FrontPageMag

Subscribe to FrontPageMag feed
A project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center
Updated: 11 hours 23 min ago

The Left's Beheading Obsession

Fri, 07/20/2018 - 04:10

WARNING: GRAPHIC LANGUAGE AND IMAGES

This week a Portland art gallery chose to display in its front window, facing the sidewalk at a busy intersection, a large black-and-white painting depicting the grisly decapitation of President Donald Trump. The painting is more than just another example of what a grotesque travesty modern artists have made of art. It is also a window into the left’s bloodlust and why progressivism is the totalitarian soulmate of Islamic fundamentalism.

The image at One Grand Art Gallery shows a hunting knife being drawn across the president’s neck as the executioner’s other hand grips Trump’s hair. Blood gushes from POTUS’ throat and streams from his nose while his eyes roll back in his head. Flames rise symbolically from an American flag pin on the president’s lapel, and the image is captioned in large capital letters, “FUCK TRUMP.”

Portland Gallery Puts Graphic Depiction of President Trump Being Beheaded on Public Display https://t.co/shdMEZSMpS pic.twitter.com/tvTbFrhzC2

— Cassandra Fairbanks (@CassandraRules) July 17, 2018

This execrable excuse for art is so vile and violent that it could have been produced by ISIS. It actually was produced by an “artist” apparently named Compton Creep, whose personal website displays extremely disturbing, gruesome samples of his literally satanic work. A local news reporter spoke with him about the Trump painting; art is meant to provoke thought, he said. Of course, this image is the opposite of thought-provoking; it is purely visceral agitprop, which is designed not to spark thought but to replace it with propagandized emotion.

I spoke with the local artist who created this piece, Compton Creep, he says art is supposed to provoke thought. He also says he doesn't believe the gallery should have taken it down. #LiveOnK2 pic.twitter.com/KqUlfbUyr2

— Kellee Azar (@KelleeAzar) July 18, 2018

The image was part of a larger exhibit being hosted by the gallery wittily titled “Fuck You Mr. President,” featuring dozens of other so-called artists expressing their unhinged hatred of the President (a few samples here, but there is no information about this exhibit at the gallery’s website). The illustration drew massive social media anger and condemnation, naturally, which was intentional. On its now-deleted Facebook page (archived here), the gallery owner (whom the media are protecting by refusing to reveal his identity) played the victim by posting the beheading image with the caption, “The same people offended over a ‘death threat’ are the same people upholding death threats & violence. Irony.” The post was later deleted and the illustration removed from the front window, although as of this writing it remains on display inside the gallery.

This is far from the first time anti-Trump hysteria has compelled leftists to depict the beheading of the President. Most notorious (at least, until Creep’s “work” in the Portland gallery exhibit) was purported comedienne Kathy Griffin’s photo of her grimly displaying a mock severed head of the President soaked in fake blood. The uproar over that stunt shocked even the button-pushing Griffin, who complained that her career was suffering from the backlash and that Trump had “broken” her.

Earlier this year a mural painted by someone named Sasha Andrade at a charter school in Southern California portrayed Trump’s severed head impaled on the spear of an Aztec warrior. Then there was the incident at the University of Alaska in Anchorage last year when a professor, frustrated by Hillary Clinton’s election loss to Trump, drew fire for his bizarre painting of Trump’s severed head being held by the actor who plays Captain America in the Marvel movie franchise.

You may also recall that former President Barack Obama’s official portrait artist, Kehinde Wiley, had a penchant for creating works featuring black women beheading white women. Imagine the white-hot fury if President Trump selected as his official portrait artist someone whose oeuvre included whites severing the heads from blacks. Such a choice is unthinkable, and rightly so. But the left was, at best, indifferent to Obama’s unconscionable pick.

If any of these situations was reversed so that conservative artists were openly expressing a sick fascination with decapitating, say, Barack Obama, the left’s outrage would be apocalyptic, and the vast majority of conservatives would be repulsed as well. Remember, if you will, that a rodeo clown was drummed out of his job and banned for life from the Missouri State Fair in 2013 simply for wearing an Obama mask. A conservative who had painted the beheading of Obama would almost certainly have to enter the FBI’s Witness Protection Program (although considering the corruption and bias of the FBI these days, no conservative in that program would be safe).

Even before the 2016 presidential election, but especially since then, leftists have demonstrated over and over again that, like all totalitarians, they operate from a seethingly violent mob mentality. But progressives take a special delight in cutting off the heads of their political opponents and displaying them triumphantly to the crowd. It goes back as far as the French Revolution, which unleashed an absolutely rabid bloodlust that resulted in the beheading by guillotine of thousands of victims, including men, women, and children.

Whom does this remind you of? Oh yes, Islamic fundamentalists, whose proud tradition of beheading captives stretches back many centuries to the very beginning of Islam. As Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer often points out, Qur’an 47:4 urges believers to strike at the necks of unbelievers. Even recent examples are innumerable. Just this week a twenty-year-old British-Bangladeshi named Naa’imur Zakariyah Rahman, arrested last November, was found guilty of plotting to behead Prime Minister Theresa May in a suicide attack on Downing Street.

