FrontPageMag

Subscribe to FrontPageMag feed
A project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center
Updated: 9 hours 4 min ago

Trump’s Art of the Deal in North Korea, Israel and Syria

12 hours 48 min ago

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

It’s really not that complicated.

But President Trump’s Syria strikes have reopened the debate over what defines his foreign policy. Is he an interventionist or an isolationist? Foreign policy experts claim that he’s making it up as he goes along.

But they’re not paying attention.

President Trump’s foreign policy has two consistent elements. From threatening Kim Jong-Un on Twitter to moving the embassy to Jerusalem to bombing Syria, he applies pressure and then he disengages.

Here’s how that works.

First, Trump pressures the most intransigent and hostile side in the conflict. Second, he divests the United States from the conflict leaving the relevant parties to find a way to work it out.

North Korea had spent decades using its nuclear program to bully its neighbors and the United States. Previous administrations had given the Communist dictatorship $1.3 billion in aid to keep it from developing its nuclear program. These bribes failed because they incentivized the nuclear program.

Nukes are the only thing keeping North Korea from being just another failed Communist dictatorship.

Instead, Trump called North Korea’s bluff. He ignored all the diplomatic advice and ridiculed its regime. He made it clear that the United States was not afraid of North Korean nukes. The experts shrieked. They warned that Kim Jong-Un wouldn’t take this Twitter abuse and we would be in for a nuclear war.

But the Norks folded.

The Communist regime held high level talks with the United States and South Korea. It’s reportedly planning to announce an official end to the war. That probably won’t amount to much in the long term, but it shifts more of the responsibility for the conflict away from the United States and to the Koreas.

Trump accomplished more with a few tweets than previous administrations had with billions of dollars.

An instinctive negotiator, Trump’s realpolitik genius lay not in ideology, but in grasping the core negotiating strategy of the enemy and then negating it by taking away its reason not to make a deal.

When Trump called North Korea’s bluff, its nuclear weapons program was transformed from an asset that it used to blackmail aid from its potential targets into a liability that could end with its destruction.

Trump did the same thing with Jerusalem.

The PLO had refused to make a deal with Israel because its constant refusals to negotiate allowed it to keep escalating its demands. The more it sabotaged negotiations, the better the offers became.

The PLO’s Palestinian Authority didn’t have nukes, but its weapon of choice was terrorism. And it had played the same game as North Korea for decades. It would begin negotiations, demand payoffs, then sabotage negotiations, threaten violence, and demand an even higher payoff for ending the violence.

The PLO/PA knew that it could get the best possible deal by not making a deal.

Just like North Korea, Trump cut the PLO down to size by negating its negotiating strategy. Instead of the deal getting better and better, Trump showed that it would get worse by taking Jerusalem off the table.

Previous administrations had rewarded the PLO/PA for its refusal to make a deal by sweetening the pot. Instead Trump threatened to take away Jerusalem, the biggest prize in the pot. And then he warned that the PLO would lose even more of its demands if the terrorist group continued to refuse to make a deal.

Unlike Clinton, Bush and Obama, Trump did not overcompensate for the US-Israel relationship by pressuring the Jewish State to make a deal with the PLO so as to seem like an “honest broker”. Instead he leveraged that relationship to move the United States away from the conflict.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem sends the signal that the US-Israel relationship doesn’t depend on a deal with the PLO. That’s the opposite of the messages that Clinton, Bush and Obama had sent.

Their old failed diplomacy that made the US-Israel relationship dependent on a deal with the PLO had given the terrorists control over our foreign policy. The US and Israel were perversely forced into appeasing the terrorists of the PLO just to be able to maintain a relationship with each other.

Trump kicked the PLO out of the driver’s seat. And the terrorist group is becoming isolated.

Saudi Arabia and its allies are much more focused on Iran than the old proxy war against Israel. And, for the moment, that leaves the PLO with few allies. If it doesn’t make a deal, then the United States will rebuild its relationship with Israel around regional security issues. And the Saudis have signaled that they are willing to do the same thing. Then everyone else exits the conflict except Israel and the PLO.

Trump left it to the South Koreans to decide the conflict with North Korea. Ditto for Israel.

The United States will put forward proposals, but the long game is to get America out these conflicts. And Trump does that by turning the United States from an eager mediator to a bully with a big stick.

He made it clear to Kim Jong-Un that he would have a much easier time negotiating with South Korea than with America. And he’s made it equally clear to the PLO that it’s better off turning to Israel than to its allies in the State Department. The message is, “You don’t want to get the United States involved.”

Previous administrations believed that the United States had an integral role in resolving every conflict. President Trump’s America First policy seeks to limit our involvement in foreign conflicts without robbing us of our influence by making those interventions as decisive and abrasive as possible.

It breaks every rule of contemporary diplomacy. But it has plenty of historical precedents. And it works.

President Trump wants to get out of Syria. But he doesn’t want to hand Iran another win. And he doesn’t want to get the United States bogged down in another disastrous regional conflict.

So, just like in North Korea and Israel, he sent a decisive message of strength.

The strikes were a reminder that unlike his predecessor, he was not afraid of using force. But just as in North Korea and Israel, the show of strength was only a lever for disengaging from the conflict.

Instead, Trump wants to bring in an “Arab force” to stabilize parts of Syria. That would checkmate Iran, split Syria between the Shiites and Sunnis, and ‘Arabize’ the conflict while getting America out of it.

The threat of more strikes would give an Arab force credibility without an actual American commitment.

And the threat of a Sunni Arab force is meant to pressure Assad into making a deal that would limit Iran’s influence over Syria. If Assad wants to restore complete control over Syria, he’ll have to make a deal with the Sunnis inside or outside his country. And that will limit Iran’s influence and power in Syria.

The debates over chemical attacks were never the real issue. Keeping weapons like that out of the hands of terror-linked states like Syria is good policy. But there was a much bigger picture.

Iran took advantage of the Obama era to expand its power and influence. Trump wants to roll back Iranian expansionism while limiting American exposure to the conflict. Once again he’s using a show of strength to mobilize the local players into addressing the problem while keeping his future plans vague. 

Assad’s biggest reason for refusing to make a deal was that Iran’s backing made his victory inevitable. Iran and Hezbollah had paid a high price for winning in Syria. But they were unquestionably winning. The only thing that could change that is direct American intervention. And Trump wants Assad to fear it.

Trump is offering Assad the rule of his country. But to get it, he has to dump his biggest partner.

When Trump came into office, the two bad options were arming the Sunni Jihadis or letting Iran’s Shiite Jihadis win. Instead Trump has come up with a third option. Either keep the war going or force a deal.

Either the conflict will drag on, but with minimal American involvement. Or Assad will sell out Iran.

None of these are ideal options. But there are no good options. Not in North Korea, Israel or Syria. The Norks and the PLO aren’t likely to reform. Syria, like Iraq, will stay divided between feuding Islamic sects. None of these problems will go away at the negotiating table. And Trump understands that.

Trump is too much of a dealmaker to believe in the unlimited promise of diplomatic agreements.  He knows that it takes leverage not just to make a deal, but to keep it in place. And he doesn’t believe that the United States can make a deal work when a key player really doesn’t want the deal to happen.

Trump’s Art of the International Deal identifies the roadblocks to previous agreements, breaks them down, puts the local players in the driver’s seat and then makes fixing the problem into their problem.

Obama’s people dubbed his failed diplomacy, “Smart Power”. Call Trump’s diplomacy, “Deal Power.”

Jihadis and Drug Cartel at Our Border

12 hours 49 min ago

The border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico must be made secure.

There is no shortage of compelling reasons why this must happen, and the sooner the better, but today, given the lunacy of Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary States and the globalist goals of politicians from both political parties, particularly the Democratic Party leadership, rational and reasonable thought processes have been supplanted by greed, corruption and cowardice- fear of upsetting party leaders or fear of alienating deep-pocketed campaign contributors.

Indeed, it is irrational for any leader in the United States to refuse to take whatever measures must be taken to protect America and Americans from the rampant violence, corruption and potential for terrorists to traverse that highly porous border into the United States.

Yet this is precisely the situation that exists today in the United States.

Therefore, today we will consider some of the more compelling facts that demand that, for once and for all, the U.S./Mexican border be secured.

First of all, given the unstable and volatile situation in the Middle East, particularly Syria and U.S.-led military strikes in Syria, undoubtedly Iran and radical Islamists would like to be able to carry out terror attacks within the borders of the United States.

Iran and radical Islamists have a significant presence in Latin America, therefore, all that separates them from us is the U.S./Mexican border.

On April 21, 2017 I wrote an article, Border Security Is National Security in which I referenced an April 12, 2017 Washington Times report, Sharafat Ali Khan smuggled terrorist-linked immigrants.

Khan is a citizen of Pakistan who had established himself as a permanent resident in Brazil and then smuggled numerous illegal aliens from the Middle East into the United States through Mexico.  ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) issued a press release about this case,

Foreign national extradited and pleads guilty to human smuggling conspiracy.

That Khan first became a resident of Brazil prior to beginning his smuggling operation is of particular concern. 

Terror training camps run by Hamas and Hezbollah are to be found in the Tri-Border region of Brazil (where Brazil abuts with Argentina and Paraguay).  While there was no specific mention of Khan making use of those camps, given the nature of his crimes, this is a very real and troubling possibility.

It is also entirely possible that members of ISIS and al-Qaeda are present in those terror training camps.

Concerns about the Tri-Border Region were ably reported on in a paper, Islamist Terrorist Threat in the Tri-Border Region that was published by Jeffrey Fields, Research Associate, Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

Khan is hardly the only alien smuggler who was operating in Latin America and has ties to the Middle East.

In addition to the nexus between Brazil and radical Islamic training camps, Iran routinely flies its Quds Forces, also known as “Shock Troops” into Caracas Venezuela.  They are not present in the the Western hemisphere for vacation.

In addition to the threats posed by Middle Eastern terrorists operating in Latin America, we need to also consider the deteriorating situation to be found in Mexico where it has been reported that last year more than 29,000 people were murdered.

On April 11, 2018 the San Diego Union-Tribune report, Studies find record violence costing Mexico billions of dollars included this excerpt:

As fighting between drug trafficking groups drives up violence in Mexico to record levels, a new study released on Wednesday measures the economic impact in 2017 at $249 billion in losses — close to 21 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

Authors of the study presented at the University of San Diego say that focusing on homicides alone fails to address the broad range of factors that drive the violence, and affect the well being of Mexicans on a multitude of levels.

To bring down the violence will mean addressing issues such as corruption and the weak rule of law, the study states.

*     *     *

With more than 29,000 murders, last year was Mexico’s most violent year on record, “with the peacefulness in Mexico deteriorating by 10.7 percent,” states the institute’s study, the fifth in a series of annual reports focusing on Mexico.

The study found that the economic impact violence in 2017 “amongst the highest in the world.” The total economic impact of violence “was seven times higher than the education budget in 2017,” according to the report. “A one percent decline in the economic impact of violence would equal the federal government’s investment in activities related to science, technology and innovation last year.”

In an effort to somehow paint a less pessimistic and alarming image of the level of violence in Mexico, the report concluded with the following:

In spite of public perceptions, “Mexico’s violence is ‘average’ for the Western Hemisphere,” according to the USD study, with homicide rates well below those of smaller countries, including Belize, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, and Venezuela.

This is no comfort to be found in that last quote.  A caravan of citizens of Honduras making its way north through Mexico and headed for the United States, prompted President Trump to deploy National Guard troops along the southern border to augment the U.S. Border Patrol in non-law enforcement capacity- providing support for the Border Patrol as was reported in an April 4, 2018 USA Today reportTrump keeps focus on caravan of Honduran asylum seekers headed to U.S.

It appears that the caravan of Hondurans is being egged on by the government of Honduras, consider that The Arizona Republic reported on April 12, 2018:

Although many migrants traveling in the caravan have decided to remain in Mexico, many still plan to continue on to the U.S. border and apply for asylum, especially the large number of women and children, and a small group of about 25 gay and transgender migrants.

The Honduran ambassador to Mexico, dressed in a suit, tie and dress shoes, joined the migrants in a 9-mile walk from the Honduran embassy in the Condesa neighborhood of Mexico City to the Casa de Peregrino near the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexican news media reported.

Given the totality of circumstances, the potential exists that criminals such as members of MS-13 and other such violent gangs and members of drug cartels may well infiltrate this and other such caravans.

In point of fact, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that terrorists from the Middle East might also seize the opportunity to infiltrate large-scale smuggling groups to gain entry into the United States, not unlike terrorists in Europe infiltrated refugee flows.

Furthermore, as we have seen in the past, the potential exists that aliens who seek asylum in the United States might actually be such criminals and/or terrorists.

This very topic was the focus of a November 21, 2013 Washington Times news report, Mexican drug cartels exploit asylum system by claiming ‘credible fear.’

The report quoted Bob Goodlatte, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee:

“It’s outrageous that members of Mexican drug cartels and others involved in illicit activity are so easily able to exploit our asylum laws and live in the U.S. virtually undetected,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican.

“Our asylum laws are in place to help individuals who are facing truly serious persecution in their country,” he said. “However, dangerous criminals are gaming the system by claiming they have a ‘credible fear’ of persecution when often they’ve been the perpetrators of violence themselves.”

Concerns about the lack of integrity to this system were the focus of two House Judiciary Committee hearings conducted as a result of Chairman Goodlatte’s concerns.

