district and the groping of its staffers. The only clan that might challenge the Conyers family would be Clan Kilpatrick. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick used to sit in the 13th, but the Kilpatrick dynasty fell from favor when her son, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, a fine Irish name, was convicted of wire fraud and racketeering. This was actually a step up from his previous notoriety for the mysterious death of a stripper and using the N-word in the State of the City address.

Her husband, Bernard, who had once compared critics of their son to the Nazis, was also convicted in a Kwame scandal involving Synagro.

And so that just leaves the Conyers clan to squabble over the 13th.

On social media, Ian has been rallying support over John with the hashtag #DemocracyMatters.

That’s the one thing that doesn’t matter in Detroit.

Unlike John Conyers III, Ian Conyers has a little more political experience. He was Obama’s regional field director and a treasurer for the 13th. And he’s a “rising star” in Michigan Dem politics.

That means he hasn’t been convicted of anything yet.

John Conyers III’s greatest experience in politics came when his father had to reimburse the government for his son’s “misuse of his taxpayer-funded Cadillac Escalade.”

Now III will inherit his father’s seat and his taxpayer-funded civil rights Cadillac Escalade.

If Ian Conyers doesn’t get the seat, that will deal a real blow to his ability to introduce a nationwide version of his racially insensitive mascots bill that would fine schools for having offensive mascots.

Meanwhile Monica Conyers accused Ian of not even visiting Rep. Conyers during his hospitalization for sex scandal related trauma. But, maybe there were offensive mascots visiting the children that day.

Whichever Conyers wins, the people of Michigan’s 13th can be confident that they will be represented by a Conyers. And maybe this one will be able to keep his pants on for a few of the next 60 years.

In Congress, Rep. Conyers chose Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee to read his resignation statement. He chose well. Rep. Jackson Lee is famous for demanding African-American names for hurricanes.

Like Conyers, she is a civil rights icon.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee called Conyers, the “Dean of the United States Congress.”  Then she read his letter.

“I’ve been a champion of justice for the oppressed and the disenfranchised,” Rep. Conyers said in his humble missive. The actual disenfranchised in Detroit are non-members of his family.

Conyers touted his support for slavery reparations and tried to prove that he really respects women because he had once hired Rosa Parks. That would explain why Parks tried to move to the front of the bus. Like so many of his staffers, she was trying to get away from her boss.

Then Conyers complained that he wasn’t being “afforded the right of due process”, but affirmed the “progressive vision” which he owes to “my loving wife Monica” (who was sentenced to jail for bribery) and his son, “John III” who offers “hope to this generation of leadership, is committed to being an advocate for fairness and justice for all, and who never leaves my side.”

What better “progressive vision” could there be than infinite generations of the Conyers clan representing poor and bankrupt communities while enjoying the good life?

The progressive vision has bankrupted Detroit, but it’s been good for the Conyers clan.  And if it comes to pass, then in 2144, civil rights icon John Conyers VIII will be groping staffers in Congress.

Fairness and justice for all.

But maybe the “progressive vision” can be met with a dream. Maybe someone in Detroit even has a dream in which, to quote an actual civil rights icon, “justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream” and washes the ruling families of Detroit and the blue kingdoms into the gutter.

And then, “all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, ‘Free at Last! Free at Last!!’”

Still Blind After All These Years

Thu, 12/07/2017 - 05:07

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

President Trump last week retweeted some videos posted by England’s Britain First party, and the usual suspects fell all over themselves condemning the president in an orgy of mass virtue-signaling. The usual question-begging epithets flew thick and fast: “racist,” “fascist,” “hateful,” “bigotry,” Islamophobic,” “extremist,” “far-right,” all the dull clichés trotted out to mask the chronic appeasement of Islamic jihad on the part of bipartisan internationalists.

The uproar over Trump’s actions confirms that the willful blindness of most Western leaders over the reality of Islamic violence continues to weaken our response to the jihadist threat.

The three videos that Trump retweeted showed examples of Muslim confessional intolerance and violence ubiquitous for fourteen centuries: “Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches!” “Muslim Destroys a Statue of Virgin Mary!” and “Islamist mob pushes teenage boy off roof and beats him to death!” Sadly, such incidents have become dog-bites-man stories, and similarly predictable are the responses to them. All were marked by the Western preemptive cringe typical of those who refuse to confront reality.

Consider the American politicians, especially Republican NeverTrumpers, who could not resist taking a potshot at the president and brandishing their moral superiority. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham claimed that Trump was “legitimizing religious bigotry” by retweeting the videos. He then added, “We need Muslim allies in the war on terror. I can only imagine how some of our Muslim allies must feel when the president gives legitimacy to it.”

How exactly is showing factual incidents of violence “legitimizing religious bigotry”? So the Muslim who beat up the boy on crutches was not a migrant, but a Dutch citizen. The point remains: Islam views violence against infidels as divinely sanctioned, thus legitimizing any violence. Do we have to repeat for the Nth time the Koranic commands, those uncreated words of Allah, like “slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” “do not take the Jews and Christians as friends,” “fight those who do not believe in Allah,” “fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness,” or “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore, strike off their heads”? Are any of the incidents in the videos––and in those circulated by ISIS and other jihadist groups–– incompatible with these commands? Are any of them different from the thousands and thousands of similar lethal actions––over 32,000 just since 9/11–– that we have witnessed for nearly two decades, and that have marked the history of Islam from its beginnings in the 7th century, when Mohammed beheaded the 500 Jewish men of the Banu Qurayza?

As for alienating our “Muslim allies in the war on terror,” that bit of ritually chanted received wisdom started in the George W. Bush administration right after the 9/11 attacks, accompanied by flattering descriptions of Islam as a “religion of peace.” Islam’s “teachings,” Bush said, “are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.” What, then, should we make of the most revered Shi’a scholar of Islamic doctrine, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who said, “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers.” Do we really believe that the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the heartland of Shi’a orthodoxy and the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror, “blasphemes the name of Allah”?

The Obama administration doubled-down on this misplaced flattery, proscribing any mention of jihad or Islamic doctrines of violence in government communications, all in order to encourage those imagined legions of “moderate Muslims” who would join us against their fellow Muslims if only we talked nice about their faith. Obama’s assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, John Brennan, scolded us not to call the terrorists “jihadists,” for doing so “risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.” Meanwhile every modern jihadist from Sayyid Qutb to Khomeini to bin Laden to ISIS to scholars trained at Al Azhar university (the ancient center of Sunni Islamic scholarship) like Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, who has said, “The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar’s programs” –– have found in the Koran and Hadith all the legitimacy they need for violence against infidels. To think that our hurtful insensitivity carries more weight than venerable religious doctrines is criminal stupidity.