In this respect, and in many others, the left and jihadists are united in what David Horowitz calls an unholy alliance. Both are collectivist, totalitarian, terroristic, monstrously cruel, and unofficially partnered in a mission to destroy America and Western civilization. Of course, once that mission is accomplished, progressives will find themselves under the knife – but for now they are gleefully indulging in their evil fantasy of holding the blade to Donald Trump’s throat.

The History of Jihad from Muhammad to Isis

Fri, 07/20/2018 - 04:09

Friend, this is what you need to do. Go to your favorite brick-and-mortar store, or your favorite online site, and purchase a copy of Robert Spencer's, "The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS." Producing this book was a tremendous act of courage by Spencer and Bombardier Books. The same opponents of Western Civilization who rioted over the Danish Muhammad cartoons, who slaughtered the team at French humor magazine Charlie Hebdo, who murdered 37 innocent Turks at the Sivas Massacre, and who stabbed and shot the Japanese and Italian translators, and the Norwegian publisher, of Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" – those same dark forces want to riot and stab and bomb and slaughter over the words on these pages. Spencer and Bombardier deserve at the very least your investment in its full purchase price.

Jihad is a sword over your head. You may have been lulled into thinking that your odds are good. After all, there are seven billion people on earth. Compared to that number, the victims of terror attacks make up a negligible fraction. That calculation provides a false sense of security. Dr. Graham Allison, the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at Harvard Kennedy School writes that, "on the current path, nuclear terrorism is inevitable … we would likely see terrorists succeed in their aspirations for an 'American Hiroshima.'"

Even if we are lucky enough to avoid nuclear war, jihad remains as a cultural, not merely a military, struggle. Jihad's victories are won not just on the battlefield, but in American textbooks. Indeed, as the South Park controversy demonstrated, jihad is victorious in deciding when Americans are allowed to laugh. Jihad is aimed even at your right to say the word "jihad," and, accurately, to define it. "While serving as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, John Brennan declared, '…jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering men, women and children." Brennan's definition is BS. You deserve, you need, to know the truth. Jihad is a weapon aimed at you – at your freedoms, your sense of beauty, your relationships, your understanding of your own history and your intellectual honesty. "You" includes everybody. Yes, Muslims, I am talking to you. Jihad has been used, and is being used, as a tool for some Muslims to decide that other Muslims are not Muslim enough. Iran characterized the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war as a jihad. That war killed and injured hundreds of thousands of Muslims. More recently, ISIS justified its genocide of Shia Muslims as jihad.

The book's contents are grim, repugnant, and terrifying. I want you to finish, as well as begin this book, so I will be so bold as to offer advice. Read quickly. Power through. Don't pause. You won't remember the name of every killer, torturer, rapist and thief. That's okay. Get the general idea.

Here's the general idea. Islam emerged approximately 1,400 years ago. Its origins are obscure and disputed. One thing is certain. Arab conquerors, exploiting weaknesses in the aging and warring Roman and Persian Empires, burst out of the Arabian peninsula and, with unprecedented speed, conquered territories from Spain to India. They eventually claimed that their sacred texts, the Koran, hadith, and example of Muhammad, informed and sanctified their warfare. Their sacred texts told these warriors, in explicit terms, to brutalize non-Muslims. Brutalizing methods included decapitation, dismemberment, and the placement of decapitated heads between the corpse's feet. These are all traditional methods of dehumanization and desecration. Sanctioned and modeled tactics also included rape, sex slavery, torture, totalitarian rule, crucifixion, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Muslims were ordered to make war in perpetuity until everyone on earth was a Muslim. Non-Muslims' rights were rigidly curtailed. Fighting and dying in battle was the very best thing that any Muslim could do, and it guaranteed the warrior bliss in paradise. Every good thing in life owed its existence to warfare. "Paradise lies under the shade of swords."

For the past 1,400 years, continuously, without pause, in every century and, eventually, reaching every inhabited continent, Muslims have obeyed these verses. Any given jihad might look something like this. Invaders arrived. They identified themselves as jihadis. They identified their victims, Muslims or not, as infidels. The invaders massacred civilians. They erected mountains of decapitated heads, or they used heads to terrorize their opponents, shooting them from catapults, for example. They took sex slaves. Slaves were so plentiful that slave prices plummeted. Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Hindu, houses of worship were ransacked of their jewels and precious metals. Booty was divided up lavishly among the suddenly enriched jihadis. The wrecked remains of the house of worship were pulverized and the rubble and dust was spread on the road leading to the mosque, so that Muslims could feel, with their every step, their superiority over the highest aspirations of those they humiliated.

Jews and Christians were taxed and forced to wear a distinguishing mark on their clothing, perhaps in the shape of a monkey or pig. They were denied the right to repair their houses of worship, or to ring bells, or to speak of their faith in public. Pagans, including Hindus, were simply massacred. Those who did not massacre enough Pagans were threatened and reminded that to live by their scripture and their prophet's example, they must kill as many as possible, as ruthlessly as possible. Conquerors insisted on sexual access to the prettiest princess, even if only to humiliate her, by, for example, forcing her to work as a household servant while naked. In other cases, the most handsome boy might be demanded for the conqueror's pleasure.