Asylum Abuse: Is it Overwhelming our Borders?

Asylum Fraud: Abusing America’s Compassion?

Of course while one of the hearings focused on how asylum abuse was overwhelming our borders, in reality, asylum abuse is overwhelming the entire immigration system throughout the entire United States of America.

Furthermore, this is not simply a matter of “asylum abuse” but of immigration fraud.

The official report that was authored by the 9/11 Commission Staff, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel noted on page 98:

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

Those concerns are very much as relevant today as they were at the time of those hearings and at the time that the 9/11 Commission reported its findings.

What more needs to happen before our “leaders” finally act to secure that dangerous border?

Diplomatic Breakthrough With North Korea?

12 hours 50 min ago

In a bold stroke of diplomacy, President Trump sent CIA Director and Secretary of State-designate Mike Pompeo to North Korea to meet with its dictator Kim Jong-un during the Easter weekend. On Wednesday President Trump confirmed the meeting in a tweet, in which he said that the meeting “went very smoothly and a good relationship was formed.”  The president added that details were being worked out for the summit meeting he hopes to have with Kim Jong-un in May or early June. Five locations are being considered for the summit. “Denuclearization will be a great thing for World, but also for North Korea!” President Trump tweeted.

Kim Jong-un is reportedly planning to formally announce that he is willing to denuclearize North Korea when he meets with South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in later this month. In addition, according to an April 18th report in the New York Times, South Korea confirmed that “it had been in talks with American and North Korean officials about negotiating a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War after more than 60 years, as the United States and its ally try to establish a basis for persuading the North to give up its nuclear weapons.” President Trump indicated that he had given his "blessing" to North and South Korea for their talks aimed at negotiating a peace treaty to replace the 1953 armistice, which would formally put an end to the technical state of war between the two Koreas.

While such developments leading to the increased possibility of a diplomatic solution to the Korean Peninsula crisis have created hope in some quarters, caution is in order. North Korea’s past record of broken promises speaks for itself. Time after time, its leaders have gamed agreements to pocket concessions made by the United States and its allies while continuing to advance North Korea’s nuclear arms and ballistic missile programs. President Trump’s policy of exerting maximum economic pressure on North Korea, including by bringing China on board at least in part, has no doubt played a major role in moving North Korea towards consideration of denuclearization in the first place. Letting up on the economic pressure campaign too early will give North Korea invaluable breathing room to continue parts of its programs in secret. It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to put all the stringent multilateral sanctions back into place with broad international consensus so long as North Korea acts like it is interested in peace.

The threshold question is how North Korea defines “denuclearization.” It seems inconceivable that Kim Jong-un would agree to disarm all of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, remove from his country all bomb-grade nuclear fuel, and seal or dismantle all its nuclear research, development and production facilities. Kim Jong-un would also resist destroying North Korea’s complete stock of ballistic missiles designed to have the capability of delivering nuclear weapons and dismantling its related research, development and production facilities.

The most one can anticipate from Kim Jong-un, who has made a credible nuclear deterrent the central feature of his foreign policy, is something along the lines of a freeze as proposed previously by China and Russia, to be followed by phased scale downs of the nuclear arms and intercontinental missile programs over an extended period.  Each scale down phase would be tied to significant concessions from the United States and its allies. When Kim Jong-un met with President Xi Jinping of China last month, he called for just such a “phased” and “synchronized” approach to any deal involving his agreement to denuclearization, which could be stretched out for years. Moreover, Kim Jong-un will almost certainly insist on keeping a reserve of residual nuclear weapons, bomb grade nuclear fuel and ballistic missiles for “insurance” purposes. As for verification of North Korea’s compliance with whatever commitments it decides to make, it is unlikely that the hermit kingdom of North Korea would ever agree to unfettered inspections anywhere and at any time by international inspectors. We know that in the past the North Korean government broke United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seals and destroyed surveillance equipment. 

Assuming we get past the threshold question of whether there can be a meeting of the minds on the meaning of “denuclearization” and its timetable, the second question is what concessions Kim Jong-un is likely to demand in exchange for moving in some meaningful way along the path of verifiable denuclearization. In the past, North Korea has demanded the withdrawal of American troops stationed in South Korea. This time around Kim might accept a major reduction in U.S. troops, allowing a token force to remain, which will still amount to a withdrawal in all but the terminology used to describe it. North Korea will also likely demand an end to significant joint military exercises involving South Korea and the United States near its coastline. President Trump may be willing to entertain such a proposal, at least in part, to help meet his goal of reducing U.S. expenditures incurred in maintaining military footprints overseas except where necessary to protect vital U.S. national security interests. 

Hugh White, a senior military strategist who worked at the Australian Department of Defense and is now a professor at Australian National University, was quoted by the New York Times’ April 18th report as theorizing that, to President Trump, “it could make sense to withdraw from Korea if in return Kim Jong-un scrapped the ICBM program and thus ceased to threaten the continental United States.” Japan is likely to have real concerns about such an American pullback, however. South Korea, despite its zeal for normalization of relations with North Korea, may have the jitters as well. Moreover, as Mr. White noted, “It would be a big win for China.”

Aside from demanding a sharp reduction in the U.S.’s military presence in the region, Kim Jong-un can be expected to demand the early lifting of economic sanctions and an influx of economic assistance. During Kim’s visit to China, he may have received assurances from China’s leadership that North Korea’s biggest trading partner would have his back in such negotiations. Kim may be planning to visit Russia soon to seek its support as well. 

Front-loading sanctions relief or significant economic assistance for North Korea will lead to the same trap former President Barack Obama created in his disastrous nuclear deal with Iran. We lost the main leverage we had over Iran, short of military action. Like Iran, North Korea will be able to enjoy many of the economic benefits early on, stripping the United States and its allies of the upper hand to pressure North Korea into fulfilling all its commitments. History will repeat itself.

None of this is to say that the diplomatic route is not worth trying. War should remain the last resort. However, President Trump must not be lulled into a false sense of security from agreements on paper, even if North Korea’s commitments are supposedly “guaranteed” by China. The president must keep his promise not to let up on exerting maximum economic pressure until we are satisfied ourselves that North Korea is well down the road of complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization.

Yes, “Italy Must Remember Its … Past” with Islam

12 hours 51 min ago

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Although the conflict between Islam and the West is not an aberration but a continuation of history, the strategy of those who seek to whitewash and thus empower Islam is to fixate on peaceful aberrations while suppressing the continuum of hostility.

Thus, in “Italy must remember its pluralist past,” Akbar Ahmed, Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, Washington, DC, highlights uncharacteristic episodes from Italy’s past with Muslims in an attempt to convince Italians to be even more accepting of Muslim migrants. 

Before looking at his claims, some actual historical context concerning Italy and Islam—otherwise devoid in Akbar’s article about the “past”—is needed.

Once the jihad was unleashed from Arabia, not only was Italy bombarded and under threat for centuries, but as the seat of Rome—the capital of Western Christendom, i.e., Infidel-dom—several ambitious caliphs and sultans especially targeted it, often while making the perennial Islamic boast that they would be first to turn St. Peter’s altar into a feeding trough for their horses.   

As early as the seventh century, “the nation of the Saracens that had already spread through Alexandria and Egypt,” wrote Paul the Deacon (b. 720), “came suddenly with many ships, invaded Sicily, entered Syracuse and made a great slaughter of the people—a few only escaping with difficulty who had fled to the strongest fortresses and the mountain ranges—and they carried off also great booty…and thus they returned to Alexandria.”

By 846 Muslim fleets managed to land on the coast of Ostia, near Rome. Unable to breach the walls of the Eternal City, they sacked and despoiled the surrounding countryside, including—to the shock of Western Christendom—the venerated basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul. The invaders vandalized the two holy shrines, desecrated the tombs of Christendom’s two most revered apostles, and stripped them of their treasures. 

Such sacrilege prompted Pope Leo IV to erect strong walls and fortifications along the right bank of the Tiber to protect the basilicas and other churches from further Muslim raids.  Not ones to be deterred, “in 849 the Muslims attempted a new landing at Ostia; then, every year from around 857 on, they threatened the Roman seaboard,” explains French medieval historian C. E. Dufourcq.

Indeed, the following entry from Ibn al-Athir’s history dealing with southern Italy and Sicily is indicative of the quantity and quality of these Islamic invasions: 

Another raid [in 835] directed at Etna and the neighboring strongholds resulted in the burning of harvests, the slaughter of many men and pillage. Another raid was again organized in the same direction by Abu al-Aghlab in 221 [according to the Muslim calendar, which in this case corresponded to Christmas Day, 835]; the booty brought back was so extensive that slaves were sold for almost nothing.…In the same year, a fleet was sent against the [neighboring Christian] islands; after having taken rich booty and conquered several towns and fortresses there, they returned safe and sound. In 234 [August 5, 848], the inhabitants of Ragusa made peace with the Muslims in exchange for surrendering the town and what it contained. The conquerors destroyed it after having taken away everything that could be transported. In 235 [July 25, 849], a troop of Muslims marched against Castrogiovanni and returned safe and sound, after having subjected that town to pillage, murder and fire [Ye’or 2010, 289–290]. 

Sadistic treatment for the infidel always accompanied the raid; for “it was to the amusement of the Saracens to profane, as well as to pillage, the monasteries and churches,” notes Edward Gibbon.  “At the siege of Salerno a Musulman chief spread his couch on the communion table, and on that altar sacrificed each night the virginity of a Christian nun.” 

Although centuries of crusades largely safeguarded Italy and Sicily from further Islamic attacks, by 1480, Ottoman Sultan Muhammad II invaded Italy and captured Otranto.  More than half of its twenty-two thousand inhabitants were massacred, five thousand led away in chains. On a hilltop (subsequently named “Martyr’s Hill”) another eight hundred Christians were ritually beheaded for refusing to convert to Islam, their archbishop sawed in half.

Here is how French priest Jerome Maurand described the fate of the inhabitants of the tiny island of Lipari off Sicily after it was invaded by the Ottomans in 1544: “To see so many poor Christians, and especially so many little boys and girls [enslaved] caused a very great pity.…The tears, wailings and cries of these poor Lipariotes, the father regarding his son and the mother her daughter…weeping while leaving their own city in order to be brought into slavery by those dogs who seemed like rapacious wolves amidst timid lambs.” 

Failing to comprehend why the Muslim conquerors so wantonly tortured the now enslaved population—including by slowly gutting the old and infirmed with knives “out of spite”—he “asked these Turks why they treated the poor Christians with such cruelty, [and] they replied that such behavior had very great virtue; that was the only answer we ever got.” 

Finally, a great many of those millions of Europeans enslaved and sold in Muslim Barbary between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries were originally seized from the Italian coastline and Sicily.

Needless to say, these centuries and events—documented in my book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West—never make it in Akbar’s article, “Italy must remember its pluralist past.”   

Instead—and because his agenda is to prompt Italians to be even more accommodating of Muslim migrants—he ignores the constants while fixating on those aberrations that might validate his thesis:

Italy produced Christian leaders such as Roger II, the King of Sicily, and Frederick II, the Holy Roman Emperor, King of Sicily, and King of Italy, who spoke Arabic, had Muslim bodyguards, and featured Arabic inscriptions on their royal mantle. Muslims and Jews were permitted to live by their own laws, and the jewel of Sicilian architecture, Roger’s twelfth-century Palatine Chapel, incorporated Christian, Muslim, and Jewish influences. 

Such is Akbar’s evidence concerning Italy’s “pluralist past.”  While his anecdotes seem a far cry from the aforementioned centuries of unwavering hostility, one is still at loss concerning Akbar’s point.  After all, few if any Italians today have a problem with knowing Arabic, employing non-Christians, allowing others to live according to their customs, or erecting exotic architecture.

Rather, they have a problem with facilitating the ancient jihad against their homeland by bringing in more and more Muslim migrants who act in accordance with the history that Akbar suggests never happened.  

ONE PERCENT CHANCE COMEY NOT A SELF-DRAMATIZING FRUITCAKE

12 hours 52 min ago
There have been a lot of questions about why Trump fired James Comey, ever since he announced to NBC's Lester Holt -- incomprehensibly -- that it was his decision, citing, by my count, at least a half-dozen different reasons. 

On Sunday night, that question was answered. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Comey for showing the American people why he was so badly in need of firing. 

Interviewed on his new book, "Living in Truth," "The Dictates of My Conscience," "The Politics of Truth," "A Higher Loyalty," it quickly became apparent that one of Comey's favorite formulations is: I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don't know whether so-and-so sodomized a chicken. It's possible. I don't know. 

Here he is on ABC News, accusing Trump of hiring prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed in Moscow (possibly -- I don't know): 

"I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don't know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013. It's possible, but I don't know." 

And here he is on ABC accusing Trump of colluding with Russia: 

"More words I never thought I'd utter about a president of the United States -- but it's possible [that he is compromised by Russia]. It is stunning, and I wish I wasn't saying it, but it's just -- it's the truth. ... It's possible." 

And here he is being interviewed by USA Today on Russian influence: 

"I don't know [if President Trump has been compromised by the Russians]. And these are words I never thought would come out of my mouth about an American president, but it's possible. I'm not saying it's likely, I don't know, and the honest answer is it's possible." 

None of this says anything about the president. It tells us only that Comey has a low opinion of Trump, which I already knew.

But ABC's George Stephanopoulos replied to one of Comey's "it's possible" formulations, saying: "That's stunning. You can't say for certain that the president of the United States is not compromised by the Russians?" 