No surprise, then, that Graham’s stale received wisdom about Trump’s retweets was reprised by Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who said of Trump’s retweeting of the videos, “It has all kinds of ripple effects, both in terms of perhaps inciting or encouraging anti-Muslim violence, and as well causes, I think, our friends and allies around the world to wonder about the judgment of the president of the United States.” Yes, this is the same James Clapper who in 2011 told Congress, “The term Muslim Brotherhood is an umbrella term for a variety of movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.” That he is still more worried about the non-existent “backlash” of violence against Muslims rather than the persistent facts of violence against non-Muslims bespeaks a willful ignorance and enslavement to received wisdom dangerous in a Director of National Intelligence.

One can figure out the dubious rationale behind all these apologetics: peaceful, pious Muslims are angered by the “extremists” who have “hijacked” Islam in order to commit murder and mayhem in its name. We must get these Muslims on our side both to help us root out terrorists, and to build a critical mass of condemnation and ostracism that will marginalize and ultimately discredit them. Hence we must refrain from speaking the obvious truth about Islam and its doctrines so that we do not alienate these potential allies.

Two decades on, the failure of this tactic has become obvious. The continuing success of ISIS in inspiring terrorist attacks in Europe, America, Egypt, North Africa, Yemen, and Nigeria suggests it doesn’t work, especially in Europe, where the perpetrators of terrorist violence have been sheltered in Muslim communities, and recruited in mosques and “Islamic centers.” Appeasing Iran by letting it continue to develop nuclear weapons has only emboldened that jihadist regime and facilitated its growing influence in the region. Even more telling, Russia’s long history of killing Muslims and using scorched-earth tactics on its own jihadists hasn’t kept Iran from partnering with Putin in Syria and Iraq. Nor has China’s oppression of 10 million Muslim Uighurs in its western provinces sparked widespread terrorist attacks in China in retribution for this assault on the faithful. And we have yet to see large scale public protests against the so-called “hijackers of Islam” after a terrorist attack. The few brave voices of Muslims who do speak out are lost in an ocean of indifference or tacit support on the part of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.

If two decades of flattering lies about Islam on the part of Westerners hasn’t worked, maybe discarding these politically correct pieties should be given a try. It’s no coincidence that our Middle East allies like Saudi Arabia aren’t “worrying” about Trump, but are delighted with his tough talk about Iran and jihadism, just as Eastern European dissidents cheered the same Ronald Reagan whom our leftists and Democrats caricatured as a trigger-happy war monger. Does anyone think that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia has promised to “pursue terrorism until it is eradicated completely” because he is “worrying” about Trump’s “judgment”?

Despite what the State Department, RINOs, and Dems think, the rest of the world’s leaders outside Europe do not comprise snowflakes anxiously worrying about hurting the feelings of their rivals and enemies who have sworn to destroy them. They know that strong deeds, not soothing words, are necessary for confronting terrorism, and they’re delighted finally to see a leader of the world’s greatest power who calls a jihadist spade a spade, and who understands the first precept of any conflict––know your enemy.

San Francisco Show Trial Sequel

Thu, 12/07/2017 - 05:05

Last week, a San Francisco jury acquitted seven-time felon Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, a repeatedly deported Mexican national, of all murder and manslaughter charges in the July 1, 2015, fatal shooting of Kate Steinle as she walked with her father and a friend on Pier 14. The jury found the confessed shooter guilty only of felony gun possession. Many observers decried the verdict as a travesty of justice, but they were mistaken if they thought it could not get any worse.

San Francisco public defender Matt Gonzalez now seeks to have Zarate’s gun possession charge dismissed. Gonzalez is contending the jury should have been told that “momentary” possession of a gun is not necessarily a crime. “If you possess it just to dispose of it or abandon it, it wouldn’t be a crime,” Gonzalez told reporters. The Steinle family and relatives of murder victims have new cause for outrage, but this gambit is consistent with Gonzalez and the San Francisco show-trial in which he co-starred.

Gonzalez hails from McAllen, Texas, and attended Columbia University on a scholarship. As he explained, “I think I was a product of affirmative action,” and ethnic preferences doubtless played a role in admission to Stanford Law School. In San Francisco, Gonzalez became known as “The Great Left Hope,” and a hero to Bay Area radicals. The La Raza Lawyers Association named Gonzalez Lawyer of the Year, and the Mexican American Political Association, a group with roots in the Communist Party, gave him the Bert Corona award, after one of the CPUSA’s most high-profile Stalinists.

In 2,000, after a decade as a public defender, Gonzalez gained election to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. In 2003, as board president, he commissioned a graffiti artist to spray SMASH THE STATE on his office wall, in “traffic cone orange.” As Gonzalez explained, “This is a sentiment I think all of us have had. You have to rally and find ways of opposing what you don’t like.”

In 2003 Gonzalez ran for mayor of San Francisco but lost to Gavin Newsom. In 2008 Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader tapped Gonzalez for vice president. “He has a great, steadfast commitment to justice,” Nader told reporters. On that score, the Steinle family and other relatives of murder victims have room for reasonable doubt.

In jury selection, Gonzalez and the prosecutor, assistant district attorney Diana Garcia, included three “immigrants,” quite possibly false-documented illegals. True to form, judge Samuel Feng sealed the identities of the jurors. So observers have grounds to believe that Garcia and Gonzalez both got the jury they wanted.

Garcia told the court Zarate was playing his own “secret version of Russian roulette,” and thus parroted the defense’s contention that the shooting was all a matter of chance. As it happens, in Russian roulette a shooter loads one bullet into a six-shot revolver, spins the cylinder, then puts the gun to his own head and pulls the trigger.

In a central fact of the case, Zarate did not aim the gun at himself but fired in the direction of Kate Steinle. In another established fact, the bullet struck her in the lower back and tore through her abdominal aorta. This happened in broad daylight, but as in In the Heat of the Night, they had the body which was dead.

Garcia Zarate confessed to firing the shot and had gunpowder residue on his hands. After firing, he tossed the gun in the water. He said he had found the stolen weapon wrapped in a cloth and that it discharged by itself, both utterly unbelievable claims. Even so, the politically correct jury found the career criminal not guilty of murder and manslaughter.

Any observer could be forgiven for believing that prosecution and defense both got the outcome they wanted. Unlike Stalin’s trials of the old Bolsheviks, and Fidel Castro’ trial of General Arnaldo Ochoa, this show trial aimed to establish innocence for the guilty, and the dynamics of the left were on full display.

Denunciations of “gun violence” were nowhere in evidence and expressions of sympathy for the Steinle family proved pathetically weak. As Arthur Koestler said, on the left the truth is spoken with loathing and falsehood with love. On the left, as Orwell had it in Animal Farm, rats are comrades, and criminals are victims of capitalist society. 