If there was a library, no matter how ancient and revered, it was despoiled. Legend depicts Caliph Omar justified his burning of the books, to heat bathwater, of the library of Alexandria. "The books will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." No one knows if Omar said this, but we do know that both Muslims and non-Muslims believed it, which suggests that enough jihadis behaved like this that it was plausible. Indeed, the same story is told, about the same caliph, regarding the destruction of Persian libraries. It is true that Saladin's son attempted to bring down Egypt's pyramids, because they are un-Islamic. And Muhammad Sa'im al-Dahr did order the removal of the nose of the Sphynx. The remains of the Colossus of Rhodes, that had survived hundreds of years of Christianity, succumbed to Islamic invaders, who sold them as scrap metal. A Muslim ordered that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, site of Jesus' entombment, be razed to bedrock. Hagia Sophia, a millennia-old Christian church, was desecrated and used as a mosque. Countless Hindu temples faced the same fate. Ctesiphon, one of the largest cities in the world, with a mixed population of Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, became a ghost town all but overnight. Muslim conquerors used its bricks to construct their edifices. Buddhist and Hindu kingdoms in what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan provided unimaginable booty to divinely sanctioned plunderers. The territory, as of the 21st century, has never come close to its former glory. Formerly wealthy Afghanistan and Pakistan are today among the countries whose own citizens most long to escape.

This process, or something very like this process, didn't happen once or twice. It didn't just happen during Islam's first hundred or two hundred years. Jihads like this happened over and over. Indeed, biographies of Muhammad describe him as a warrior and raider of caravans who massacred and tortured captives, took sex slaves, and ordered his men to rape captives even in front of their still-living husbands. Across the globe, in a multitude of tongues, jihadis cite the same Koran verses and hadith to sanctify their behavior. Tamerlane, "The Sword of Islam," who is estimated to have killed five percent of the world's population, cited jihad verses. As did the Barbary Pirates who enslaved Americans, and as did Osama bin Laden.

The cultural, as well as the biological, genocide aspect of jihad is also not of the distant past. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini's right hand man, Ayatollah Sadegh Khalkhali, wanted to bulldoze the tomb of Persian emperor Cyrus the Great, the tomb of Iran's national poet, Ferdowsi, and Persepolis, the 2,500 year old royal Persian city. In 2001, the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas, the largest standing Buddha carvings in the world. In 2012 and 2013, jihadis from the Ansar Dine destroyed ancient Muslim shrines and library manuscripts in Timbuktu, Mali. In 2016, ISIS took time out from the murder, torture, and sexual enslavement of human beings to destroy culture, including two-millennia-old Roman structures at Palmyra. Again, these Pagan structures survived hundreds of years of a Christian Middle East. It took devout Muslims to bring them down.

Spencer's book will dispel pernicious, politically motivated canards, including the following: that there was a Golden Age when Islam was peaceful and tolerant and Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, and Hindus lived happy, productive, free lives under its protection; that Islamic terror is a relatively recent innovation, born, in various versions, with the state of Israel, or with Western colonial incursion; that the primary translation of "jihad" should be "peaceful struggle for noble, personal goals;" that the Crusades were an offensive action, or that they started the conflict between Islam and the West, or that their goal was forced conversion of Muslims; that jihad can be "fixed" through actions by non-Muslims. "If only we had a Palestinian state … If only those Hindus were not so fanatical and nationalistic … If only American films did not depict terrorists as Muslims … If only American school children were forced to recite the shahada … If only Americans were not so xenophobic, white supremacist, Christian fascist … If only we keep Tommy Robinson in solitary confinement a bit longer." None of these will ever end jihad.

Critics will bash this necessary book, if they pay any attention to it at all, by insisting that Robert Spencer is an unreliable narrator. It's not Spencer's words that inevitably paint jihad as one of the most lurid, destructive, and grotesque forces in human history. It is Muslim chroniclers and conquerors themselves. Spencer quotes contemporaneous, canonical sources. Muslim chroniclers boast with pride of their string of unprecedented atrocities. "I bring you slaughter," Muhammad said. "I have been made victorious through terror … the treasures of the world were put in my hand," Muhammad bragged, distinguishing himself from previous Jewish and Christian prophets and saints who were, in Muhammad's estimation, longwinded, but not booty-rich warlords like him. Spencer also quotes non-Muslim eyewitnesses, and books published by the university presses of Princeton, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Georgetown, Fairleigh Dickinson, NYU, Crete, the Universities of Pennsylvania and California, and the State University of New York. Indeed, Spencer does not pretend that he is saying anything new or innovative. Rather, he is merely performing the excellent service of providing a reader-friendly outline of 1,400 years of jihad.

Another possible detraction. "Yes, but, if someone published a history of the colonization of the Americas, that would make for very tough reading." No doubt.