It's not "stunning." It's a sleight of hand. Ask me to give you my odds that Hillary Clinton eats small children for breakfast. IT'S STUNNING! COULTER SAYS 1 PERCENT CHANCE! 

HERE'S ANOTHER: I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I can't say that James Comey was not a transvestite prostitute in Laredo, Texas, for 20 years, turning tricks at $5 a customer. I cannot say that. It's possible. 

Comey says that based on his years of experience in "the criminal investigation business," the fact that the prostitute story bothered Trump so much suggested that it was true. 

"[Trump's] continuing focus on it surprised me," he said. "When someone constantly brings up to deny something you're not asking about, that's an interesting fact. I think I put in the book the proverb, 'Only the guilty flee where no man pursues.' And so that struck me." 

1) Bringing up the prostitute story a handful of times hardly constitutes a neurotic fixation. CNN has brought it up 1,583,749,996 times. Trump has brought up the size of his inaugural crowd more frequently. 

2) I don't find it particularly suspicious that someone would be obsessed with the one accusation that could do him the most damage. Name one other thing in the dossier that anyone knows about. The prostitutes peeing on the bed is the weirdest -- it stands out. I can see both a guilty man and an innocent man fixating on that story. 

Comey only sees the guilty man. 

Speaking of neurotic obsessions, I couldn't help but notice that Comey is obsessed with telling us how ethical he is. In the ABC interview alone, Comey used the word "truth" 42 times; "honest" 28 times, "ethical" 10 times -- "integrity," "principle" and "moral" at least five times apiece. 

That’s more than I hear in church on Sunday and the preacher isn’t talking about himself. 

Comey’s talking about himself. 

"The lesson I've learned," he said, "is that ... it helps you see things more clearly and realize things like truth matters, integrity matters. Those ethical values are what are going to last. And when you have to explain what you've done someday to your grandchildren, that's what will matter. Your grandkids won't understand that people -- angry at me, or the vice president of the United States was telling me people were going to die because of me. What they'll want to know is, 'What was your North Star?'"

The "Real Housewives" engage in less self-referential preening. 

Comey even takes the time to tell us that other people think he's a pillar of integrity, too! For our edification, he recalled Obama telling him: "'I appointed you to be FBI director because of your integrity and your ability.' And then he looked me in the eye" -- had he been staring at Comey's crotch? -- "and he said, 'Nothing has happened, nothing, in the last year that has changed my view of that.'" 

I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don't know whether the former director of the FBI carries 8-by-10 glossies of himself wherever he goes. It's possible. I don't know. 

Paul Joseph Watson Video: "Offensive" Songs That Wouldn't Be Allowed Now

12 hours 56 min ago

In this new video, Paul Joseph Watson unveils the Offensive" Songs That Wouldn't Be Allowed Now. Don't miss it!

 

 

The Left’s Campaign to Distort History and Condemn White People

Wed, 04/18/2018 - 04:58

Left-wingers have spent the last few days attacking David Horowitz for challenging the Equal Justice Initiative and its efforts to foment anti-white racial hatred by presenting the odious practice of lynching as an exclusively white instrument of racial oppression and terror used against blacks. But history is rarely as clear-cut as radical leftist ideologues pretend. 

Lynchings were carried out in an atmosphere of mass hysteria where enraged individuals acted to eliminate the perceived risk that a guilty person might go unpunished. If the black lynching victim was alleged to have wronged a white person, race-hatred and resentment could be – and in many cases, was – whipped up to a frenzy to ensure the atrocity was completed.

It cannot be denied that plenty of lynchings were carried out by black-hating racists to terrorize freed slaves from the Reconstruction through Jim Crow eras and reinforce racial segregation, but the notion that most lynchings were carried out by racist whites who randomly snatched black people off the streets and murdered them belongs in the trash with the current accusation that police have declared open season on unarmed black men. Many of those who were targeted in the past had the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Horowitz has been beaten up online for objecting to the Left’s cynical exploitation of a sad period in the nation’s past. Specifically, Horowitz contends that although race certainly played a role in many lynchings, this does not mean that race was necessarily always the primary motivating factor in extrajudicial executions of blacks. Saying this is not making excuses for lynch mobs. No one disputes that lynching was a disgusting and barbaric practice.

Research, as Horowitz has pointed out, reveals that not all victims of lynching were black and that those lynched typically were accused of serious crimes. In today’s racially charged environment where the slightest deviation from politically correct orthodoxy can lead to instant ostracism, it needs to be pointed out that Horowitz is not saying that all lynching victims were guilty of crimes or that they deserved what angry mobs did to them. The Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee basic procedural fairness in criminal trials. Those protections were unjustly denied to the lynched.

It is heresy today to point out that almost a third of lynching victims were white, and that the practice originated as a form of rough frontier justice, conducted by mobs impatient with due process and with the slow progress of the legal system. Tuskegee University found in its study, “Lynching, Whites and Negroes, 1882 to 1968,” that among the 4,745 lynchings examined, 1,299 of the victims were white, while 3,466 were black. (In its earliest days in antebellum America, lynching didn’t even necessarily involve killing the victim. Vigilantes would beat, whip, or tar-and-feather their targets for perceived social transgressions.)

But the Left doesn’t let mere facts get in the way of its narrative. Keeping the bad guys uniformly white and racist and the victims black and innocent in the history books is all-important to these people. Doing so helps to sustain the ugly myth that America is a rotten country founded on racism and injustice.

The usual suspects in the racial-grievance industry wasted no time frantically attacking Horowitz.

Right Wing Watch, a project of People for the American Way, a leftist pressure group that George Soros has given $6.8 million to in recent years, ignored the historical facts Horowitz tweeted and accused him of revisionism.

Horowitz “spent the last few days creating a social media firestorm with a series of revisionist-history tweets about his view that the United States’ violent history of slavery and lynching doesn’t have anything to do with racism or ongoing problems of racial oppression,” PfAW research director Miranda Blue wrote hyperbolically.

The leftist hate group, Southern Poverty Law Center, smeared Horowitz, claiming that in his “revisionist take,” he was guilty of “downplaying the horrors that African Americans have suffered in this country.”

Racial ambulance chaser Nikole Hannah-Jones of the New York Times Magazine, slimed Horowitz as a white-supremacist.

“But also, this is the amazing thing about white supremacists and white supremacy[,]” she tweeted. “Everything can be bent to their will. White supremacists hold up white exceptionalism — particularly adherance [sic] to order and rule of law — as proof of their superiority.”

In an incoherent stream-of-consciousness rant, a pseudonymous writer at Wonkette screeched that Horowitz was a "Racist Whisperer" spewing “his pseudo intellectualized trash sonata.”

Horowitz got the attention of these left-wingers by weighing in April 8 on a discussion about slavery and abolitionist Frederick Douglass initiated on Twitter by Princeton scholar Robert P. George. 

"Slavery was bad yes, but all the slaves in America were enslaved by blacks and white Americans freed them[,]” Horowitz tweeted. “That's the first reality people need to wrap their heads around." More than 350,000 Union soldiers, mostly whites, died in the Civil War, he added. They “paid with their lives to end slavery[,]” yet whites have been made to bear all the blame for an institution that existed for thousands of years in all societies.

To put things in historical perspective, John Perazzo has written “that in any given year nowadays, the number of black-on-black homicides that occur nationwide far exceeds the number of white-on-black lynchings that have taken place in all the years since the Civil War, combined.” [italics original]

Americans should be proud of their forefathers for killing off slavery, Horowitz tweeted. 

“America inherited a slave system from the British and abolished [it] in little over a generation at a cost of more lives than all America's other wars combined.” 

But there is resistance to this truth coming from many across the nation who remain under the sway of an influential work of fiction that helped the Left by distorting history.

The largely ahistoric TV mini-series “Roots” from 1977 convinced Americans that whites traveled to the African continent and captured would-be slaves in large numbers, according to a University of Houston website. It is in fact true that Europeans did participate in “some slave raiding,” but “the majority of people who were transported to the Americas were enslaved by other Africans.”

What really got hateful left-wingers’ juices flowing was Horowitz’s tweet last Monday about a famous lynching. He posted an iconic photo from Aug. 7, 1930, of onlookers with the lifeless bodies of black lynching victims Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith hanging from a tree in Marion, Ind. 

“These men were dragged from their jail cells unjustly[,]” Horowitz tweeted. “But they were guilty of a brutal rape and murder. The mob spared a third black with him when a white woman in the crowd said he was innocent[.]”

So at least in the Marion case, as horrible as it was, racism does not appear to be the sole motivating factor for the lynch mob. If it had been, there would have been no reason to spare the third black man. And if the two hanged men had been innocent there would have been no reason for the third man who served his time for being part of their crime and spent the rest of his life as a free man and civil rights activist to declare them guilty. 

In the Twitter thread, Horowitz made the case that the abuse of history by the Google-sponsored Equal Justice Initiative and its leader Bryan Stevenson who believes that slavery never ended – “it just evolved” – is obviously designed to reinforce the racial assault on law enforcement and on white people generally. 

“What I am actually concerned about is that the left - as usual - and with the backing of GOOGLE is distorting history to pour oil on our racial fires, which is bad for everyone, especially blacks[,]” Horowitz tweeted. 

“Lynchings were bad and had racist dimensions but they weren't mainly about whites yanking blacks off the streets and stringing them up,” he tweeted Monday last week in the first of several tweets spread out over several days.

The assertion may be eye-opening to many, but that’s only because the Left has been perverting history for decades. Many Americans don’t know any better because they haven’t been taught the truth.

Horowitz continued:

It's a dark chapter in our history but the last lynching was over 60 years ago. We should be celebrating that now, not nursing grievances of the past. How many of the tweeters who accuse me - falsely - of rejecting "due process" have protested the MeToo lynch mob that leaps from accusations to convictions & punishments?

To be clear at the risk of redundancy, even if it is true that many of these lynchings took the lives of individuals guilty of capital offenses, killing the lynching victims outside the formal legal system was still an injustice and ending the practice was one of the great victories of the civil rights movement. 

Horowitz got involved in the Twitter brawl to expose what he called “the anti-white racism” of the leftist Equal Justice Initiative’s National Memorial for Peace and Justice that is opening to the public on April 26. The purpose of the memorial, which commemorates only black victims, is less about remembrance and more about propaganda and radical activism. It dredges up these terrible events from America’s distant past that are universally condemned today and uses them to inflame racial tensions for nakedly political purposes.

EJI freely admits this divisive political objective, billing the all-black memorial in Montgomery, Ala., as the first in the nation “dedicated to the legacy of enslaved black people, people terrorized by lynching, African Americans humiliated by racial segregation and Jim Crow, and people of color burdened with contemporary presumptions of guilt and police violence.”

With the memorial, EJI is trying to reinforce the Obama-era narrative that a straight line can be drawn from slavery to Jim Crow to the “mass incarceration” of blacks EJI claims is happening because of something it calls the prison-industrial complex, a favorite anti-American conspiracy theory among radicals.

EJI states on its website:

Lynching created a fearful environment where racial subordination and segregation was maintained with limited resistance for decades. Most critically, lynching reinforced a legacy of racial inequality that has never been adequately addressed in America. The administration of criminal justice in particular is tangled with the history of lynching in profound and important ways that continue to contaminate the integrity and fairness of the justice system.

All the dead Union soldiers from the Civil War who gave their lives to cleanse the nation of slavery would likely disagree that the “the legacy of racial inequality … has never been adequately addressed in America.” The success of black Americans in all fields of endeavor is proof that racial oppression is non-existent nowadays. The dishonest, anti-American claim by EJI, which has taken $5.6 million from George Soros’ philanthropies in recent years, that the “history of lynching” continues “to contaminate the integrity and fairness of the justice system” even today is a central complaint of the violent, racist Black Lives Matter movement.

No doubt many lynchings were intended as “racial terror lynchings,” to use a term of art employed by EJI, but not all lynchings were intended to instill terror beyond perhaps the usual deterrent effect that executions are supposed to have on society in general.

But Twitter is not a place for reasoned discussion, as Horowitz was reminded.

The conservative thinker was denounced as racist and pro-slavery in social media, the facts be damned.

He tweeted:

My tweets on lynching attracted the attention of brain dead leftists who think that criticizing the racial exploitation of lynching is actually defending lynching & complained. So I got a warning from Twitter that posting facts is frowned upon - it's "sensitive" material.

Horowitz explained to me that he continued tweeting “on the forbidden subject of lynching and white Americans’ contributions to black freedom.” He said he received “1,182,000 impressions and 300,000 people were on my feed at one point.”

After the initial warning from Twitter management, the company backed down, sending him this email instead of banning him:

We have received a complaint regarding your account, @horowitz39, for the following content. 

Tweet ID: 983128409541754880 

Tweet Text: Slavery was bad yes, but all the slaves in America were enslaved by blacks and white Americans freed them. That's the first reality people need to wrap their heads around. [url] 

We have investigated the reported content and could not identify any violations of the Twitter Rules (https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311) or applicable law. Accordingly, we have not taken any action at this time. 

Sincerely,

Twitter

It is a small victory for free speech and truth and these days conservatives need to savor their victories.

The Enemy in Our Schools

Wed, 04/18/2018 - 04:50

Editor's note: To order the Freedom Center's new pamphlet, "Leftist Indoctrination in Our K-12 Public Schools," CLICK HERE or to learn more about the Freedom Centers Stop K-12 Indoctrination campaign, CLICK HERE.