In the view of Gonzalez, society is progressing toward a social justice paradise ruled by a wise elite that knows what’s best for all. In this inexorable progress, determined by history, some people are going to have to die. As Bertolt Brecht told Sidney Hook about Stalin’s victims, “the more innocent they are, the more they deserve to be shot.”

Out for a summer-day walk with her father and a friend, Kate Steinle was a completely innocent victim, gunned down by a career criminal who was not even supposed to be in the country but found special protection in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, part of the sanctuary state of California. As defense attorney Francisco Ugarte said, the verdict was a “vindication for the rights of immigrants.”

Since Donald Trump mentioned the case, former vice-presidential candidate Matt Gonzalez had to establish the complete innocence of the shooter. That explains the effort of “The Great Left Hope” to have his client’s felony gun possession conviction tossed. Any observer of the case could believe it probably will be.

Obstruction of Justice was Coming from Inside the FBI

Wed, 12/06/2017 - 05:10

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

“There's always conflicting recollections of facts,” FBI Director Comey said.

It was a year ago and Comey was explaining why Hillary’s close aide, Cheryl Mills, not only received an immunity agreement in exchange for turning over her laptop, but a pass on lying to the FBI.

The FBI Director claimed that Mills had to receive immunity because the laptop might be protected by attorney-client privilege. Mills, like Hillary Clinton, had worked as a lawyer. But they were both government officials working for the State Department. Hillary wasn’t Mills’ client. The government was. 

Comey and his people knew the law. They chose to ignore it to protect a key Hillary aide from rolling over. Mills was the woman Hillary would send in to clean up her dirty laundry. Mills had taken point on the email server cover-up. If anyone knew where the bodies were buried, she did. Instead not only did she get an immunity agreement, but the FBI also agreed to destroy the computers after the search.

Mills had told the FBI that she didn’t know about Hillary’s email server. But the FBI had notes and emails proving that Mills was lying. And when Comey was asked about it, he came out with, “There's always conflicting recollections of facts.”

No doubt. 

That is what the lawyer of the woman who had been caught lying to the FBI might have been expected to argue. But there were no charges, instead the FBI Director was presenting her defense.

George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were charged with lying to investigators. But lying to investigators isn’t a crime when you’re Hillary Clinton. 

Or one of her associates.

Hillary Clinton had told the FBI that she had no idea that the “C” stood for confidential. Instead of laughing in her face or arresting her, the FBI boss testified personally to her truthfulness.

Hillary Clinton, Mills and Huma Abedin made what appear to be false statements to the FBI.

Had Mills been working for Trump, the same number would have been run on Mills as on Flynn and Papadopoulos. But the men interviewing Mills didn’t want her to sing. They wanted her to keep quiet.

Mills and Abedin were interviewed by the FBI's Peter Strzok and the DOJ's David Laufman. Strzok was exchanging pro-Hillary and anti-Trump messages in an extramarital affair with a woman working for FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. McCabe’s wife had received a sizable amount of money from a Clinton ally. Laufman, whose counterintelligence section was heading the investigation, is an Obama donor

Mills’ lie made it more urgent to hand her an immunity agreement on any pretext. The immunity agreement wasn’t leverage for her testimony. It was leverage to keep her from testifying. The obstruction of justice was coming from the inside.

Strzok received input on the Comey letter exonerating Clinton. The Mills interview killed two birds with one stone. A key Hillary aide got immunity and the evidence would be destroyed.

This wasn’t an interview. It was a cover-up.

It’s why Comey sounded like Mills’ lawyer. And why so many Clinton associates got immunity agreements. Why the FBI agreed to destroy evidence. Why there were no recordings of Hillary’s testimony. And why lying to the FBI wasn’t a crime when it came to Hillary and her aides.

But the double standard kicked in when the Clinton cover-up crew went after Trump.

While Mills received an immunity agreement based on an imaginary attorney-client privilege that didn’t exist, Manafort was denied attorney-client privilege with his actual attorney

The double standard isn’t surprising when you look at who was doing the interviewing.

Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it’s a “crime to lie to us”. 

Not for the Clintons and their associates.

Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn’t received training on handling classified information, but she signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn’t carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper, who made the server possible, testified that indeed she did.

Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills told the same lie. 

These are the kinds of misstep that Team Mueller would have used to hang a Trump associate. But Comey testified that Hillary Clinton did not lie.

And that meant he was lying.

Not only did Clinton’s people lie to the FBI. But the head of the FBI had lied for them.

The fix had been in all along. 

Comey had drafted his letter exonerating Clinton before the interviews even took place. Strzok had been copied on the next email. His contribution had included changing the description of Clinton's actions from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless."  Strzok is now in the spotlight because Team Mueller’s stonewalling of the reasons for his removal have been exposed. 

Strzok, a Hillary partisan, had given his favorite politician a pass and signed the document opening the Russia investigation. The Steele dossier, provided by a Russian intelligence operative and paid for by the Clinton campaign, was funneled through to Strzok’s team. And Strzok had interviewed Flynn.

Team Mueller resisted discussing Strzok. Alongside the constant leaks to favored media outlets like the Washington Post, Mueller’s people have worked to maintain a monopoly on information.

Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, a friend of Loretta Lynch, Obama's DOJ boss, and of Andrew Weissmann, Mueller’s deputy, decided to seal the Papadopolous case. Howell also decided that Manafort isn’t entitled to attorney-client privilege. These actions took place at the behest of Weissmann. The latter had sent an email praising Sally Yates, the disgraced former acting Attorney General, for refusing to stand by the law on the Trump travel ban.

Weissmann, like the rest of Team Mueller, wasn’t there to get at the truth, but to stop President Trump. The Mueller deputy is one of two Obama donors on the team. There are also five Clinton donors. One of whom had represented the Clinton Foundation. Another had represented Justin Cooper, the Clinton adviser, who helped run Hillary's email server and claimed to have destroyed some of Hillary’s devices.

It’s hard to imagine how this investigation could have been any more partisan or tainted.

The endgame for this is to go after President Trump on obstruction of justice. But you can’t obstruct a justice that was already obstructed. Both the Clinton and Trump investigations were tainted by blatant partisanship. While the Clinton investigation did everything possible to protect her and her aides, regardless of the evidence, the Trump investigation did everything possible to destroy him and his associates without producing a single charge relevant to the actual investigation. 

The Clintons and their allies have obstructed justice. And it’s time for a real investigation.

 

President Trump Poised to Recognize Jerusalem As Israeli Capital

Wed, 12/06/2017 - 05:09

President Trump is reportedly ready, according to senior U.S. officials, to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital immediately, while delaying the U.S. embassy’s relocation from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem for another six months. The president missed the Monday deadline for signing a six-month waiver to a law requiring such relocation and is said to have directed his aides to begin planning for the move.  President Trump informed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Jordan's King Abdullah, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi and Saudi King Salman of his plans. The reaction from the Palestinians as well as Arab and Muslim leaders in the region was predictably fierce. 