First, committing atrocities is a violation of, not obedience to, Biblical mandates. Conversion by force is almost unknown in Judaism, and there is no Old Testament verse that commands Jews to conquer the world or to force Gentiles to become Jews. As early as the fourth century, when, after three centuries of Pagan Roman persecution, Christianity was beginning to gain worldly power, Saint Augustine wrestled with the concept of "just war." Augustine asked, and attempted to answer, when and how is it consistent with Christian belief to take up arms.

When Christians do take up arms wrongly, they violate the example of Christianity's founder, Jesus Christ. Jesus did not make war; he practiced peace. Jesus did not rape captives; he uplifted women, including the most stigmatized: the ritually unclean woman with a hemorrhage, a woman who had been possessed, and the sinful woman taken in adultery. Jesus did not raid caravans and steal their contents; he said "Render unto Cesar what is Cesar's." Jesus did not torture anyone; Jesus healed. Jesus did not practice ethnic cleansing; he and his followers interacted respectfully with their fellow Jews, Roman Pagans, and Africans. Christian scriptures do not recommend murder, rape, theft, or war.

Indeed, Christianity, with lightning speed, with its emphasis on a loving God's relationship to each human, whom he made in his image, became a support for oppressed peoples. Our Lady of Guadalupe was one such support. She is said to have appeared to an Aztec and to have reassured him that Christ's love and promises extended to all people, not just conquistadors. Just so, the Abolitionist Movement was informed by the Biblical narrative of "let my people go."

Second, accounts of Western Christians' misdeeds are plentiful and well-known. These accounts first appear, invariably, at the same time as Western Christians' misdeeds. This is the case because the Judeo-Christian tradition demands self-examination and public confession when one has failed to live up to Biblical ideals. Witness Psalms 32 and 51. King David engineered the death of his rival, Uriah. David begs for forgiveness, and vows to change. God forgives David, but David suffers horribly as the result of his crime. Witness Bartolome de las Casas, a Dominican friar, who recorded, and acted on, crimes committed by conquistadors.

When Christians engage in destructive behaviors, they critique themselves or they are critiqued by others. Indeed, in "The History of Jihad," Robert Spencer himself is quite open about, and critical of, atrocities committed by Crusaders. There are Western scholars whose careers were founded on, or advanced by, their muckraking, exposing the dark side of Western Civilization. Adam Hochschild, the white, male son of a Jewish father and a Christian mother, won numerous awards for "King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa" about a previously little-discussed atrocity. Taylor Branch, a white man from Atlanta in the American South, won a Pulitzer Prize, a National Humanities Medal, and a MacArthur Genius Award. He wrote a massive, three-volume biography of Dr. Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Struggle. John Cornwell, a former Catholic seminarian, won fame with his controversial book, "Hitler's Pope." When Cornwell's many critics found inaccuracies in his work, they did not riot or kill; they wrote and published.

Where are the analogous practitioners of confession, redemption, and repair in the Muslim world? Where were they a thousand years ago? Bartolome de las Casas did not have a voice only. He also had ears willing to hear his words. Inspired by this one friar, Pope Paul III issued a papal bull, Sublimis Dei, insisting on the full humanity of the newly discovered Indians. Can anyone imagine a Muslim de las Casas having a chat with Muhammad, arguing for the full humanity of the kuffar?

Where are the contemporary Muslim historians exposing the brutal history of jihad? Where are their prestigious prizes, university chairs and awards? Where are the passionate Muslim authors dedicating their lives to robbed, enslaved, raped, and murdered kuffars' long-since-evaporated tears? Where are the affirmative action programs for descendants of the Muslim slave trade? Where are the reparations for the Christians Slavs whose Muslims overlords kidnapped their daughters for sex slave markets, their sons for slave armies? Eastern Europe, historians say, is poorer than Western Europe to this day at least partly because Eastern Europe had to devote so much energy to fighting off jihad. Eastern Europeans provided a bulwark that allowed Western Europe to flourish. Where is Eastern Europe's apology? All of these acts of contrition on the part of Muslims exist in the same imaginary dimension where "jihad" means "befriending Christians."

Consider what happens even to the most circumspect of social critics in the Muslim world. Bassem Yousef is often dubbed "the Egyptian Jon Stewart." Youssef's audience and influence dwarfed Stewart's. Youssef's TV program made gentle fun of anti-democratic trends in the Middle East. The powers-that-be, with the participation of average Egyptians, destroyed him. He lives in exile in the US. Consider Orhan Pamuk, a Nobel-Prize-winning novelist in "modern, secular" Turkey. Pamuk merely mentioned the Armenian genocide. Pamuk was criminally charged. His countrymen burned his books. Consider the stabbings, hacking to death with machetes, and other murders of proponents of secular government in contemporary Bangladesh. Consider the fate of Raif Badawi, a Saudi man sentenced to ten years in prison and a thousand lashes because, in his blog, he dared to say things like this, "What increases my pain is the Islamist chauvinist arrogance which claims that innocent blood, shed by barbarian, brutal minds under the slogan 'Allahu Akbar,' means nothing."