“If you’ve read Marx, there’s really no reason to read Howard Zinn,” notes author Daniel Flynn, but many have read Zinn’s million-selling A People’s History of the United States. As Rutgers history professor David Greenberg notes in a 2013 New Republic article headlined “Agit-Prof,” Zinn’s famous book is “a pretty lousy piece of work.” Even so, it gets great reviews within a circle of Marxist academics such as Eric Foner, leftist rockers such as Rage Against the Machine, and actors such as Matt Damon, who in Good Will Hunting tells his psychiatrist that A People’s History will “knock you on your ass.”

For Howard Zinn, America was evil and capitalism bad – except for his lucrative publishing deal, and prestigious professorship at Boston University. Zinn was pretty quiet about the Soviet Union and what he might have done during the Stalin-Hitler Pact, but Mao Tse-Tung’s China was the closest thing to a “people’s government.”

In 2010 Zinn passed away at 87 during a swim in Santa Monica. The New York Times noted that the “proudly, unabashedly radical” professor’s A People’s History of the United States, “inspired a generation of high school and college students to rethink American history.” Zinn’s handlers set about transforming the rotting corpse of his work into the keystone of America’s history curriculum.

“Howard Zinn is no longer just for washed up actors like Ben Affleck and Matt Damon,” wrote Daniel Greenfield in 2012. “His neo-Communist propaganda is being wedged deeper and deeper into the educational system, because teaching kids to hate America is the new education.” Zinn contended that the Constitution was devised solely to formalize the inferior position of blacks, the exclusion of Indians, and the establishment of supremacy for the rich and powerful. 

As Greenfield learned, students have eNotes to explain Zinn and there are teaching editions for college and high school. An “entire spin-off industry” was busy adapting Zinn’s vision for lower grades, with works such as A Young People’s History and “a plethora of lesson materials is offered to teachers through the Zinn Education Project.”

As the Zinn project website now explains, the goal is “to introduce students to a more accurate, complex, and engaging understanding of United States history than is found in traditional textbooks and curricula.” Further, “people’s history materials and pedagogy emphasize the role of working people, women, people of color, and organized social movements in shaping history.”

Project bosses “believe that through taking a more engaging and more honest look at the past, we can help equip students with the analytical tools to make sense of — and improve — the world today.” And it’s all being implemented by teachers.

“I always begin my U.S. history course with a lesson from the Zinn Education Project website called The People vs. Columbus, et al.” explains Miroslaba “Lili” Velo, a history teacher at Tennyson High School in Hayward, California. “It is amazing how engaged students become to not only learn the truth but also be able to defend themselves using the evidence provided.” And Lili is not alone. As the Zinn Education Project explains, “to date, 80,000 teachers have signed up to access the free people’s history lessons and nearly 10,000 more teachers sign up every year,” with support from “librarians, administrators and other school staff.”

School districts may say A People’s History of the United States is too biased and pushing a political agenda. But as the site explains, “we don’t consider Zinn’s book ‘biased,’ because it is not hidden, unlike conventional textbooks produced by giant corporations, which never ask students to interrogate their perspective.”

For his part, Howard Zinn was “passionately antiwar,” and “passionately against racism and in favor of people standing up for their rights.” He was also “profoundly concerned about workers’ rights and this was not an agenda but “commitments to justice and humanity.” No word that, as Greenfield noted, leftist historian Eugene Genovese called Zinn’s book “incoherent left-wing sloganizing.”

That is true of the entire Zinn Education Project, goose-stepping anti-American indoctrination that has no place in our schools. As it happens, those schools are also under fire on a different front.

In 2016, California governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 2016, which creates statewide ethnic studies curricula based on The Academic and Social Value of Ethnic Studies, a product of the National Education Association, a key politburo of the left. This will prepare students to be “global citizens” with an appreciation for “the contributions of multiple cultures.” Assemblyman Jose Medina has introduced AB 2772 to make “ethnic studies” a graduation requirement in all California public high schools.

Like the “white privilege” propaganda in Edina, Minnesota, this is pure indoctrination in the best totalitarian style. When it comes to bad ideas, California is often the model for a nation under assault from the left for decades.

“If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war,” declared the 1983 A Nation at Risk report. “We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.”

A full 35 years later, the National Education Association, the various ethnic studies coalitions, and the Zinn Education Project are waging a propaganda war in America’s classrooms. Parents and students can arm themselves by reading Leftist Indoctrination in Our K-12 Public Schools, by Sarah Dogan and Peter Collier. National leaders also have a role to play.

Government monopoly education is a collective farm of ignorance, mediocrity and failure. President Trump and state governors should push for full educational choice for all students and parents, as a matter of basic civil rights.

 

Hillary Clinton’s Judges Destroy Attorney Client Privilege

Wed, 04/18/2018 - 04:10

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

Hillary Clinton picked Judge Kimba Wood to be her husband’s Attorney General. According to various accounts from the period, Hillary was looking for someone “loyal” who would allow her to stack the Justice Department with her own political allies. It was still early in the game, but Hillary had always been Bill’s main plumber and she was anticipating all of the Clinton scandals that were yet to come.

Hillary had interviewed Kimba Wood for twice as long as her husband did. But the Clintons had also been allegedly encouraged to pick Wood by Michael Kramer who had been Time’s chief political correspondent and the judge’s husband. After interviewing Bill for Time’s fawning Man of the Year piece, he allegedly suggested that the President of the United States make his wife his Attorney General.

But even though Kramer had compared Bill Clinton to Lincoln and FDR, it was not to be. Between Wood’s employment of an illegal alien and her past as a Playboy bunny, it was all over. Kimba Wood, whose “rectitude” the media never stopped praising, went on to be involved in a sleazy scandal. She became known as the “Love Judge” for her role in her current husband’s affair. She filed for divorce accusing her former husband of withholding sex. Rectitude doesn’t get more old-fashioned than this.

"Wood is universally described as a woman of almost old-fashioned rectitude" (New York Magazine) and "Kimba Wood's rectitude is something between a legend" (Detroit Free Press).

It’s a legend alright.

But Hillary Clinton never goes away. Neither do her coterie of political allies.

In court, Judge Kimba Wood decided that not only isn’t President Trump entitled to having  a special master protect attorney-client privilege, but insisted that Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer, disclose that Sean Hannity was one of his clients.

The media is having a field day smirking at these sleazy violations of confidentiality. But the woman overseeing them is one of the sleaziest judicial figures in Clintonworld. And a political figure whom Hillary Clinton allegedly believed would make a reliable stooge for Clinton political interests at the DOJ.

Imagine John Mitchell being allowed to expose the private papers of Bill Clinton’s lawyers.

Using friendly judges to expose private damaging materials about your political opponents is not a new development. But it isn’t usually accompanied by gun-toting raids and civil rights violations.

Obama ran the country into the ground for 8 years because a California Dem judge decided that his political opponent and ex-wife weren’t entitled to have their divorce records sealed. But shredding attorney-client privilege just to spread sleazy scandals about your political opponents is a new low.

Last time around, Judge Beryl Howell, a Loretta Lynch pal appointed by Obama, had decided that Paul Manafort wasn't entitled to attorney-client privilege. Howell was far more generous with Hillary Clinton when she allowed the State Department to delay disclosing her official records until after the election.

This is the rule of law that the media keeps blathering about. One law for the Clintons and another for their political opponents. One law for Democrats and another law for Republicans.

That’s not the rule of law. It’s a banana republic.

The Clinton campaign invented the Russia conspiracy theory. Then it injected its opposition research dossier into the FBI and the DOJ. The opposition research was used to justify spying on political opponents by a friendly administration. It helped generate the Mueller investigation which is following the Clinton dossier’s framework by targeting Trump’s lawyer.

The Mueller coup spun off the Clinton-Steele dossier’s obsession with Michael Cohen into the SDNY raids on the office, home and hotel room of the president’s lawyer. We’ve gone from the Russian collusion conspiracy theory to Stormy Daniels to a Hillary Clinton ally exposing Hannity’s name in court.

But what exactly is the justification for exposing Hannity’s name in court? Malice, spite and political allegiances to America’s leading political crime family?

You pick one.

We are in the midst of a crisis manufactured by Hillary Clinton and her allies for their own political gain.

We’ve been told that we have to put aside all the niceties like, the Fourth Amendment or attorney-client privilege, because America had suffered the worst attack since 9/11 at the hands of Russian trolls.

If we don't lock up all the Republicans now, they might win another election.

Forget 3,000 people dead. Russian trolls on Facebook compel us to throw away all our civil rights. We have to break into the office of the president’s lawyer and steal his private paper before passing them on to the Washington Post based on a pretext generated by some shady British guy paid by Hillary.

If you disagree with these banana republic tactics, the Washington Post will accuse you of treason.

The emergency measures to deal with this crisis have included reverting to paper ballots (which are a lot easier to stuff), censoring political opponents on Facebook (to fight the spread of “fake news”), accusing anyone who questions the Clinton conspiracy theories about Russia of treason (Senator McCarthy is alive and well, and writing for the Washington Post), and dragging anyone into court who might be responsible for Trump winning (those 63 million raids and subpoenas would impress even the Stasi.)

Not to mention extensive eavesdropping on political opponents based on Clinton opposition research.

No amount of dead Americans could ever justify a Muslim travel ban, but seeing attorney-client privilege relegated to a dead letter is just the price we have to pay to justify Hillary Clinton’s conspiracy theories.

There was a legal election in 2016. No credible challenge to its outcome has been presented by anyone. That includes Jill Stein, Rob Reiner, Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller and your crazy Aunt Sally. No amount of Russian Facebook posts or groups will ever justify the abrogation of our civil rights by the Clintons.

The only basis for this illegal assault is the Clinton campaign’s smears and conspiracy theories.

Every time a Clinton or Obama judge violates the civil rights of Americans to perpetuate Clinton conspiracy theories, it’s an attack not only on our political system, but on the rule of law.

No one can view the disgusting sight of Bill Clinton’s nominee for Attorney General shredding the civil rights of her political opponents as anything other than reducing the rule of law that the same farce that it is in Venezuela, Cuba or Russia. If you want to see Russian influence on our political system, go watch Mueller and his cronies at work. There’s nothing they’re doing that would be out of line in Moscow.

The media’s chorus of, “You have nothing to fear from our grotesque violations of your civil rights if you have nothing to hide” only hammers the same point home.

"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a Monarchy?" Benjamin Franklin was famously asked at the Constitutional Convention.

"A Republic, if you can keep it," he replied.

We no longer have a Republic. We have a banana republic ruled by the Clintons and their political allies.

The Clintons and their political allies have built a machine for destroying the winners of an election they lost while violating the Fourth Amendment and attorney-client privilege. They have made their own banana republic. We will see in the coming months and years whether they will be allowed to keep it.

 

 

The Challenge of Legacy

Wed, 04/18/2018 - 04:02

Editor's Note: The following is a transcript of Edwin Black’s April 11, 2018 keynote address in the Michigan Capitol Rotunda for that state’s official Holocaust Commemoration.

Today, I come not just to mourn nor to scorn but rather to warn our world, that is, the world of today whose memories are still whistling and bristling with the torments and tribulations of a generation now passing before our eyes. But also, for the world of tomorrow — and the day after — pulsed by a generation whose torments and tribulations may yet be in store. The outrages are audible just over the horizon. But in many cases the horizon is speeding toward us like an unstoppable tsunami preparing to crash.

Many of us dwell in the dark past hoping to immunize our future from the maniacal and ideological fires that immolated six million Jews and so many others— and left a world’s hands and souls smoke-singed in the process. The Holocaust was unique among history’s great cruelties, for it was a 12-year international persecution and murder machine perpetrated in the glare of broad daylight as well as the dim of night… emboldened by its own German Ministry of Propaganda advertising it and amid incessant media coverage that bled across the front pages of newspapers, crackled into regular radio reports, flickered in newsreels, and even saddened the whispers and diaries of children hiding in an Amsterdam attic. The world knew.

With study, revelation, and investigation, many now understand how we got here. Make no mistake. The Germans did it. Their allies and accomplices did it. Hitler did it. 

But Hitler had help. 

Der Fuhrer adopted the Jew-hating ideology of Henry Ford, whose car company distributorships mass-circulated the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Dearborn Independent so often quoted and lionized by Hitler. Nazism was driven by the American pseudoscience of eugenics that called for the elimination and even the chamber gassing of so-called inferior social groups, a murderous medical discipline developed in America by our great universities in the first two decades of the twentieth century, but then transplanted into Nazi Germany and even into Mengele’s Auschwitz laboratory by the million-dollar charitable programs of the Carnegie Institution and the Rockefeller Foundation. Hitler’s troops dismounted their WWI-era horses and stormed into Poland and the rest of Europe in a never-before-seen Blitzkrieg, driving the Blitz truck and flying JU-88 bombers both manufactured under corporate camouflage by General Motors under the direct supervision of its offices in Detroit. And it was up to IBM—the solutions company—to organize all six phases of the Holocaust: identification, exclusion, asset confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, and even extermination. With its advanced punch card technology, IBM knowingly conducted the census to identify the Jews, religious or not, made the railroads run on time, and pinpointed Jewish bank accounts to seize. Every concentration camp had its own IBM customer site. The infamous Auschwitz tattoo began as an IBM number before it morphed into other serial systems. 