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said President Trump's plan to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel is a "red line" for Muslims, which could cause Turkey to break off diplomatic relations with Israel.  Jordan, normally an American ally, is coordinating the convening of an emergency meeting of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to “discuss ways of dealing with the consequences of such a decision that raised alarm and concern,” a senior Jordanian diplomatic source told Reuters. Jordan’s foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, warned Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that such a decision could “trigger anger across the Arab and Muslim world, fuel tension and jeopardize peace efforts,” according to Jordan’s state news agency. 

Abbas warned of “dangerous consequences.” This could include, according to Abbas’s diplomatic adviser, the end of contacts between the Palestinian leadership and the U.S. Last week, Abbas’s office issued a statement declaring that “East Jerusalem is the key to war and peace and any solution must guarantee East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state.”

Palestinian leaders have called for “days of rage” in the streets to follow President Trump’s announcement of any changes to the status of Jerusalem they consider inimical to the Palestinians’ claim to East Jerusalem as the capital of an independent Palestinian state. The anger they and other Arab and Muslim leaders incite is likely to lead to violence, not only within the West Bank, Gaza and Israel itself, but throughout the Middle East and beyond. U.S. embassies and consulates will be likely targets, with blame for any deaths or injuries no doubt wrongly placed on President Trump rather than on the perpetrators and inciters of the violence where it belongs. 

French President Emmanuel Macron has also expressed his opposition to President Trump’s plan to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. He conveyed “his concern with the possibility that the United States might unilaterally recognize Jerusalem as capital of the State of Israel,” in a phone conversation with President Trump, according to a statement issued by the French government. “Mr. Macron reaffirmed that the status of Jerusalem must be resolved through peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.”

The French government is falling back on the standard talking point, repeated over and over again by French and other world leaders, that the status of Jerusalem must be resolved as a final status issue in direct negotiations between Israel and Palestinians. Yet France, and much of the so-called “international community,” have vigorously supported United Nations resolutions claiming that East Jerusalem is “occupied Palestinian territory,” as opposed to characterizing it as “disputed territory” subject to direct negotiations between the parties. UN Security Council Resolution 2334’s declaration that any “settlements” in East Jerusalem are illegal would effectively invalidate any residences constructed by Israelis there since June 1967, as well as prohibit the building or expansion of residences, even in the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem. France supported this resolution, which all but accedes to Abbas’s demand that “any solution must guarantee East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state.”

The notion that President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and his plans to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem would worsen prospects for a secure and viable peace based on a two-state solution is a canard. The Palestinians refuse to negotiate in good faith. In fact, they refuse to negotiate at all. They continue to reject all paths to a reasonable compromise on any issue related to the conflict that they created in the first place by not accepting the UN partition resolution's two-state solution seven decades ago. Even with former President Obama willing to give the Palestinians every benefit of the doubt, the Palestinians refused to budge on any of their core demands. Perhaps President Trump’s moves will force the Palestinians to finally come to terms with some semblance of the reality of their situation and force them to re-evaluate their hardline, rejectionist positions. Then again, to paraphrase Abba Eban who was speaking about the Arabs in general, "Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

In any event, President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is not such a radical idea. Russia, of all countries, stated last April that “we view West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.” While it did so in the context of also recognizing “the status of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state,” Russia’s action still provides a precedent that goes beyond the conventional thinking of France and other Western European countries. By declaring the U.S.’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and proceeding with plans to move the U.S. embassy to West Jerusalem, President Trump would formalize the treatment that the U.S. already extends to Jerusalem as the headquarters of the Israeli government. President Trump can indicate that the U.S. recognizes “Jerusalem” as Israel’s capital, without referencing “east” or “west,” while also declaring his intention to move the U.S. embassy specifically to West Jerusalem, which even Abbas has not claimed to be Palestinian territory.

President Trump would be moving in the right direction if he follows through with these steps. However, they are just initial steps. The elephant in the room remains the final status of Jerusalem as a whole. Israel rightfully claims “Jerusalem as the capital of a sovereign Israel and as a united city which will never again be torn apart." 

Jerusalem was an undivided city until the Jordanians’ illegal occupation in 1948. Historically, Jews have been living in Jerusalem continuously for more than three millennia. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any sovereign nation except of the Jewish people. Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Koran. Despite the forced diaspora of most of Jerusalem’s Jewish population after the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE, Jews have been living continuously in Jerusalem and constituted the largest single group of inhabitants in Jerusalem since at least the mid-1800s. Muslims pray towards Mecca. Jews not living in Jerusalem pray towards Jerusalem. The Palestinians, with the aid of UNESCO and other UN organizations, have tried to literally re-write history to airbrush out any Jewish ties to the holy sites of Jerusalem. President Trump's moves would help to reverse the tide. 

Establishing a so-called “East” Jerusalem as the capital of a new Palestine state would codify the Jordanians’ illegal occupation of the eastern portion of Jerusalem, including the Old City, between 1948 and 1967, which Jordan annexed and ruled from its capital, Amman. Jewish homes and sacred places were destroyed or defaced while the Old City remained under Jordanian control. Jews were barred from worshipping at their holiest sites.

Israel took over control of all of Jerusalem following a defensive war against Jordan in 1967. There was never any movement before that to "liberate" Jerusalem for the "Palestinians" from Hashemite Jordanian control. Yet the Palestinians today want to replicate the Jordanian artificial division of Jerusalem for themselves and impose an ethnic and religious cleansing of any Jewish-Israeli residents from what they consider to be their "lands." Israel is well within its rights to make sure that this never happens again in Judaism's holiest city, while ensuring that worshipers of all other faiths have access to their holy sites as well.

Charlie Kirk On Taking On The Campus Left

Wed, 12/06/2017 - 05:09

Editor's note: Below are the video and transcript to remarks given by Charlie Kirk at the David Horowitz Freedom Center's 2017 Restoration Weekend. The event was held Nov. 16th-19th at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida.

Charlie Kirk: Quite a week.  In the last week, I've been on three college campuses; Cleveland State University, Eastern Carolina University and Arizona State University.  It seems everywhere I'm going, I get lots of different protestors.  Antifa tends to show up and tries to shout down the campus events that we're doing.  For those of you that don't know, my name is Charlie Kirk, born and raised in Chicago, Illinois.  The fun thing about Illinois is we have term limits; one term in office, one term in jail, so a little bit different than most states.  When we ask for our former governor's cell number, we actually mean his cell number.