In place of the self-examination and self-correction typical of Judeo-Christian cultures, too many apologists have tried not to confront jihad, but merely to redefine it. CAIR has money and power. It could put those resources to use exposing and rejecting violent jihad. Instead, CAIR made a tawdry attempt to pimp "jihad" as a synonym for "calisthenics" and "making friends with Christians." CAIR was topped by the BBC, who dubbed their TV show "My Jihad," "a tender and funny love story." I'm sure viewers can't wait to see the BBC romantic comedy, "My Holocaust."

One must remind those relativists who wish to relative-ize away 1,400 years of jihad, that, yes, all humans, regardless of ethnicity or religion, do destructive things. Motivations include mental illness, fear, and greed for resources, power, or glory. We can't eliminate greed, fear, or psychopathology, but we can tame them with civilized advances like the Geneva Convention, diplomacy, and forensic psychiatry. The concept of jihad adds to an already overburdened humanity another, completely unnecessary, and diabolically seductive reason to kill and destroy. Shahids, or those who die in jihad, are promised the highest paradise, multiple heavenly virgins, and the opportunity to intercede on behalf of, and be granted divine favors for, seventy relatives.

The final nail in the relativist coffin on jihad: the chroniclers Spencer quotes were themselves not sheltered innocents. These people had seen conflict. The Roman and Persian Empires waged war for seven hundred years, on the same territory jihadis first invaded. Both non-Muslim victims and Muslim chroniclers announce that jihadis fought ruthlessly, destroyed totally, and obeyed no previous military convention.

Thought police censors will claim, with zero evidence, that Spencer's book is anti-Muslim. Repeat this as many times as necessary: Muslims are themselves victims of jihad. Muslims are killed. Muslim culture is destroyed. This Muslim-on-Muslim death and destruction is not new. Spencer's book begins with the bloodbath that was proto-Islam. One Arab warlord after another decided that he had a monopoly on Islam, and decided that his neighboring tribe was deviant. Slaughter ensued, all in the name of jihad. The killing was shockingly intimate. Muawiyah, founder of the Umayyad dynasty, Muhammad's brother-in-law and distant cousin, murdered Aisha, Muhammad's widow. One of the oldest copies of the Koran is said to be stained with the blood of Uthman, the very caliph who first called for the Koran to be compiled. His blood was shed by his fellow Muslims.

Immediately upon Muhammad's death, Khalid ibn Al Walid waged war on anyone in Arabia who wasn't in line with emergent Islamic orthodoxy. He was called "the drawn sword of Allah," "the friend of death," and his motto was, "We love death more than you love life." Khalid betrayed and killed his fellow Muslim Malik, put his head in a cooking pot, and raped his wife Layla "like a donkey." "I love the battlefield more than I love my wedding night with a beautiful woman," he said. Khalid had had many "wives." Normal people love life more than they love death, and normal people enjoy making love more than they enjoy killing other human beings. Indeed, the Koran itself, in verse 2:216 says that though Islam "prescribes" fighting" "fighting is hateful" to Muslims. A book exposing jihad is a gift to Muslims as much as it is a gift to the rest of us.

Bernie and the Bolsheviks

Fri, 07/20/2018 - 04:09

While the media-driven leftist hysteria about President Trump’s non-existent electoral collusion with Russia continues to build, the Left continues to ignore the longstanding collaboration of its biggest star with the Communists who used to rule Russia.

That star, of course, is 76-year-old Bernie Sanders, the so-called democratic socialist U.S. senator from Vermont whom the Hillary Clinton-controlled Democratic National Committee quite literally robbed of the Democrats’ 2016 presidential nomination.

The Trump-Russia electoral collusion conspiracy theory and the phony Russian “piss-gate” dossier compiled on the orders of the Clinton campaign, have always seemed farfetched. Similarly, the claim that “Russia ‘hacked’ the American election –to the extent that it changed the outcome– never made any sense,” Michael Walsh has observed

This “fever dream” was “cooked up by Sore Loser Hillary and her malignant consigliere, John Podesta … [and] began its demonic life as a way to explain Mrs. [Hillary] Clinton’s astonishment and anger at losing an election all her media buddies told her was in the bag, and for which she felt sure the fix was in.”

Before November 2016 Democrats “never met a communist they didn’t like or a Russian they didn’t want to embrace,” Walsh wrote. 

Not surprisingly, Comrade Sanders’ ties to Russia are much more substantial than any ties President Trump may have.

Bernie’s top 2016 presidential campaign strategist Tad Devine is mentioned 16 times in a list of 500 newly disclosed potential exhibits that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may use in former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s upcoming trial for failing to register as a foreign agent and related offenses. According to the emails in evidence, at one point Devine was in regular contact with Russian intelligence agents. Devine was a lobbying business partner of Manafort and previously worked for the pro-Kremlin president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. Devine also previously worked for Sanders in the 1990s and as an aide to Al Gore, John Kerry, and Michael Dukakis on their respective presidential campaigns.