Profit was the perfidious ally of the perpetrators of the Holocaust because whether it was the Aryanization of the corner grocery store in Berlin or the millions hidden by IBM in cloaked bank accounts in Prague, the malice and the murder was made all the more morally manageable by the tintinnabulation of money. For some, the clatter of the coins could drown out the screams of the victims

So, today we know more about how we came here… but how many truly understand where we really are? Do not believe that the Holocaust is a mere scar from afar. Yes, it is a sickness but one that has re-abrupted like an irrepressible plague. We have seen the infection in Rwanda with the Tutsis, in Syria with the Yazidis and Christians, in Darfur with Black Africans. 

We warn, we write poetry, we assemble in Rotundas, publish books, we solemnly chant “never again.” Now, we know better. We silently whisper, not just “never again,” but … “oh, no… not again.”

There is no hate without fear. But hate cannot triumph in a world of enlightenment. So, what is the true challenge to both our legacy and our future. Is it men with Nazi emblems and burning crosses or is it really something else? Flags, white sheets hoods, and venomous marches, we can see. Less visible is the new emerging enemy of enlightenment, and purifying spotlight. 

Inscribe their names upon your notepads and your desktops. Facebook, Google, Amazon and many more who in their misguided algorithms decide what shall be seen and what shall be shuttered, who will be heard and who shall be demurred. 

The triumph of ignorance with all its well-intended coding rises to a level of censorship only imagined by George Orwell. Last Christmas, Amazon quietly informed publishers that history books about the Holocaust and even the Third Reich could no longer display a swastika on the cover when sold outside North America. So, my book Nazi Nexus about Ford, General Motors, Carnegie, Rockefeller and IBM was re-designed without the swastika for European sale. Many more famous books chronicling the hell of Nazi Germany are now being re-designed without swastikas on the covers for overseas. 

A mere photo of a Holocaust history book on Facebook recently was cautioned with a warning tab to be clicked that the topic might be distressing; that book was the recently published Czech language edition of my book IBM and the Holocaust. It is now possible for routine computer programs now in use at Twitter and Facebook to create zombie accounts where the users think they are communicating with the world—but their message in quarantined and no one sees it. Goebbels needed minders sitting in newsrooms. Facebook and Twitter only to click a few keys—and most will never even know they have been muffled.

Now, nations are re-inventing their history. Poland has criminalized the discussion of the involvement and collaboration of its citizen with the Nazi killing machine. The Poles were involved. When a town’s Jews were publicly marched and trucked to the shooting pits, who took their property and auctioned it off the next day in the school yard or town square? Just hours after the new law took effect, the first Polish lawsuit was filed against an Argentinian newspaper that used a war-time photograph. 

Lithuania has followed suit quickly with a pending amendment to its “Law on Consumer Protection” that would outlaw books critical of the country during the Holocaust—Lithuania where 90 percent of Jews perished, and many at the hands of their Lithuanian neighbors. These laws will be used by misguided programmers in Silicon Valley to avoid liability by simply quietly shutting out the history. 

What if a tree falls and no one hears the sound? What if six million people perish and no one is reminded?

Hitler declared who will remember the Armenians? When my mother was pushed thru the vent in the boxcar en route to Treblinka, her mother said, “tell someone.” My father fought as a partisan in the woods for two years with her to ensure that I would be here to “tell someone.” 

What if we tell the world and the world cannot hear us. How sad that we have struggled with Holocaust denial and belief? Might we next struggle with induced collective amnesia? Ask not what you remember. Ask what your children’s children will know.

The new battleground is not in some basement or backyard where hate is brewing. It’s not on the street. It’s in your phone and on your screen where history, anguish, and the rallying cry of “never again” to all humankind will be a muffled echo within an Internet algorithm. We must fight back against the electronic ghetto, the digital ghetto, and the algorithm ghetto. This is the new Challenge of Legacy.

Edwin Black is the New York Times bestselling author of IBM and the Holocaust and Nazi Nexus.

Prager U Video: Eye for an Eye

Wed, 04/18/2018 - 04:02

Nowadays, many people, particularly those living in Western civilization, no longer regard their society as morally superior to any other. In this video, Dennis Prager lays out how this view does not spring from intellectual rigor, but from intellectual laziness:

 

A Mayor's Most Important Job

Wed, 04/18/2018 - 04:00

When World War II ended, Washington, D.C.'s population was about 900,000; today it's about 700,000. In 1950, Baltimore's population was almost 950,000; today it's around 614,000. Detroit's 1950 population was close to 1.85 million; today it's down to 673,000. Camden, New Jersey's 1950 population was nearly 125,000; today it has fallen to 77,000. St. Louis' 1950 population was more than 856,000; today it's less than 309,000. A similar story of population decline can be found in most of our formerly large and prosperous cities. In some cities, population declines since 1950 are well over 50 percent. In addition to Detroit and St. Louis, those would include Cleveland and Pittsburgh.

During the 1960s and '70s, academic liberals, civil rights advocates and others blamed the exodus on racism — "white flight" to the suburbs. However, since the '70s, blacks have been fleeing some cities at higher rates than whites. It turns out that blacks, like whites, want better and safer schools for their kids and don't like to be mugged or have their property vandalized. Just like white people, if they have the means, black people can't wait for moving companies to move them out.

At the heart of big-city exoduses is a process that I call accumulative decay. When schools are rotten and unsafe, neighborhoods become run-down and unsafe, and city services decline, the first people to leave are those who care the most about good schools and neighborhood amenities and have the resources to move. As a result, cities lose their best and ablest people first. Those who leave the city for greener pastures tend to be replaced by people who don't care so much about schools and neighborhood amenities or people who do care but don't have the means to move anywhere else. Because the "best" people — those who put more into the city's coffer than they take out in services — leave, politicians must raise taxes and/or permit city services to deteriorate. This sets up the conditions for the next round of people who can do better to leave. Businesses — which depend on these people, either as employees or as customers — also begin to leave. The typical political response to a declining tax base is to raise taxes even more and hence create incentives for more businesses and residents to leave. Of course, there's also mayoral begging for federal and state bailouts. Once started, there is little to stop the city's downward spiral.

Intelligent mayors could prevent, halt and perhaps reverse their city decline by paying more attention to efficiency than equity. That might be politically difficult. Regardless of any other goal, mayors must recognize that their first order of business is to retain what economists call net positive fiscal residue. That's a fancy term for keeping those people in the city who put more into the city's coffers, in the form of taxes, than they take out in services. To do that might require discrimination in the provision of city services — e.g., providing better street lighting, greater safety, nicer libraries, better schools and other amenities in more affluent neighborhoods.

As one example, many middle-class families leave cities because of poor school quality. Mayors and others who care about the viability of a city should support school vouchers. That way, parents who stay — and put a high premium on the education of their children — wouldn't be faced with paying twice in order for their kids to get a good education, through property taxes and private school tuition. Some might protest that city service discrimination is unfair. I might agree, but it's even more unfair for cities, once the magnets of opportunities for low-income people, to become economic wastelands.

Big cities can be revitalized, but it's going to take mayors with guts to do what's necessary to reverse accumulative decay. They must ensure safe streets and safe schools. They must crack down on not only violent crimes but also petty crimes and misdemeanors, such as public urination, graffiti, vandalism, loitering and panhandling.

Ruling Ideas

Tue, 04/17/2018 - 04:57

Below is David Horowitz's introduction to his new book, “Ruling Ideas," which has been officially released today (April 17, 2018). "Ruling Ideas" is the ninth and final volume of The Black Book of the American Left, a multi-volume collection of Horowitz's conservative writings that now stands as the most ambitious effort ever undertaken to define the Left and its agenda. (Order HERE.) We encourage our readers to visit BlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com – which features Horowitz’s introductions to volumes 1-9 of this series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author.

When I began the project of describing this movement in the 1980s, the emergence of the left as a mainstream force in Amer­ica’s political life was fairly recent and inadequately understood. Conservatives in particular often failed to appreciate the anti-American animus of the left and its apocalyptic goals. At the same time, conservatives imprudently accepted the left’s deceptive claims to be “liberal” and “progressive,” ascribing to it idealistic intentions that masked its malignant designs. The contents of these volumes were conceived as a corrective to these false and disarming impressions. This is the ninth and final volume of my writings about progressivism, a movement whose goals are the destruc­tion of America’s social contract at home and the defeat of American power abroad.

The primary source of this confusion is the fact that left-wing politics are based on expectations of an imaginary future rather than assessments of a usable past. The left’s primary focus is not on practical improvements based on an analysis of previous prac­tices, or a conception of the limits imposed by human nature, but on changes designed to satisfy the moral prejudices that make up the leftist faith.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the left’s quest for “equality,” which is the organizing principle of its “transformative” propos­als. Equality before the law is a foundational principle of American democracy and its pluralistic community. But this is not the equality proposed by the left, which demands instead an unrealiz­able and destructive equality of outcomes. In the real world human inequalities of talent, intelligence, physical attributes and application are immutable facts of life, which result in inequalities of wealth and power. The seeds of social inequality are planted in the human genome and are nourished by disparate cultures, which include circumstances of birth and upbringing that governments cannot control. Attempts to establish such control have invariably resulted in the most repressive regimes in human history, and in the end have failed to produce either equality or wealth.

The ideal of an egalitarian future is doomed to failure because it is unanchored in any human reality. It is sustained as an ideal because it allows advocates to regard themselves as revolutionary pioneers of a “better world.” It further prompts believers to devalue the present and dismiss the past, which allows them to distance themselves from the destructive results of their social experiments. Thus progressives habitually dismiss the disasters they have engineered, however epic in scope, by attributing the monstrous results to inadvertent “mistakes,” when they were in fact the logical consequences of their Utopian ideas.

When the Soviet socialist system collapsed, progressives cre­ated an artificial distinction between the ideal, which they called “real socialism,” and the disaster, which they called “actually existing socialism.” This allowed them to avoid any recognition of their role in the human catastrophe they had supported and served for generations. Consequently, the experience had no lessons for progressives because in their self-absolving view it wasn’t “real socialism.” This delusion has now been passed to the next genera­tions as a result of the left’s infiltration of America’s educational system and its transformation into a training and recruitment cen­ter for collectivist causes and ideas.[1]

The current term leftists use to describe their Utopian vision of the future is “social justice” rather than communism or socialism.

The new name is part of a familiar process by which the left attempts to shed the disasters of its past. One would be hard-put to distinguish the goals encapsulated by “social justice” from the communist attitudes of previous generations. Like communism, “social justice” is a promise of harmony and redemption. Like communism it describes a future in which inequality, poverty, big­otry and the timeless corruptions of the human spirit are miracu­lously rectified by political parties and the state. Like communism, “social justice” requires for its realization a remake of humanity. Like communism, therefore, it can only be achieved through the destruction of individual freedom, and the thwarting of normal human desires and interests in order to achieve an allegedly greater social good.

The bloody history of progressive experiments during the 20th century should have buried the illusion that human beings can be transformed into creatures radically different from what they have been for the five thousand years in which their actions have been recorded. Human societies are reflections of the human beings who create them, not the other way around. Inequality, bigotry, hypocrisy and greed are elements of a genome that thousands of years of evolution have failed to alter or repair. As a result, progres­sive states dedicated to “social justice” have flooded the earth with the corpses of innocents who stood in their way, and created poverty and misery on an unprecedented scale. Yet the religious fantasy of a liberated future persists to this day among an alarming array of constituencies, and the left’s assault on individual free­dom proceeds as though these historical tragedies had never taken place.

The tenacity of the progressive illusion and its imperviousness to experience are natural effects of its religious nature. The solace provided to believers through hope in a redeemed future is as existentially crucial as a belief in God or in life after death. It makes relinquishing the illusion as devastating as a loss of religious faith. How else explain the persistence of a fantasy that has proven so destructive?

Since the industrial revolution, the progressive illusion has been encouraged by advances in technology that might seem to augur human possibility without limit. Yet to date these advances, however impressive, have not led to dramatic improvements in human behavior—specifically its moral dimensions—let alone the degree of improvement that Utopian visions require. Meanwhile, the same advances have produced new technologies of totalitarian control along with vastly amplified means of destruction that serve to magnify human barbarism and put into question the very survival of civilization.

Half a century ago Friedrich Hayek described “social justice” as a mirage. Hayek observed that there is no entity called “society” to redistribute wealth, or to re-calibrate the social order. There are only individuals belonging to political factions that vie for power and then wield it through their power in the state.[2] “Social jus­tice,” therefore, is necessarily the work of individuals driven by the same greed, prejudice, and habits of deceit that created the injustices progressives propose to repair. In its real-world practice “social justice” is, and can only be, the self-justifying rationale of a new despotism—worse than the old because its first agenda is a war against freedom, in particular the freedom of individuals to resist the social redeemers and their plans.

This was the conclusion I reached forty years ago under the influence of Hayek and the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski, and why I resolved to devote the second half of my life—and eventually the nine volumes of this work—to analyzing and opposing this destructive cause.

Part One of this concluding volume features three essays on themes which have more or less defined my life’s work. “The Fate of the Marxist Idea” originated as a chapter in The Politics of Bad Faith (1998). It is composed of two letters to former comrades announcing my break with the left, and explaining the reasons why anyone concerned about humanity or justice should do the same. The first letter was written to Carol Pasternak Kaplan, a childhood friend whose father Morris was a cell leader in the local Communist Party. The second was written to Ralph Miliband, my political mentor and friend, as well as father of David Miliband, a future British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and of Ed Miliband, a future leader of the British Labour Party.