So you might ask how did a kid from Chicago start a nationwide student movement dedicated to identifying, educating and organize the next generation. It's really interesting.  A lot of it has to do with this weekend.  Four or five years ago, a dear friend brought me to this breakfast, this same very one, and I started to meet all of you for the first time and kind of pitch this idea, and this has been a key cornerstone of the growth of Turning Point U.S.A.  It started on just a couple campuses, and now we're present on over 1,200 college and high-school campuses across the country, which is just amazing.  Thank you.  And so many amazing supporters in this room that have made it possible, and David Horowitz, I can't thank you enough for your mentorship and guidance and advice throughout the years, so thank you.  Seriously, what you're doing here is so special, and we have a big event coming up next month, just to give you an idea of how big the movement has grown.  A couple years ago, we had our first student activation summit.  We had about 400 students.  Last year, we had about 800, and next month we're going to have over 3,000 students here in Palm Beach, which will be the biggest conservative event to date, so it's quite exciting.

Before I introduce the amazing congressman, who's doing phenomenal work fighting for our rights and fighting for justice in the House, I do want to talk a little bit about what I believe is the greatest threat to Western civilization as we know it, which is what's happening on our college campuses right now.  It cannot be overstated the erosion of free speech, the attack on traditional values and the direct assault on what made Western civilization great.  I always like to say the left hates the idea that there are other ideas.  The left wants racial diversity, they want ethnic diversity, they want every single type of diversity on a college campus except intellectual diversity.  I like to say college campuses have become a place where they want everyone to look different but think the same.  I'll say it again; college campuses have become a place where they want everyone to look different but think the same.  As David, aptly, has pointed out for 30 years, these people have absolutely no interest in actually making college campuses a diverse place.  They want to make it a multicultural place where everyone thinks in the same leftist world view.

I had a conversation with a Columbia professor a couple weeks ago, and I said, "You really don't resect free speech very well at Columbia, I have to say."  He said, "What are you talking about?  Columbia is a wonderful place fore free speech.  In fact, my lecture hall is a great example."  I said, "Really?  Tell me why?"  He said, "Well, in our lecture hall, we have conversations all the time of who would have made a better president, Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders."  I said, "Oh, well that's great.  No mention of Trump?"  "Oh no, we don't talk about him.  He's a racist xenophobe."  "Oh great, you're really a champion of free speech."  So the left, their idea of free speech is what version of socialism would be easiest to implement in America.

For those of you that aren't caught up with what's going on on these campuses, just in the last couple years we've seen the evolution of microaggressions, trigger warnings, safe spaces, free speech zones, and I'll focus on one of them.  Does anyone not know what a safe space is?  By the way, I'm not making any of this up.  A safe space is a physical location on a college campus where students can seek refuge when they hear an idea, perspective or opinion that they deem so offensive that they need to seek counseling.  Within a safe space are Play-doh, milk and cookies, soothing music, crayons, and these are at school like Harvard, Princeton, Yale.  Which also goes to the next ones, trigger warnings and microaggressions.  A microaggression is when you say something in your normal speech that a student might deem offensive.  So for example, the phrase, America's the greatest country in the history of the world, that's microaggression to immigrants because they might not necessarily believe that.

We had some dealings at a northeast boarding school where a principal of the school called me, and he said, "Charlie, your chapter here is causing a lot of trouble.  They're posting these very controversial posters all throughout the halls."  And I said, "Oh my goodness, what are they doing now?"  And he's like, "Yeah, there's all these posters that say America's the greatest country in the history of the world."  He said, "That's racist, that's bigoted, that's homophobic.  That cannot stand, and we're not gonna allow it to happen in our school."  The radicalism that has infiltrated our high schools and our colleges is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, threat to this country, and that is something that I've dedicated my career to, to fighting back against through a variety of different ways; through grass-roots organizing, through empowering the next generation.

The amazing thing is, we are making more progress than any of the media might want to have you imagine.  Everywhere I go on campus, we have standing-room only.  Thousands of students want to come hear an alternative point of view because it's not that the next generation is opposed to conservative ideas, it's that they're not being exposed to conservative ideas.  It's that they are being told one viewpoint, one perspective, and in fact, they're not even understanding that there's a different way to think, and that's the whole point of it is actually teaching the next generation to think.  To open up their eyes to say that freedom can be a good thing.

Our organization stands for three things.  We believe America's the greatest country in the history of the world, the Constitution's the greatest political document ever written by man, and free enterprise is the most assured way to lift the most people out of poverty ever proven in history.  They're not very controversial things, but for whatever reason, the left is very threatened by that.  And the left would rather have a discussion where they're the only ones talking, and conservatives are shut up for good.  And I always say, I'll fight to my death for the right for a socialist to be wrong.  For a socialist to come on campus and speak, why won't the left be okay with conservatives coming on campus?

And so this is a fight for the soul of this country.  It's one that we have taken on very closely, and we're having victory after victory.  We hope all of you can continue to be very supportive of what we're doing.  I want to thank everyone in this room that has helped us along this journey.  And it's not just a political battle, as we've talked about, which what the president is going through right now is unprecedented and is unparalleled, but it's also a culture war.  And the left has made a 40-year play for our universities, and we have to do everything we can to help take them back. 

The Case for Islamophobia

Wed, 12/06/2017 - 05:07

For years I have denied the label “Islamophobe,” because it is most commonly used to refer to people who have an irrational bigotry or hatred toward Muslims, and I don’t. I am not the “bad” kind of Islamophobe who wants any innocent people, Muslim or non-Muslim, to be victimized. Instead I am what I would call the “good” kind of Islamophobe, someone who is honest enough to call a problem a problem, even when the whole world wishes to ignore and deny its existence.

The problem with most analyses of Islamophobia is that they tend to condemn under the same rubric of bias and bigotry any analysis of how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims. Just this week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded to a question from opposition leader Andrew Scheer about the security threat posed by returning ISIS jihadis, not by addressing that threat, but by accusing Scheer of “Islamophobia” for raising it.

If that’s Islamophobia, everyone should be an Islamophobe.

The jihad threat is real, and growing worldwide, as the evidence of over 30,000 jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11 shows. Nonetheless, “Islamophobia” has become, for all intents and purposes, a larger threat than jihad terror, although accused “Islamophobes” have never left as much havoc in their wake as jihadis have. And “Islamophobia” endangers us all in other ways as well. 

In December 2015 in San Bernardino, when the Islamic jihadist couple Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik murdered fourteen people at a Christmas party, a friend of one of their neighbors recalled that the neighbor had told him about suspicious activity at the couple’s home. “Sounds like she didn’t do anything about it,” the friend remembered. “She didn’t want to do any kind of racial profiling. She’s like, ‘I didn’t call it in … maybe it was just me thinking something that’s not there.’”

“She didn’t want to do any kind of racial profiling.” For years she had been force-fed the notion that to be suspicious of Muslims was “bigotry” and “racial profiling” – “Islamophobia” – and so she didn’t alert police to the strange activity at the home of Farook and Malik. 