Bernie himself has been around Russians and Soviet-era communists a long time.

After he was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in 1979, for a decade he displayed a Soviet flag in his mayoral office, claiming he did so to honor Yaroslavl, Burlington's sister city in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In addition, he made Puerto Cabezas in Communist Nicaragua another sister city of Burlington.

Bernie Sanders honeymooned in the USSR in 1988. While there he spewed anti-American propaganda, claiming housing and health care there was “significantly better” than in the U.S., and adding “the cost of both services is much, much, higher in the United States.” While in the Soviet Union, Sanders almost certainly worked with KGB agents, knowingly or unknowingly, as all friendly high-profile foreign visitors did at the time.

Sanders worked as an organizer for the United Packinghouse Workers Union (UPWU) which was investigated for its Soviet Communist ties by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC). 

In 1989 Sanders addressed the national conference of the U.S. Peace Council, a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) front group. The event focused on how to “end the Cold War” and “fund human needs.”

It needs to be pointed out that interacting with the CPUSA was a dangerous thing. During the Cold War, CPUSA members swore an oath "to the Soviet Union, to a 'Soviet America,' and to the 'triumph of Soviet power in the United States," according to bestselling author and Grove City College political science professor Paul Kengor.

As Accuracy in Media has reported, in the 1980s Sanders "collaborated with Soviet and East German 'peace committees'" whose objective was "to stop President Reagan’s deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe,” according to Accuracy In Media (AIM). Indeed, he “openly joined the Soviets’ 'nuclear freeze' campaign to undercut Reagan’s military build-up.” 

This was happening at the height of the Cold War while the despicable Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) was reaching out to Soviet dictator Yuri Andropov’s KGB to undermine the Reagan administration.

Bernie also gave aid and comfort to allies of the Soviet Union. He travelled to Soviet-backed Communist Cuba in the 1980s where he enjoyed a friendly meeting with Havana's mayor.

In 1985 he visited Nicaragua to celebrate the sixth anniversary of the seizure of power of Daniel Ortega and his Soviet-backed Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government. Sanders wrote an open letter to the people of Nicaragua attacking the Reagan administration, which he claimed was a puppet of corporate interests, for its anti-Communist activities. “In the long run, I am certain that you will win, and that your heroic revolution against the Somoza dictatorship will be maintained and strengthened,” he said.

When he was stateside again, Sanders sent a letter to the White House saying Ortega was interested in meeting with President Reagan to try to negotiate an end to that nation's civil war. Sanders even invited Ortega to visit Burlington.

As Walsh has noted, left-wingers’ love affair with Russia began a long time ago.

Barack Obama, who let Vladimir Putin invade the Crimea, was the most pro-Russian president of my lifetime.

In 2009 Obama killed President Bush’s missile defense program for the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Then he renegotiated the New START nuclear arms agreement, which curbed the U.S. missile defense arsenal while letting the Russians add to theirs. In March 2012 Obama was caught on an open microphone telling then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to wait until after the upcoming election when he would be able to make even more concessions on missile defense. As Russia engaged in what one expert called the largest military buildup since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Obama flipped off Mitt Romney during a presidential debate. After Romney on the campaign trail referred to Russia as “without question, our No. 1 geopolitical foe,” Obama mocked him, saying “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” 

What has President Trump done about the largely exaggerated Russian menace? A lot more than Obama did.

It is true that President Trump is often accused of going off-message, especially on matters concerning Russia. Although Trump’s rhetoric regarding Russia and Putin is frequently measured and diplomatic, his real-life actions regarding Russia have been tough.

Trump expelled 60 Russian operatives from the U.S. and shut down two consulates. He issued sanctions against several individuals and entities in Russia. He issued four separate statements condemning Russia’s poisoning of British citizens on British soil. He signed off on the sale of lethal aid to Ukraine, approved military strikes against the brutal Assad dictatorship in Syria, and has repeatedly criticized Russia’s energy exports to Eastern Europe.

Yet in today’s topsy-turvy political environment, Donald Trump is smeared as an agent of Putin and Bernie Sanders is absurdly hailed as an American patriot.

Blame Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Photo: Marc Nozell

Obama's Delusional Lecture in South Africa

Fri, 07/20/2018 - 04:08

Former President Barack Obama delivered a lengthy speech to an audience of around 15,000 people at the 16th Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture in Johannesburg, South Africa on Tuesday.  Obama leavened his standard rhetoric with effusive praise of Nelson Mandela, who, Obama said, was “one of history’s true giants” and someone whose “progressive, democratic vision” was a model for the world. Obama also praised South Africa’s current President Ramaphosa who, according to Obama, “you can see is inspiring new hope in this great country.” Obama evidently believes that “inspiring new hope” includes government expropriation of land without compensation and plans “to accelerate the land redistribution programme.” 

Obama mentioned Russia in passing, declaring that “Russia, already humiliated by its reduced influence since the collapse of the Soviet Union, feeling threatened by democratic movements along its borders, suddenly started reasserting authoritarian control and in some cases meddling with its neighbors.”