In the quarter-century since I published these reflections, there have been no attempts by progressives to answer them. This would be explicable if leftists considered my views unworthy of their attention. But that is not the case. I have been the subject of unflattering feature profiles in leftwing magazines such as The Nation and Tablet, and in papers of record (also on the left) such as The New York Times, the Chronicle of Higher Education and The Washington Post. The Internet is a repository of tens of thousands of leftist posts, including entire websites, filled with anti-Horowitz abuse. What is lacking is an intellectual argument to refute my views and specifically my reasons for rejecting the left; or reference to a historical record that would provide a critical response to the case I have made.[3]

“Slavery and the American Idea” is about the destructive ends to which progressive aspirations lead, in particular the determina­tion to destroy the American social contract and the constitu­tional system that supports it. Race has been a primary weapon in this attack, which is why Volume 6 in this series is devoted to the subject. This essay attempts to retrieve the historical record and celebrate the America Idea, which is responsible for ending slavery and encapsulates the vision that is opposed to all the destructive themes documented in these volumes. “Slavery and the American Idea” first appeared as the concluding chapter of Uncivil Wars, an account of the 2001 controversy I provoked by opposing the demand for reparations more than a century after slavery was abol­ished. It has been edited for inclusion in this volume.[4]

These two ideas—the American and the Marxist—may be said to constitute an ideological thesis and antithesis of the modern world. The resolution of the conflict between them will shape the course of human freedom for generations to come.

“America’s Second Civil War” locates the source of the deep division of America’s political life in the adoption of “identity pol­itics” as the left’s “progressive” creed. In this extension of Marx’s faulty model of domination and oppression, the left is now com­mitted to a political crusade that is racist and collectivist, and thus the antithesis of the principles that are the cornerstones of Amer­ica’s social contract.

“The Two Christophers” is an effort to define the parameters of the left through an essay on the life and thought of radical contrar­ian Christopher Hitchens, whom I first met in England in the 1960s and befriended in the last years of his life. Some have regarded Christopher’s intellectual path as similar to mine because of his support for America’s war in Iraq, and his belated recogni­tion of the virtues of a country with which he was once at war. This is an unwarranted reading of Christopher’s odyssey. In reflecting on Christopher’s political course, I have attempted to show how utopianism and the romantic idea of a revolutionary transformation continued to shape his political choices and kept him from having consistent (or even coherent) second thoughts. His political trajectory clearly marks the differences between us, and allows me to measure the distance I traveled in leaving the left. It thus provides a way to understand what it means to be the kind of progressive examined in these volumes, so it may function as a useful guide to the great schism of our times.

Part Two of Ruling Ideas provides several aids for readers of my work. The first is an account of my life and work by my friend and colleague, Dr. Jamie Glazov, appropriately the son of a courageous Soviet dissident. Dr. Glazov’s article is an updated version of an essay that first appeared as the introduction to Left Illusions, an earlier collection of my writings published in 2003. Dr. Glazov’s account is both accurate and insightful, and will be a helpful guide to those interested in my work.

The second is a bibliography of my writings compiled by Mike Bauer, who has also provided invaluable help in editing all the texts in this series.

Finally, David Landau, who has copy-edited and indexed the entire series, has also prepared a summary index to all nine volumes.

Notes:

[1]See Volume 8 in this series, The Left In The University. Cf. also https://www.nas.org/projects/making_citizens_report/the_report

[2]Friedrich von Hayek, Law Legislation and Liberty: The Mirage of Social Justice, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1976

[3]In fact I have on occasion invited academic leftists into the pages of Frontpagemag.com to construct such arguments. But the exercise has merely demonstrated their inability to do so. This was the case with left­ist historian Kevin Mattson, the author of Rebels All!, a book which describes me as a seminal figure of the modern right, an exemplar of “the post-modern conservative intellectual.” Unfortunately, Mattson was incapable of getting the most basic elements of my conservative views straight, and was uninterested in correcting his mistakes when they were pointed out to him. See “Getting This Conservative Wrong,” in Volume 1 of this series, pp. 121 et seq.

[4]Volume 6 of this series, Progressive Racism, contains an account of my conflict with the left over reparations and the American idea.

Why Bomb Syria?

Tue, 04/17/2018 - 04:15

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

Donald Trump’s order last Friday to launch missile strikes against Syria’s chemical weapons infrastructure has exposed the divisions among Americans over foreign policy. Some Trump supporters think the President has walked back from his America-first nationalism. Globalists of both parties agree that Bashar al Assad needed to be punished for brutally violating international conventions against chemical weapons. And the rabid anti-Trump left views the attack as a “wag-the-dog” diversion from Trump’s legal troubles.

So is there a legitimate reason for bombing Syria and possibly provoking Russian retaliation that risks dragging us deeper into the Middle East quagmire?

Many Americans, sick of a decade-and-a-half of American military presence in the region believe that “we don’t have a dog in that fight,” as the first Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker said of the brutal conflicts in the disintegrating Yugoslavia of the early nineties. Some may remember George W. Bush’s willingness to be the “world’s policeman” ––after he campaigned against “foreign policy as social work” ––when he launched two wars in the region. They voted for Donald Trump in part because he was a critic of the endless war in Iraq and the still active war in Afghanistan and their delusional nation-building aims, and vowed to put “America first.” 

The problem with this understandable “pox on both their houses” attitude to foreign conflicts is that American security and interests have long been intimately bound up in a world that for more than century has been growing closer and more interdependent. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were the gruesome illustration of that reality. The attackers easily travelled by air thousands of miles from their homes, and lived freely in this country as they prepared the attacks. Armed only with box-cutters, they turned commercial airliners into the smartest of smart bombs simply by navigating them into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, killing in a few hours about the same number of Americans who died in the British invasion between 1812 and 1815. At the cost of half a million dollars––less than half the cost of one cruise missile–– they struck devastating blows against history’s greatest military and economic power, onw they knew intimately from globally distributed news and entertainment, and had grown to hate because its very existence challenged orthodox premodern Islamic doctrine. 

Given that our economy is inseparable from the global economy, we have no choice but to be concerned about the critical straits and canals through which global commerce travels, and the airports throughout the world through which people can reach our shores in less than a day. We also can’t ignore the numerous illiberal and autocratic regimes whose beliefs and values conflict with those of the West. The global market, as Robert Kagan put it, needs a global sheriff so that this astonishing increase in technological innovation and wealth and their global distribution is free to continue. We may not have chosen this role, we may not like or want the job, but history so far has left the U.S. as the only great power with the military capacity for keeping order, and the political beliefs and principles that ensure we will not abuse that power to oppress others.

Yet that truth does not justify the one-world idealism that believes everybody on the planet wants to live like Westerners, or to embrace Western principles and goods like political freedom, tolerance of minorities, free speech, sex equality, secularist government, an open society, and the preference for discussion, negotiation, and treaties as the way to solve conflict rather than brute force. The great diversity of ways of life and beliefs means that transnational institutions, agreements, covenants, and U.N. Security Council resolutions will always in the end be instruments of diverse and conflicting national interests. They are honored as long as they serve those interests, but abused or subverted when they don’t, especially by the more powerful nations. They are like Jonathon Swift’s laws: “cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.”

The West’s military dominance in the 20th century ensured that other nations would bandwagon with the West and sign such international agreements, with the tacit proviso that they would violate them whenever necessary, even as they paid them lip-service. The history of the last century, which is littered with violated treaties and covenants, proves this obvious truth. Nor is it hard to see why. As Robert Bork pointed out, such international agreements are weak because they do not necessarily reflect a global consensus that violent aggression or wanton oath-breaking is morally beyond the pale, or a violation of common customs, or a betrayal of sincere belief in the principles on which an agreement is founded. They exist by dint of treaties that sovereign nations have the de jure right to leave, or the de facto right to violate. Thus the President’s public reason for bombing Syria, that it violated the Chemical Weapons Convention, is dubious at best, and his plea to Russia not to be tainted by its support of an “animal” like Assad is remarkably naive. 

Indeed, Syria offers a perfect example of this dynamic of a superficial adherence to international covenants that facilitates violations of them. After Barack Obama issued his empty “red line” threat about Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Secretary of State John Kerry negotiated an empty “solution” to the problem by making Russia the authority overseeing the elimination of Assad’s stockpiles, even though it was and still is not in Russia’s geostrategic interests to disarm Assad. So we got a theatrical compliance that left Assad his weapons, and even worse, gave Russia a sanctioned entrée into the Syrian civil war. The pretense of adhering to international law gave cover to Russia’s strategic aims in the region, one of which was the continuation of Assad’s murderous regime.

Equally troubling, there is a strange incoherence in seeing an imperative to respond to the deaths of a few score civilians during a conflict that has killed several hundred thousand by means of “conventional” weapons like bombs and bullets. If we have an “obligation to protect” those brutalized by aggression, as the moralizing internationalists believe, then it’s hard to see why one kind of death is more outrageous than other kinds. This selectivity has been the fundamental weakness of international laws or obligations to prevent aggression: since we can’t intervene in every brutal conflict, the only coherent rationale for interventions is that the conflict harms or threatens our national interests and security.

If virtual isolationism is not a practical policy, and moralizing internationalism a chimera, what could justify the raids against Syria? Deterrence is frequently invoked, but it obviously didn’t work last year after the President destroyed some of Assad’s jets. Over the past year, Assad has continued to use chemical weapons on civilians. Indeed, within hours of our latest attack Assad was using high explosives and barrel-bombs to slaughter people who are just as dead or mangled as the victims of his chemical attack. Further consequences may follow. Russia and Iran for now may be blustering to save face, but there still may be some retaliation that we will then have to answer. For once a nation goes down the road of deterring a bad actor by force, it has to continue indefinitely in order to maintain its prestige. It can’t announce publicly that it is a “one-off.”

Americans traditionally do not like constant war or military interventions, particularly “humanitarian” ones. We prefer to intervene when necessary, kill the bad guys, then come back home, what Walter Russell Meade calls a “Jacksonian” foreign policy. Unfortunately, in today’s interconnected world, such conflicts are not as rare as we’d like. But we must make it clear that we will not intervene when necessary just to rush home as though the work is done, nor will we engage in conflicts and occupation of the defeated enemy in order to create liberal democracy. 

Rather, we need a foreign policy similar to the “butcher and bolt” policy of the British Empire, or what Israel calls “mowing the grass.” This means when an adversary or enemy challenges our power and interests, or those of our close allies, we should use force to send a message, usually by destroying some of its military assets. We should not rationalize this action by appealing to international law, the U.N., or some fantastical common vales or principles of the mythic “international community.” We should make it clear that there is no time-certain for when we stop, rather that we will return whenever we judge it necessary. And we should do it on the principle that a sovereign nation has a right to defend itself as it sees fit, and owes accountability only to its citizens. 

In the near future, bombing Syria will likely still be necessary, not just to deter Assad or change the regime into a liberal democracy, but to let all the players in the region know that the greatest military power in history is watching events in a region we deem vital to our interests, and that we will use force to remind them of our unprecedented ability to project devastating power across the globe. Such a policy will strengthen our prestige, and concentrate wonderfully the minds of our adversaries.

The only remaining question is, Will we the people of the United States be willing to pay the costs and accept the risks of such a policy?

Video: 'White Privilege' Indoctrination In Our Public Schools

Tue, 04/17/2018 - 04:10

Editor's note: Below is Sean Fitzgerald's new video exposing "white privilege" indoctrination in America's public school system. Fitzgerald sheds light on the stealth ways this radical programming is being introduced, as well as its devastating effects on students. The video was produced in conjunction with the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Stop K-12 Indoctrination campaign. To order the Freedom Center's new pamphlet, "Leftist Indoctrination in Our K-12 Public Schools," CLICK HERE.

The Pathetic Comey Spectacle

Tue, 04/17/2018 - 04:08

Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey is making a pathetic spectacle of himself as he pitches his book with a whirlwind media blitz. Comey’s Sunday interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC managed to achieve higher ratings than its floundering American Idol lead-in. However, the ratings did not even rise to half the number of viewers who tuned into the Stormy Daniels interview on CBS’s Sixty Minutes last month. Each interview was a tawdry attempt to smear President Trump. However, compared to Comey’s self-righteous façade under which he sought to obscure his own misdeeds of lying to Congress under oath and leaking information he prepared while still the FBI director, Stormy Daniels came across as the more believable interviewee.

Comey told Stephanopoulos that an ethical leader is “someone who realizes that lasting values have to be at the center of their leadership.” Such a leader, Comey said, must “focus on things like fairness and integrity and, most of all, the truth.” Comey claimed that President Trump, whom he compared to a “mob boss” for demanding absolute loyalty, does not meet that test. "Our president must embody respect and adhere to the values that are at the core of this country,” Comey said. “The most important being truth. This president is not able to do that.” Comey’s verdict was that Mr. Trump is “morally unfit to be president."  