Fourteen people were dead so that politically correct niceties could be preserved, and no one incurred any charges of “racism.”  

This wasn’t a singular incident. The fear of “Islamophobia” charges has overridden, or threatened to override, concern about jihad terrorism for years. 

Yet let us review the ways in which Islamic jihad and Sharia pose a danger to various groups who typically consider themselves liberal:

  • Islam is a threat to women, because Islamic teachings allow for the beating of women “from whom you fear disobedience,” as well as the downgrading of a woman’s testimony and inheritance rights. The Qur’an sanctions polygamy, child marriage, and even the sexual enslavement of captive non-Muslim women. These are not just teachings that “Islamophobes” have discovered in dusty corners of the Islamic holy book that no Muslim today takes seriously; women face all kinds of oppression throughout the Islamic world that the oppressors directly justify by reference to Islam. 
  • Islam is a threat to gays, because it mandates a death penalty for homosexuals that is not, unlike the one in the Old Testament, essentially a dead letter today: states that enforce the fullness of Islamic law today, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, routinely put gays to death, and as the Islamic State’s short-lived caliphate in Iraq and Syria demonstrated anew, whenever Islamic hardliners determine to implement the fullness of Islamic law, this death penalty reappears.
  • Islam is a threat to Jews, because in all too many Islamic teachings and traditions, Jews are the villains of the piece. The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. In line with this, Jews are threatened in Europe to an extent they have not been since the days of Hitler. And it’s getting worse by the day.
  • Islam is a threat to Christians, for it mandates that they must either convert to Islam, submit to Islamic hegemony, and be killed – the same triple choice offered to the Jews. The Christian communities of the Middle East, some of which dated back to the time of Christ, were decimated, as jihad groups targeted Christians wholesale as symbols of the hated U.S. and West. 
  • Islam is a threat to secular liberals, because although noting the fact will get one dismissed as a “far-right” “Islamophobe,” Islam really does have doctrines mandating the conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, and the major Muslim organizations in the United States really do behave as if they would like nothing better than the weakening and ultimate downfall of the U.S. government and free society, by opposing virtually all counterterror initiatives; polarizing American society by claiming falsely that Muslims are the victims of large-scale persecution and harassment in the U.S.; and stigmatizing all those who call attention to the jihad threat and the devastation wrought in Europe by mass Muslim migration as “racists” and “hatemongers.”
  • Islam is a threat to secular Muslims, because many have come to the West as a refuge from Sharia, and now the oppression they left behind in their home countries has followed them to their new homes. Islam in all its traditional and classic formulations mandates a death penalty for someone who is sane, adult and leaves Islam voluntarily. This discourages apostasy, obviously, but it also makes for untold numbers of silent apostates who live outwardly as Muslims while dissenting inwardly. Islamic hardliners target these people, when they find them, no less than they target open apostates. 

This is the case I make in my new book Confessions of an Islamophobe, the book to give to liberals who suspect that concern about jihad terror may be just… “Islamophobia.” Get your copy here.

A CREDIBLE PEACE PLAN, AT LAST

Wed, 12/06/2017 - 05:07
Originally published by the Jerusalem Post
 
MondayThe New York Times published the Palestinian response to an alleged Saudi peace plan. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly presented it to PLO chief and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas last month.
 
According to the Times’ report, Mohammed told Abbas he has two months to either accept the Saudi proposal or leave office to make way for a new Palestinian leader who will accept it.
 
The Palestinians and their European supporters are up in arms about the content of Mohammed’s plan. It reportedly proposes the establishment of limited Palestinian sovereignty over small portions of Judea and Samaria. The Gaza Strip, over which the Palestinians have had full sovereignty since Israel pulled its military forces and civilians out in 2005, would be expanded into the northern Sinai, thus providing economic and territorial viability to the envisioned Palestinian state. While the Palestinians would not receive sovereignty over Jerusalem, they would be able to establish their capital in the Jerusalem suburb of Abu Dis.
 
There are several aspects of the alleged Saudi peace plan that are notable. First, the Palestinians and their many allies insist that it is a nonstarter. No Palestinian leader could ever accept the offer and survive in power, they told the Times. The same Palestinian leaders from Hamas and Fatah, and their allies, also noted that the Saudi plan as reported strongly resembles past Israeli proposals.
 
Another aspect of the report that is notable is that the Saudis did not acknowledge that Mohammed presented the plan to Abbas. 
Unlike the situation in 2002 when Times columnist Thomas Friedman presented what he claimed was then Saudi king Abdullah’s peace plan, the Saudi regime has not admitted that the characterization of their peace plan by the Times reflects their thinking.
 
It makes sense that the Palestinians and their Lebanese and European allies are upset at the alleged contents of the new Saudi plan. It is also reasonable that the Saudis are not willing today to publicly present the plan laid out in the Times.
 
The fact is that the alleged Saudi peace plan represents a radical break with the all the peace plans presented by the Arabs, the Europeans and the US for the past 40 years.
 
Unlike all of the previous plans, the contours of the plan reported by the  Times guarantee that Israel will remain a strong, viable state in an era of peace with the Palestinians. All the previous plans required Israel to accept indefensible borders that would have invited aggression both from the Palestinians and from its Arab neighbors east of the Jordan River.
 
The purported Saudi plan is the first peace plan that foresees two viable states living in peace. All the other plans were based on transforming Israel into a non-viable state with a non-viable Palestinian state in its heartland.
 
While the Times report cites Western sources claiming that Egypt has rejected the prospect of merging Gaza with the northern Sinai under Palestinian sovereignty, there is no reason to assume that the option is dead. To the contrary, in the aftermath of last week’s massacre of 305 Muslim worshipers in a mosque in the northern Sinai, it is arguably more relevant now than at any previous time.
 
The mosque massacre makes clear that the Egyptian regime is incapable of defeating the Islamic State (ISIS) insurgency in Sinai on its own. Egypt’s incapacity is as much a function of economic priorities as military capabilities. With Egypt constantly on the brink of economic collapse and in need of constant support from the World Bank, the US and the Gulf States, it is hard to make the argument for preferring economic investment in Sinai to economic investment west of the Suez Canal. And in the absence of significant economic support for developing the Sinai, it is hard to see an end to the ISIS insurgency.
 
If the Europeans, Americans and Arab League member states chose to develop the northern Sinai for a Palestinian state with half the enthusiasm they have devoted to building a non-viable Palestinian state in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria that would render Israel indefensible and enfeebled, the Palestinians would have a viable, developed state in short order.
 