Meddling with its neighbors? Is Obama suffering under some form of amnesia or is he just in a state of denial? Under Obama’s watch, Russia meddled in our presidential election in 2016 without any pushback by the Obama administration. Aside from moving into portions of nearby Ukraine and illegally annexing Crimea, Russia inserted itself into the Syrian civil war on behalf of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad after Obama drew back from his infamous “red line” over the Assad regime’s chemical attack against its own people.

Prior to the 2012 presidential election, Obama was caught on a hot mic colluding with Dmitry Medvedev (who was then the outgoing Russian president) to pass along a message to Vladimir Putin regarding missile defense. “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved,” Obama said in hushed tones, “but it’s important for him [incoming Russian President Putin] to give me space. This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” Medvedev replied. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

Obama set the tone of his appeasement towards Russia early in his first term. As Daniel Greenfield has reminded us, during a meeting held in the summer of 2009 at Putin’s dacha, Obama “listened without a word of protest to Putin’s attack on America.” That should be no surprise. After all, Obama himself made a habit of apologizing for America’s alleged wrongs during his overseas trips as president. Obama also went out of his way to praise the Russian dictator. At the beginning of his talks in 2009 with Putin, Obama said to Putin in flattering terms, “I am aware of not only the extraordinary work that you’ve done on behalf of the Russian people in your previous role as prime minis-, uh, as president, but in your current role as prime minister.”

President Trump, in fact, has imposed more severe sanctions against Russia than Obama did, expelled more Russian “diplomats” from the United States, increased U.S. energy supplies to compete with Russian energy, and provided lethal arms to Ukraine. President Trump is building the military back up to a much more effective deterrent fighting force, and has restored confidence among former Soviet bloc nations such as Poland by reversing Obama's abandonment of plans to install missile defense systems in the region.

Obama said in his Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture speech that China’s economy was based on a “model of authoritarian control combined with mercantilist capitalism.” He added that it was “proper for advanced economies like the United States to insist on reciprocity from nations like China that are no longer solely poor countries, to make sure that they’re providing access to their markets and that they stop taking intellectual property and hacking our servers.” Excellent point, but under Obama’s watch China continued to take our intellectual property and hack our servers. The trade deficit in goods with China grew approximately 150 percent during Obama’s two terms in office. His jawboning did nothing. President Trump is at least trying to use some hardball tactics to move China in the right direction.

Obama noted in his speech the downside of globalism, including its effect on workers. He said, “from their board rooms or retreats, global decision-makers don’t get a chance to see sometimes the pain in the faces of laid-off workers.” It is precisely these forgotten men and women whom Obama neglected to address with solutions to their concerns while he was president. In fact, he did the opposite by pushing for amnesty for illegal immigrants, imposing onerous job-killing regulations, and pursuing globalist job-killing agreements such as the Paris agreement on climate change. After Donald Trump won the election, the president-elect tweeted, “The forgotten man and woman will never be forgotten again.” He has kept his word, putting Americans first. Through substantial tax cuts, elimination of burdensome regulations and withdrawal from job killing globalist agreements, President Trump has created the foundation for a booming economy and the creation of millions of new jobs.  

Obama castigated in his Nelson Mandela speech what he labeled “rabid nationalism and xenophobia,” “strongman politics,” and “far-right parties that oftentimes are based not just on platforms of protectionism and closed borders, but also on barely hidden racial nationalism.” He decried what he claimed was the rejection of “objective truth,” referring as an example to the debate over the extent of climate change and its causes.  “People just make stuff up,” Obama said. “They just make stuff up. We see it in state-sponsored propaganda; we see it in internet driven fabrications, we see it in the blurring of lines between news and entertainment, we see the utter loss of shame among political leaders where they’re caught in a lie and they just double down and they lie some more.” While Obama did not specifically mention President Trump or the Republican Party by name, it is not too far a stretch to assume that he had both in mind when he came up with these “pearls of wisdom.” 

It is not “racial nationalism,” “rabid nationalism” or “xenophobia” for the president of the United States to enforce this nation’s immigration laws and place the security of the American people above all else. Obama failed to discharge his paramount responsibility as president to protect the American people. Donald Trump is carrying out his responsibilities as the nation’s chief executive and commander-in-chief.  

Regarding Obama’s lament that people “just make stuff up,” he was guilty of doing just that on repeated occasions while president. He lied repeatedly, for example, about the availability of choice of doctor and insurance provider under Obamacare. He lied about the Iran nuclear deal, or was totally duped by Iran’s thuggish leaders, or both. He lied about the origin of the “Fast and Furious” gun walking program that allowed about 2,000 weapons to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartel associates, which was started early in the Obama administration’s first term, not during the Bush administration as Obama claimed. He lied when he proclaimed, "There is no spying on Americans." The list goes on and on. 