James Comey fails miserably in meeting his own standard of truthfulness. He lied to Congress under oath, for example, regarding when he reached his conclusion that Hillary Clinton’s e-mail transgressions did not merit prosecution. He testified that he had not decided to exonerate Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed on July 2, 2016. It turns out that he had been involved in the drafting of a letter exonerating her weeks before key witnesses, including Hillary Clinton herself, were interviewed. Comey admitted to Stephanopoulos that by May of 2016 – about 2 months before he publicly announced his recommendation not to prosecute Clinton – he knew where the investigation was headed. While claiming that he had an open mind should new facts emerge, Comey said that “after nine or ten months of investigating, it looked like on the current course and speed, this is going to end without charges.” He reached that conclusion without the benefit of a grand jury, which would have been customary in cases of such gravity. “Lot more flexibility,” he said in explaining why no grand jury was convened. Comey’s whole stewardship of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation gave him “lot more flexibility” to maneuver the outcome in Hillary’s favor. 

Comey substituted in his draft exoneration letter, and later in his public exoneration statement on July 5, 2016, the phrase “extremely careless” for the legal term “gross negligence,” which appears in a federal statute covering the handling of classified information under which Hillary Clinton could have been prosecuted. Here is how Comey tried to rationalize what he had done:

“So my first draft, which I wrote myself, said, ‘Gross negligence.’ It's a lawyer term. And the reason I used that term is I wanted to also explain that I don't mean that in the sense that a statute passed 100 years ago means it. And then my staff convinced me that that's just going to confuse all kinds of people, if you start talking about statutes and what the words mean. What's a colloquial way to explain it? And elsewhere in my statement I had said, ‘Extremely careless.’ And so they said, ‘Just use that.’ And so that's what I went with.”

Even though Comey admits having found sufficient facts on which to base a case of “gross negligence,” he decided to muddy the record by substituting a colloquial expression that means pretty much the same thing but avoids using the actual statutory language. Then he claimed, contrary to the operative statute, that only a finding of “intent” would merit prosecution. Comey himself could be found guilty of obstructing justice by playing legislator and judge rather than the FBI director responsible only for investigating and reporting the relevant facts to the Department of Justice.

Regarding Comey’s own corrupted view of obstruction of justice, Comey repeated during his interview with Stephanopoulos his description of a private one-on-one discussion he had with President Trump that he claimed gave rise to his concerns about possible obstruction of justice. The president had directed other participants in a prior meeting, including Vice President Pence and Attorney General Sessions, to leave the room so that Comey and the president would be alone for a subsequent talk. Comey said this was so unusual that his “antennae were up.” According to Comey’s account, President Trump said he hoped Comey would “let it go” with regard to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn who was under criminal investigation at the time. Comey said he “took it as a direction” to drop the criminal investigation. That was only in Comey’s mind, however. Nothing the president actually said, as reported by Comey himself, amounted to a direction. Moreover, Comey did not say that President Trump followed up in any way to make sure that the “direction” Comey imagined was carried out.

Nevertheless, Comey claimed in the Stephanopoulos interview that the president’s request, made during the one-on-one discussion, was “certainly some evidence of obstruction of justice.” Yet, during the same interview, Comey shamelessly whitewashed the whitewashing of Hillary’s private server and other destruction of potential evidence. He said that his team “could never establish, develop the evidence… that anybody who did that did it with a corrupt intent. And most importantly, any indication that Secretary Clinton knew that was happening and knew that it was an effort to obstruct justice.”

In Comey’s mind, a request for leniency by the president of the United States, who has full pardon power under the Constitution, could rise to the level of obstruction of justice even though there was no follow-through by the president and the investigation of Flynn proceeded without interruption. Comey’s hatred of President Trump led him to the conclusion that a simple request for prosecutorial discretion, not a command, which was well within the president’s constitutional authority as the nation’s chief executive officer, could rise to the level of obstruction of justice. However, the destruction of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails under congressional subpoena, and the wiping clean of the server on which they reportedly resided, lack any indicia of “corrupt intent,” according to Comey. Did it ever occur to Comey that the very act of destruction of such evidence without any credible justification indicates consciousness of guilt, which merited a grand jury investigation? Obviously not, since he let Hillary off the hook. 

Comey descended into the gutter during his interview with Stephanopoulos when he said, “I don't know whether the-- the-- current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013. It's possible, but I don't know.” Comey was describing his disclosure to then President-elect Trump unsubstantiated accusations that had appeared in the infamous Steele dossier, including the alleged prostitute episode. The fact that Comey would even consider the possibility that such tabloid disinformation, based on Russian sources, could be true is bad enough. What’s worse is Comey’s utter unethical behavior in not telling Mr. Trump that the Steele dossier had been financed by his political opponents. Comey told Stephanopoulos that he did not feel it necessary to reveal that fact because “it wasn't necessary for my goal, which was to alert him that we had this information.” We shouldn’t be surprised, considering that Comey’s FBI had left out from its FISA court application seeking a warrant to spy on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser, that the Steele dossier used to support the application had been financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Comey himself signed the misleading application.

James Comey abused his position as FBI director and turned his office into a shield for Hillary Clinton and a sword against President Trump, Comey's protestations of virtue notwithstanding. He deserved to be fired and now deserves to be criminally investigated for lying under oath and illegally leaking government-owned information for personal purposes.

Big Banks Target the 2nd Amendment

Tue, 04/17/2018 - 04:07

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

The American people lent $45 billion to Bank of America during the bailout. That bailout came with a hefty $100 billion guarantee against losses on toxic assets.

That money came from American taxpayers. It came from gun owners and non-gun owners.

But Bank of America has warned that it will refuse to lend money to manufacturers of “assault-style guns”. It had previously announced it was edging away from the coal business to fight global warming.

Citigroup got $476 billion in cash and guarantees: the most of any bank. Now Citibank is repaying the generosity of the American people by requiring its clients to impose their own gun control policies on their stores. Impose gun control on your customers or Citibank will discriminate against you.

Next up is Wells Fargo. The stagecoach brand has said that it’s up to the government to impose gun control, but that it is discussing gun safety with its clients. That’s not enough for outraged activists. The American Federation of Teachers, an organization that runs on extorting money from teachers and taxpayers, warned Wells Fargo that it had to choose between firearms manufacturers and the AFT.

Bank of America announced its move to Bloomberg. The eponymous media outlet is associated with the billionaire sugar daddy of the anti-second amendment lobby. That wasn’t a coincidence. Neither was Citigroup making its announcement through Ed Skyler, Bloomberg’s former Deputy Mayor.

This phase of the pressure campaign got its start from a New  York Times column by Andrew Ross Sorkin which wondered, "What if the finance industry — credit card companies ... credit card processors ... and banks ... were to effectively set new rules for the sales of guns in America?"

If the banks wouldn’t play ball, then their biggest customers, "McDonald’s, Starbucks, Apple, Amazon, AT&T, CVS and others" would be pressured into pressuring them. That way a few corporations could decide which parts of the Constitution they’ll write out of existence in their Terms of Service.

And then Sorkin began calling up chief execs to discuss his bright idea for corporate government. They included Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat who had served on Obama's Advisory Council on Financial Capability and had hosted a retreat featuring Hillary Clinton. Citigroup had a long relationship with the Clintons and had warned that Trump’s victory could lead to an economic “slowdown”.

A follow-up article suggested modifying merchant control codes to single out any store that sells firearms and using GPS signals to shut off credit card transactions around gun shows.

The extensive surveillance powers of financial companies would be used to build a police state.

Ed Skyler’s Twitter account, which has plenty of gun control tweets, retweeted the police state proposal.

Citigroup's spokesman claimed that, "we created standards based not on ideology, but on established best sales practices." But Ed Skyler’s ranting announcement clearly shows that to be a lie.

"Over the same amount of time, we have waited for our grief to turn into action and see our nation adopt common-sense measures that would help prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands," Ed Skyler had declared in his role as CitiGroup's Executive Vice President of Global Public.

That’s an Everytown political campaign ad that could have come from his old boss, Michael Bloomberg.

Citigroup can’t have it both ways. It can’t beat the drum for gun control and declare that it’s non-ideological. You can virtue signal or be apolitical. But you can’t do both at the same time.

Senator Kennedy (R-LA) responded to Citigroup’s secondary second amendment boycott blasting it for “threatening law abiding business owners for exercising their Second Amendment rights.”

“The only reason that Citigroup is even in business today is because American taxpayers bailed them out during the Great Recession,” he noted. The Senator also expressed concern that the country’s financial institutions are being split up into “red banks and blue banks.” Mick Mulvaney, head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, called the actions of the anti-second amendment banks, "troubling."

The left has come a long way from hating corporations to setting up a corporate shadow government to dismantle the Bill of Rights. Get the banks to ban guns and social media companies to censor conservatives. And the left can divest from democracy and run the country from Facebook.

But behind the big banks is an even bigger government.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Chicago's biggest thug since Capone, is backing an ordinance that would ban  banks from doing business with his corrupt city if they don't implement the same gun control boycott as Citigroup. According to its euphemistic Safe Guns Policy, “No financial institution would be eligible to do business as a City depository, underwrite municipal bond issues, or engage in a myriad of other financial transactions unless they file such an affidavit.” Capone could have said it briefer, but not better.

And Chicago’s gimmick would allow the failed city to impose gun control through the banks.

Chicago has been sliding toward bankruptcy almost as fast as its home state. But Chiraq put out $3 billion in AAA bonds, even though its bonds have been considered junk, through what one analyst called “smoke and mirrors”. But you can’t peddle Chicago junk bonds unless you also peddle gun control.

Not to be left too far behind Second City, New York State Comptroller Thomas J. DiNapoli sent letters to MasterCard among others, urging them to block credit card purchases of firearms and accessories.

New York is facing its biggest deficits in decades, and it has the second-highest debt in the nation. Behind California. But shrinking the Bill of Rights is more important than the financial health of the state.

Banking on gun control isn’t a new development. Under Obama, a covert version of it operated through an Obama DOJ program known as “Operation Choke Point.” Choke Point pressured banks into avoiding relationships with firearms businesses. The program was shut down by Attorney General Sessions.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd called it a "misguided initiative conducted during the previous administration.”

But Operation Choke Point is being laboriously reassembled by a coalition of activist groups, state officials and corporations. Its rebirth in the private sector follows in the footsteps of similar efforts at building a shadow government that would maintain the initiatives and rules of the Obama era.

Choke Point 2.0 is just a decentralized version of an unconstitutional government program. The banks enforcing it are dusting off the same old “reputational implications” argument from Choke Point.

After losing the White House, the Senate and the House, the left is rebuilding its regulatory infrastructure using some of the same financial institutions that were funded by the bailout. The advantages of this move are that monopolistic institutions don’t need to worry about accountability to the public or the Constitution’s restrictions on violating rights by abusing government power.

It’s no coincidence that Bank of America horror stories abounded during the Choke Point era. The financial institutions most likely to collaborate with Obama against their customers and the Bill of Rights are also the most likely to collaborate in the same way with the anti-second amendment lobby.

Choke Point 2.0 is an ominous development. But it is also an important reminder.

The left is not against big banks. It is against freedom.

Every institution exists only as a means for the left to exercise its power, to impose collective systems and tear down individual rights. It is only opposes businesses to the extent that they represent individual initiative and personal freedom. But it will rule the country and enforce its will on us by any means.

“People's Aid” – To Terrorists

Tue, 04/17/2018 - 04:06

[Editor's note: To learn more about the Freedom Center's campaign, Stop University Support for Terrorists, CLICK HERE. To read and order the Freedom Center's new pamphlet, SJP: Neo-Nazis on Campus, which sheds light on the extreme depths of Jew-Hatred promoted by the organization Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), CLICK HERE.]

The headlines in Norway's national newspapers were huge: “Palestinian journalist in press vest shot and killed by Israeli soldiers in Gaza.” “Palestinian photographer killed by Israeli soldiers.” “Sharpshooter's bullet hit his armpit. Palestinian photographer killed.” 

The victim of the April 6 killing was identified as Yasser Murtaja, a “videojournalist” and “30-year-old father” who had co-founded Ain Media, a production company that works with the BBC, Al Jazeera, and other foreign media. In this instance, Murtaja was working for an NGO called Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC). 

At the time he was shot, according to the NTB news agency report that ran in all three major Norwegian dailies, Murtaja was “over 100 meters from the Israeli border fence” and wearing a bulletproof vest “clearly marked PRESS.” The NTB story added that “according to Palestinian sources,” Murtaja “had no ties to Hamas or other militant groups.” (In the Norwegian media, “Palestinian sources” are treated as reliable in such matters.) On April 7, several hundred mourners attended Murtaja's funeral. 

Now, anyone who has seen Richard Landes's 2005 documentary Pallywood, or who is familiar with the case of Muhammed al-Durrah, knows that any news story involving a supposed “Palestinian journalist” should be regarded with at least a soupçon of suspicion. For one thing, Palestinians who call themselves journalists have routinely faked videos of Israeli atrocities and sold them to gullible Western media. For another, Palestinian terrorists have used press badges to get close to the enemy. NGOs like the NRC are well aware of this conduct. Some overlook it. Others are in on it. (An official of another NGO, World Vision, is currently on trial for funneling millions of dollars to Hamas to fund terrorist activities.)

April 8 saw another round of splashy Norwegian newspaper stories about Murtaja. The Norwegian Union of Journalists, they reported, had condemned Murtaja's killing and called for a UN investigation. Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, however, refused to apologize for Murtaja's death, noting that members of Hamas routinely dress up as Red Crescent personnel or as journalists. The Norwegian media treated Lieberman's comment dismissively. Nor, when NGO Monitor issued a press release on April 10 stating that Murtaja had “reportedly been exposed as an officer in the Hamas terrorist group,” did the Norwegian media so much as mention it. 