And the Egyptians in turn would have the international support they need both economically and militarily to defeat ISIS completely and to rebuild their national economy. Indeed, as advocates of the plan note, by yielding control over the northern Sinai to the Palestinians, and so enabling a viable Palestinian state to form, Egypt would become again the indisputable leader of the Arab world. With the good will of the Europeans and Americans, Sisi would secure Egypt’s position indefinitely.
 
This then brings us to the third notable aspect of the purported Saudi plan. The backlash against the plan, like the backlash against Mohammed, has been furious. Abbas has reportedly been calling every international leader he can think of to oppose the deal. The Europeans reportedly also oppose it. French President Emmanuel Macron’s adviser reportedly contacted the Americans to make clear that the French are not on board with the proposal.
 
And whereas the opposition to Mohammed’s purported proposal has been largely behind the scenes, since Mohammed did not make it public, the Palestinians and their international supporters have been grabbing every available microphone to condemn US President Donald Trump’s reported plan to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and perhaps begin taking concrete steps to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.
 
With or without a public announcement of his alleged peace plan, Mohammed has become a hated figure in wide circles of the foreign policy establishment in the West due to his trenchant opposition to Iran’s rise as a hegemonic power in the region. The Times portrayed him as a serial bungler in its article about his alleged peace plan.
 
As Lee Smith revealed in a recent article in Tablet magazine, the voices leading the charge against Mohammed are the same ones that developed the media echo chamber in pursuit of then president Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
 
As Smith explained, the onslaught against Mohammed is “an information campaign designed to protect the pro-Iran policies of the Obama administration.”
 
As these operatives see it, Smith argues, Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is the foundation of Obama’s foreign policy legacy in the Middle East. “If Trump pulls the plug, then Obama’s ‘legacy’ in the Middle East collapses.”
 
Trump’s visits to Israel and Saudi Arabia in May made clear that renewing US alliances with Saudi Arabia and Israel, and using them as a means to scale back Iranian power in the region, is in fact the central plank of his Middle East policy. Trump’s subsequent moves in support of Mohammed and Israel have reinforced this conclusion.
 
And so the backlash against Mohammed by the likes of former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro and Robert Malley, Obama’s former adviser for the Middle East on his national security council makes sense. If they can discredit him, and pretend that an Iranian-controlled Lebanon and Syria are better than the alternatives, then they can force Trump to maintain faith with Obama’s policies.

It’s a hard sell though. Mohammed’s peace plan is the first peace plan that has ever offered the Palestinians a chance at a real state. It’s the first plan that ever envisioned a situation where the Palestinians have a state that doesn’t imperil Israel. People who actually care about the Palestinians and Israel should welcome and support his position.

People who oppose it have to explain why they insist on remaining faithful to a peace paradigm that has brought only war and instability. Why do they prefer to retain Abbas’s authoritarian regime over a non-sovereign kleptocracy in Judea and Samaria with a Hamas terrorist state in Gaza to an alternative without either? Why doesn’t Abbas support it if his chief aspiration is the establishment of a viable Palestinian state and actually wants peace with Israel?

The New York Times article may or may not be an accurate portrayal of a real plan presented by the actual crown prince of Saudi Arabia. But if it isn’t his plan, it should be. Or it should be Trump’s plan.
 
Because it is the first peace plan anyone has ever put forward that makes sense. Not only does it secure the future of both Israel and the Palestinians, it enables Arab states like Saudi Arabia to work openly with Israel to defeat their joint Iranian enemy, while ensuring that Israel can survive and remain a credible ally to its Arab neighbors for decades to come.

Group-Think in Academia

Wed, 12/06/2017 - 05:03

According to The College Fix, a campus watchdog organization run by students, the political donations of Duke University employees are ten times higher in the year since Donald Trump was elected to the presidency than they were in the year following the reelection of Barack Obama.

The Center for Responsive Politics found that Duke faculty and staff members made 870 individual contributions within the last year.  This number is in stark contrast with the 88 individual contributions that they made over the span of 2013.

What’s telling, but unsurprising, is that of the 870 political contributions made by Duke University employees, all but six were made to leftist, Democratic Party causes and candidates.

Sadly, the ideological and political homogeneity that prevails at Duke is all too representative of that which imbues the contemporary academic world:

In the social sciences, Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly twelve to one.  This is the finding of research into five fields—economics, journalism, history, psychology, and law—at 40 “leading” universities.  

The researchers admitted that the Democrat-to-Republican ratio is “even higher” than they had suspected, and that it is highest at the more prestigious universities. They also found that “an awful lot of departments have zero Republicans.”

At Columbia University, in the five disciplines on which the study focuses, there were a total of 179 registered Democrats and a total of six registered Republicans.  This is a Democrat: Republican ratio of nearly 30 to one.  Yet of the 40 universities studied, Columbia still came in at having only the ninth highest Democrat-to-Republican ratio behind eight other institutions.

Caltech and Worchester Polytechnic Institute, which came in at first (13:0) and second places (9:0), respectively, are technical institutions with significantly lower overall numbers than are typical of the generic university.  Yet they rank as high as they do because they have zero Republicans in the fields in question.  In third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth places are Brown University (60:1); Boston University (40:1); John Hopkins (35:1); Rochester University (35:1);  Northeastern University (33:1); and Tufts University (32:1).

In total, this study “looked up 7,243 professors and found 3,623 to be registered Democratic and 314 [registered] Republican.” The remaining weren’t registered with either party.

It has long been common knowledge among those in the know that while institutions of higher education should be the most intellectually free and diverse places in the world, in reality they are anything but this.  Quite the contrary: a remotely objective, casual observer of academia can’t fail to be struck by the ideological and political uniformity pervading American faculty.  

Indeed, Groupthink is as visible in academia as it is anywhere. Actually, it is more prevalent in academia than it is almost anywhere.

The social psychologist Irving Janis characterized the phenomenon that he referred to as “Groupthink” in terms of the following symptoms:

(1) The illusion of invulnerability

(2) Collective rationalization

(3) Belief in inherent morality

(4) Stereotyped views of out-groups

(5) Direct pressure on dissenters

(6) Self-censorship

(7) Illusion of unanimity

(8) Self-appointed “mindguards”

When it is considered that the in-group of academia is powered by a “progressivist” vision, Janis’s “symptoms” seem that much more fitting:

(1) The illusion of invulnerability, as Janis labeled it, generates “excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.” Historically, and much to the chagrin of its countless victims, excessive optimism and the extreme risk-taking to which it leads are hallmarks of leftist ideology in action.

(2) As for collective rationalization, this transpires inasmuch as the group’s members fail to revisit their presuppositions—even after others warn them as to the disastrous consequences to which their plans could lead.  Again, one will not be hard pressed to find illustrations of leftists ignoring warnings and clinging to the assumptions underwriting the destructive policies that they continue to support.

(3) Members’ belief in the inherent morality of the group’s causes is actually a belief in the moral superiority of those causes and, thus, the concomitant conviction that the pursuit and realization of those causes are without any objectionable consequences.

(4) The in-group needs an “enemy,” an out-group that it can demonize.  We see how the left, whether in academia or elsewhere, satisfies this need today.  Members of out-groups are “stereotyped” as “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes,” “Islamophobes,” “white supremacists,” “colonialists,” “capitalists,” “the rich,” etc.

(5) Members of the in-group, or at least those who are believed to be members, are pressured to resist deviating in any key respects from the party line.  Examples of this “symptom” of Groupthink in academia abound, with dissenting left-liberal academics being treated at least as scornfully as those to their right who belong to the out-group: Blacks who are deemed by the members of the in-group of being insufficiently progressive are derided as “sell-outs,” “oreos,” “race-traitors,” and worse, while women who incur the academic left’s wrath find that their womanhood is denied to them. 

And, of course, if the deviant is a white liberal man, then he is ultimately objectified as a “racist” and “white supremacist.” 

The bottom line is that dissent, at least over certain fundamental propositions, is not tolerated by the in-group.

(6) That this last message is usually received loudly and clearly is borne out by the fact that the members of the in-group censor themselves:  Seeing the fate of those of their fellow members who have dared to challenge the orthodoxy of the group, individual members of the academic clique will suppress their thoughts when they are at odds with the group’s orthodoxy.

(7) The illusion of unanimity is strong among academic leftists.  It is indeed assumed that the majority perspective is the perspective of all of their colleagues. 

(8) “Mindguards” are those members of the group—this would be whole departments at most colleges and universities around the country—that strive to immunize the ideology of the group against any potential threats to it.

There is much more that needs to be said on this subject of academic Groupthink. Far too few studies have as yet to be done on it.

However, as I was at pains to show here, there can be no question that Groupthink does in fact exist among contemporary academics.

Supreme Court Restores Trump’s Travel Ban

Tue, 12/05/2017 - 05:58

The Supreme Court has allowed President Trump’s ban on travelers from Islamic terrorist-infested nations to take full effect, marking a huge victory for the rule of law, common sense, and U.S. national security.

“This a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people,” U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said after the orders were handed down.

At 7 to 2, the vote Monday to lift two lower court stays hindering enforcement of Presidential Proclamation 9645 while several legal challenges inch their way through the judicial system, wasn’t even close. Unsurprisingly, leftist Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor voted to deny the Trump administration’s application to rescind the stays. As is its custom, the Supreme Court did not offer a rationale for its decision in the orders.

That the Supreme Court took this dramatic action suggests it may be ready to permanently rule that Trump’s efforts to protect Americans by regulating the flow of visitors to the United States from trouble spots around the world are lawful.

Critics of President Trump falsely claim the proclamation is a “Muslim ban,” even though it leaves out the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries on earth. And even if it did single out Muslims, it should still survive constitutional scrutiny, many legal experts say. The Constitution’s prohibition of so-called religious tests doesn’t apply to immigration policy, which is why no one raised a fuss during the Cold War when the U.S. set aside visas specifically for Soviet Jews escaping religious persecution.

“President Trump’s anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret,” whined Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “He has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter.”

While Jadwat droned on calling Trump and ordinary Americans who support his policies religious bigots and racists, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) offered a more reasonable appraisal of the high court’s actions.

The Supreme Court ruling supporting the President’s travel ban should have been a “ho-hum, but of course” ruling. However, with judges and justices becoming ever the legislative and executive branches while wearing black robes, this was an absolutely critical ruling. We are grateful the Supreme Court took it up promptly before lower courts ended up with both blood and a shredded Constitution on their hands.

Gohmert is vice chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

The high court’s orders restore, at least temporarily, the Chief Executive’s time-honored discretionary authority to bar aliens from the United States on national security grounds, even if they have a preexisting relationship with a U.S.-based person or institution.

According to 8 U.S. Code § 1182:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may … suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

The current travel ban applies to specified categories of nationals from Muslim-majority Syria, Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. It also applies to North Korean and Venezuelan nationals.

"We are not surprised by today's Supreme Court decision permitting immediate enforcement of the president's proclamation limiting travel from countries presenting heightened risks of terrorism,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley told reporters Monday aboard Air Force One.

“The proclamation is lawful and essential to protecting our homeland. We look forward to presenting a fuller defense of the proclamation as the pending cases work their way through the courts."

President Trump signed Presidential Proclamation 9645 on Sept. 24. The memorandum restricts entry into the United States from eight countries, some of which did not appear on Trump’s earlier two travel-related orders.

In unveiling the proclamation Sept. 24, the White House explained that the homeland security secretary, working with the secretary of state and the attorney general, had “determined that a small number of countries -- out of nearly 200 evaluated -- remain deficient at this time with respect to their identity-management and information-sharing capabilities, protocols, and practices.” Some of “these countries also have a significant terrorist presence within their territory.”

Leftist open-borders pressure groups sued to block enforcement of the proclamation and on Oct. 17 federal Judge Derrick Kahala Watson of Hawaii, who was appointed by President Obama, enjoined implementation of the travel ban pending an administration appeal before the routinely overturned Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In separate litigation, on Oct. 24, federal Judge Theodore D. Chuang of Maryland, also an Obama appointee, stayed enforcement of the ban pending an administration appeal before the Fourth Circuit. Watson and Chuang also stayed enforcement on earlier iterations of the proclamation.

Both Circuit Courts are scheduled to take up litigation this week that gave rise to the travel ban. However those courts rule, the case concerning the presidential proclamation seems certain to return to the Supreme Court for final resolution.

Radical organizations funded by George Soros have been trying to prevent President Trump from protecting Americans from Muslim terrorism since Trump was inaugurated. Before the current proclamation was issued, Executive Order 13780, issued by the president on March 6, and Executive Order 13769, issued Jan. 27, were stayed by overzealous federal judges trampling on presidential authority.

And plenty of subversives outside the world of professional leftist activism want President Trump’s efforts to protect Americans to fail.

C. Frank Figliuzzi, formerly Assistant Director for Counterintelligence at the FBI, writes in a column at NBC News that terrorism in the United States is unimportant and that Americans will have to get used to being shot, stabbed, run over, and blown up by theocratic totalitarians.

Americans are going to have to “adjust” to a new situation in which terrorism is tolerated because halting immigration is “not who we are,” he writes.

It is better to let waves of new immigrants come to America from terrorist-producing countries than to risk making people from other countries feel uncomfortable, Figliuzzi writes. “Do we want to view anyone from a different country, with a different set of beliefs, as no longer welcome here?”

If those people put Sharia Law over the U.S. Constitution, then yes, Mr. Figliuzzi, it is time to make them feel unwelcome here.

Pages