No surprise there. While a wide swath of the Norwegian political and media establishment has been chummy with Hamas, that same establishment takes a highly negative view of NGO Monitor. Witness the snide statement, in a 2015 Dagbladet article by Maren Sæbø, that NGO Monitor “sees it as its task to criticize the UN, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Christian Aid, and Oxfam.” (Sæbø didn't bother to offer specifics that would show just how deserving these groups were of NGO Monitor's criticism.) NGO Monitor head Gerald Steinberg and his staff, sneered Sæbø, are not “particularly fond of Israeli human-rights groups.” (In fact, the groups Steinberg isn't fond of are those that support terrorists and seek the destruction of Israel while hiding behind the words “human rights.”)  

On the same day that it issued its press release on Murtaja, NGO Monitor put out a second release about another Norwegian NGO – namely, Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA), known in Norway as Norsk Folkehjelp. Financed by Norway, Sweden, the United States, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, the European Union, and Japan, NPA calls itself “the labour movement's humanitarian solidarity organisation.” Alas, the truth is a bit different from this cozy self-description: citing the U.S. Department of Justice, NGO Monitor revealed in its press release that NPA had “provided 'material support' to Iran, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) – designated terrorist organizations under U.S. law. As a result of these partnerships, in March 2018, NPA settled a civil-fraud suit, paying a $2 million settlement to the U.S.”

Norwegian tax money going to terrorists? You'd think this would be something of a news item in Norway. Nope. Searching the major Norwegian newspapers, I could only find one mention of it. And the story in question, which appeared in Dagbladet, didn't take the supporting-terrorists angle: under the headline “NPA pays 16 million [kroner] to avoid trial in U.S.,” Dagbladet quoted NPA official Per Nergaard as insisting that his organization had only twice had any contact with governments or groups on the U.S. ban list, and that those contacts had been exceedingly tenuous: one, he asserted, had involved a “seismic operation and explosives elimination for Norsk Hydro in Iran” and the other, “a course in democracy and human rights” whose attendees had happened to include Hamas members. 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Dagbladet's article was a total whitewash. It failed to mention that, as NGO Monitor put it, an NPA “partner organization” called the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC) “is linked to the PFLP terrorist organization.” Nergaard spoke of “a course in democracy and human rights”; NGO Monitor noted that NPA had in fact “funded numerous workshops” that had provided terrorist leaders with tips on winning “youth support.” NGO Monitor quoted U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman: “For years, Norwegian People’s Aid obtained grant money from USAID by falsely representing that it had not provided, and would take reasonable steps to ensure that it did not knowingly provide, material support to prohibited parties under U.S. law.” As far as I've been able to determine, that quotation appeared nowhere in the Norwegian media. 

Nor did the Norwegian media address NPA's role in the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel (a malignant movement one of whose flagship organizations, the Students for Justice in Palestine, is the subject of an exhaustive new pamphlet put out by the David Horowitz Freedom Center). As NGO Monitor reported, NPA lobbied for the Norwegian state pension fund to divest from Israeli firms and helped publish a document alleging “that Norwegian companies are participating in international law and human rights abuses” by investing in Israel. NPA also works closely with a number of poisonously anti-Israeli Palestinian NGOs. 

In a region awash in fake human-rights organizations, terrorists masquerading as reporters, and prominent activists and religious figures who speak benignly of peace and love while privately supporting violence and mayhem, NGO Monitor performs an invaluable service, reliably sorting it all out and striving to separate the truth from the lies. Gerald Steinberg and his crew deserve immense credit for the remarkable work they do. But you'd never know that from reading much of the mainstream European media. 

Facebook Bans Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov For Reporting a Muslim’s Threat

Tue, 04/17/2018 - 04:00

Facebook has banned Frontpage Editor and Glazov Gang host Jamie Glazov for seven days. Jamie's crime is posting/reporting on his Facebook page a physical threat that was made to him personally on his FB page by a member of the Religion of Peace.

On Saturday, April 14, 2018, a certain Muhammad Irfan Ayoub started commenting on Jamie's page, rebuking him for daring to bring attention to the persecution of women and girls under Sharia and telling Jamie to convert to Islam. As the exchange ensued over various aspects of Islam, and as Jamie made clear he did not want to convert, Ayoub made it evident that there would be punishment and that "Allah will defeat you." Jamie inquired how this punishment from Allah was synonymous with Islam being a Religion of Peace -- which Ayoub contested Islam to be. Ayoub explained that there is only peace for those who obey Allah and his prophet, but for those who do not, there will be no peace:



This "dialogue" continued and then Ayoub made it clear that he would start Allah's punishment ahead of time and break Jamie's mouth:



Jamie then made two posts about this threat, showing the screenshot of it and (1) asking Mark Zuckerberg if Ayoub's threat is unsafe to the community and (2) pointing out that if a kafir (Islam's secret dirty word for the unbeliever) said this to Ayoub on Facebook that there would be a lifelong ban and police would be at the kafir's door within 12 hours.

See Jamie's two posts below:

(1)


(2)



The next day, on Sunday, April 15, 2018, Facebook notified Jamie that he was now being punished with a seven day ban for the post he made asking Mr. Zuckerberg about whether or not Ayoub's threat is unsafe to the FB community. When Jamie tried to post anyway, he received the expected ban notice:

Then Jamie wrote to Facebook asking why he was was being banned for posting about/reporting a threat he had received:


Facebook has not responded to Jamie and the ban remains in place. It is now obvious what the rule is at Facebook: If a member of the Religion of Peace threatens to break a kafir's mouth, that is safe for the FB community and the kafir obviously deserves the threat because he is violating Islamic blasphemy laws in some way. And the kafir must be punished if he reports or complains about the threat. But if a kafir says something about Islam that upsets a Muslim, then that is a completely different matter. That for sure is unsafe for the FB community and the kafir obviously needs to be punished.

The thread on which all of this occurred is a video post by Jamie of human rights activist Anni Cyrus telling her personal story of being a child bride under Sharia in Iran -- and how she was able to escape the barbarities of Sharia. Anni discusses how little girls are being literally sold every day into sexual slavery under Islamic law. See the video post and discussion thread HERE before Facebook might take it down.

We request that everyone who cares about free speech and who is concerned about Facebook's surrender to Islamic blasphemy laws, to protest this shameful and shameless banning of Frontpage's Editor and also Facebook's overall persecution of truth-tellers about the totalitarian and terrorist threat our civilization is facing. Please share this article and this news everywhere, write to Facebook (on Facebook and on Twitter at @fbnewsroom @facebook) to protest its banning of Jamie and its surrender to Sharia, and encourage everyone to do the same.

Thank you so much.

After Syria, Will Never Trumpers Apologize for Russia Smear?

Mon, 04/16/2018 - 04:10

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

Last year, the court jester of the Never Trumpers declared that, "The onus is on the president-elect to prove he's not Putin's puppet."

Last week, the President of the United States ordered the strikes that took out Syria’s chemical weapons research facility, its primary Sarin nerve gas facility and another chemical weapons facility. 

Putin was not pleased. But neither was Max Boot, who had accused Trump of being Putin’s puppet. Boot had already gone from attacking Trump for being weak on Assad to urging, “Let Assad Win.”

Who’s the puppet now?

In March, Boot had urged Trump to launch cruise missiles against the perpetrators of the chemical attacks. Now that Trump did it, Boot is dismissing the very thing he wanted and attacking Trump for not overthrowing Assad. Even though Boot had just disavowed regime change in, “Let Assad Win.”

What is Max Boot’s real position on Syria? He doesn’t have one. He only has a position on Trump. 

Never Trumpers like Max Boot wanted us to believe that they opposed Trump on foreign policy grounds. But Syria shows that they don’t have a foreign policy. Only an anti-Trump policy.

They don’t care about Syria. And they don’t care about Russia. All they care about is destroying Trump. Like Boot, their old national security journalism has been replaced by national security trolling. The national security trolls no longer discuss foreign policy, but how much they despise President Trump.

Boot flip-flopped on Assad. If hostilities with Russia grow, his next column will be, “Let Putin Win.”

The most striking thing about the reaction of Never Trumper national security trolls to the Syrian strikes was their lack of interest in the topic. Most remained fixated on pushing Mueller scandal narratives.

"If Pres. Trump takes appropriate action against Assad this #NeverTrumper will of course support him," Bill Kristol tweeted on April 6. The next day he tweeted a quote about events in Syria from an anti-Israel leftist ,"No decent person can ignore what’s happening.” On the 8th, Kristol blamed Trump for Assad’s chemical weapons use.

Once the bombings began, Kristol’s support consisted of tweeting about more Mueller scandals. 

After all the noise, it turned out that Bill Kristol didn’t actually care. The moral preening about a humanitarian crisis in Syria was hollow. His real humanitarian crisis was losing the election

During the election, Kristol had accused the Republicans of being “Putin’s Party” over what he deemed to be Trump’s lack of support for Ukraine. Did Kristol change his mind when Trump, unlike Obama, approved weapons sales to Ukraine? Of course not. Because it wasn’t about Ukraine or Syria.

Those were just useful conspiracy theories tying President Trump to Russia. 

On the 8th, Evan McMullin accused Trump of having “enabled Assad and Putin’s escalating mass atrocities against Syrian children and other civilians.” Trump “telegraphs a withdrawal from Syria” as “Bashar al-Assad is increasing his chemical weapons attacks on Syrian civilians,” he condemned.

Once the bombings began, the former presidential candidate went back to obsessing over Mueller. And that from a man who had once claimed to be the "only presidential candidate” with a plan to fix Syria.

Like Boot and Kristol, McMullin doesn’t want to fix Syria; he wants to destroy President Trump. 

Jennifer Rubin had accused President Trump of handing Russia a “huge win” by pulling out of Syria. She blamed the chemical attack on Trump’s withdrawal. And then dismissed Trump’s strikes on Syria. If Trump continues bombing Assad, Rubin will acrobatically flip on Syria the way that she did on Iran.

Like Boot, Rubin will start rhapsodizing about the photos of Syrians strolling through parks under Assad.

David Frum meanwhile managed to combine Russia conspiracy theories and opposition to President Trump’s strikes on Assad. “I'd personally like more certainty whether the president and his team have massively lied about their obligations to a hostile foreign power before accepting their leadership of a major military action.” And then he tweeted, “No new wars under this president.” 

Frum stripped away the dishonest politics of the national security trolls which are neither anti-war nor pro-war, but just anti-Trump. Any war that Trump fights must be wrong. Any war he doesn’t fight, must be right. A war can be right until Trump fights it. It’s wrong once he does fight it.

For Frum, as well as McMullin, Kristol and Boot, protecting the Russia conspiracy theory is the priority. Accusing Trump of being Putin’s puppet is more important than actually doing anything about Syria.

By putting Russian conspiracy theories ahead of Syria, Frum is being more honest about his goals than Kristol. The Never Trumper priority isn’t beating Assad or Iran: it’s beating Trump. 

That’s why some Never Trumpers like Rubin have switched from Iran Deal opponents to supporters.

Trump’s Syria strikes are inconvenient because they undermine the central premise of the conspiracy theory. That’s why most Never Trumpers are choosing to ignore them. And the conspiracy theory is a lever for reversing the 2016 election and forcing the President of the United States to leave office.

The Russia conspiracy theory, like all conspiracy theories, can never be disproven. 

Never Trumpers like to talk about “principles”. And principles are a very important trait. But the essence of principles is putting some higher ideal ahead of what you feel and what you want. 

From Comey to Kristol, Trump’s critics parade their principles. But it turns out that they don’t have any.

Principled foreign policy critics would have cheered Trump for bombing Syria as enthusiastically as they had booed him earlier. But the unprincipled Never Trumpers don’t actually believe in anything.

They are against Trump. But they aren’t for anything except invites to establishment cocktail parties.

Never Trumper national security trolling was only a cover for their personal opposition and cynical careerism. They never truly believed Trump was Putin’s puppet. Instead they repeated a Clinton smear because they knew that the Big Lie was what their leftist political allies wanted to hear them say.

And it’s time for them to admit that and apologize for dividing the party, for sabotaging a commander-in-chief and weakening his country.

The Syria strikes have made a mockery of their national security trolling. The average Never Trump national security troll now spends more time churning out Mueller tabloid trash than writing about foreign policy or terrorism. Their international horizons have narrowed down to Russia, countries with a relationship to Russia and countries that have a Trump hotel within a hundred miles of their border.

They’re not patriots, they’re not principled and they’re not foreign policy experts. They’re trolls.

“The onus is on the president-elect to prove he's not Putin's puppet,” Boot wrote.

What could President Trump do that would prove it to Boot, Kristol and the rest of the trolls? Nothing.

Russia conspiracy theories allow the national security trolls to parade as patriots while giving them a ready seat at the table at MSNBC or a column in the Washington Post. And so the goalposts keep moving. If Trump doesn’t bomb Syria, he’s Putin puppet. And when he does bomb Syria, it’s not enough (Boot, Rubin), isn’t really worth talking about (Kristol) and is wrong because he’s Trump (Frum).

The Russia collusion conspiracy theory is a lie. And the lie is undermining our national security.

Instead of being able to come to grips with foreign enemies, the President of the United States is being harassed and handcuffed by fake scandals and fake national security experts. The Never Trump trolls claim to be protecting this country from foreign enemies even as they cripple our ability to fight them.

The onus is now on Never Trumpers to show that they love this country more than they hate Trump.

 

 

Pages