Finally, there is Obama’s complaint about “strongman politics,” which “are ascendant, suddenly, whereby elections and some pretense of democracy are maintained, the form of it, but those in powers seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning.” Obama is right to be concerned about the ascendancy of “strongman politics.” However, it is too bad he did not worry so much about this phenomenon while he was president. He initially turned his back on the millions of Iranian citizens protesting in the streets in 2009 against a fraudulent election and the repressive theocratic regime running the country. Behind the scenes Obama sucked up to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei with personal letters and other assurances that his administration would not rock the boat against the regime, all to keep his dream of what turned out to be a disastrous nuclear deal with Iran alive. 

Obama accepted a gift from Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez of a book entitled Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. Obama said it "was a nice gesture to give me a book. I'm a reader." This was nothing, however, compared to Obama’s obsequiousness to his host in Havana, Cuban strongman Raúl Castro, as the two leaders met to close the door on decades of hostilities between Cuba and the United States. Indeed, Obama offered to open the door wide to re-establishing diplomatic relations and expanding economic ties with the communist country without receiving any commitments in return that the regime would take concrete steps to improve its human rights record. In fact, during their joint news conference, Obama noted in his own remarks Castro’s criticism of “what he views as short comings in the United States around basic needs for people and poverty and inequality and race relations.” Obama added that “we welcome that constructive dialogue as well because we believe that when we share our deepest beliefs and ideas with an attitude of mutual respect that we can both learn and make the lives of our people better.” Obama was engaging in moral equivalency at its worst.

Obama had eight years to address the problems he complained about in his Nelson Mandela speech in South Africa. He failed and in some ways made matters worse. President Trump deserves a chance to try a different approach that puts the American people first.

The History of Jihad from Muhammad to Isis

Fri, 07/20/2018 - 04:08

Friend, this is what you need to do. Go to your favorite brick-and-mortar store, or your favorite online site, and purchase a copy of Robert Spencer's, "The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS." Producing this book was a tremendous act of courage by Spencer and Bombardier Books. The same opponents of Western Civilization who rioted over the Danish Muhammad cartoons, who slaughtered the team at French humor magazine Charlie Hebdo, who murdered 37 innocent Turks at the Sivas Massacre, and who stabbed and shot the Japanese and Italian translators, and the Norwegian publisher, of Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" – those same dark forces want to riot and stab and bomb and slaughter over the words on these pages. Spencer and Bombardier deserve at the very least your investment in its full purchase price.

Jihad is a sword over your head. You may have been lulled into thinking that your odds are good. After all, there are seven billion people on earth. Compared to that number, the victims of terror attacks make up a negligible fraction. That calculation provides a false sense of security. Dr. Graham Allison, the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at Harvard Kennedy School writes that, "on the current path, nuclear terrorism is inevitable … we would likely see terrorists succeed in their aspirations for an 'American Hiroshima.'"

Even if we are lucky enough to avoid nuclear war, jihad remains as a cultural, not merely a military, struggle. Jihad's victories are won not just on the battlefield, but in American textbooks. Indeed, as the South Park controversy demonstrated, jihad is victorious in deciding when Americans are allowed to laugh. Jihad is aimed even at your right to say the word "jihad," and, accurately, to define it. "While serving as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, John Brennan declared, '…jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering men, women and children." Brennan's definition is BS. You deserve, you need, to know the truth. Jihad is a weapon aimed at you – at your freedoms, your sense of beauty, your relationships, your understanding of your own history and your intellectual honesty. "You" includes everybody. Yes, Muslims, I am talking to you. Jihad has been used, and is being used, as a tool for some Muslims to decide that other Muslims are not Muslim enough. Iran characterized the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war as a jihad. That war killed and injured hundreds of thousands of Muslims. More recently, ISIS justified its genocide of Shia Muslims as jihad.

The book's contents are grim, repugnant, and terrifying. I want you to finish, as well as begin this book, so I will be so bold as to offer advice. Read quickly. Power through. Don't pause. You won't remember the name of every killer, torturer, rapist and thief. That's okay. Get the general idea.

Here's the general idea. Islam emerged approximately 1,400 years ago. Its origins are obscure and disputed. One thing is certain. Arab conquerors, exploiting weaknesses in the aging and warring Roman and Persian Empires, burst out of the Arabian peninsula and, with unprecedented speed, conquered territories from Spain to India. They eventually claimed that their sacred texts, the Koran, hadith, and example of Muhammad, informed and sanctified their warfare. Their sacred texts told these warriors, in explicit terms, to brutalize non-Muslims. Brutalizing methods included decapitation, dismemberment, and the placement of decapitated heads between the corpse's feet. These are all traditional methods of dehumanization and desecration. Sanctioned and modeled tactics also included rape, sex slavery, torture, totalitarian rule, crucifixion, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Muslims were ordered to make war in perpetuity until everyone on earth was a Muslim. Non-Muslims' rights were rigidly curtailed. Fighting and dying in battle was the very best thing that any Muslim could do, and it guaranteed the warrior bliss in paradise. Every good thing in life owed its existence to warfare. "Paradise lies under the shade of swords."

For the past 1,400 years, continuously, without pause, in every century and, eventually, reaching every inhabited continent, Muslims have obeyed these verses. Any given jihad might look something like this. Invaders arrived. They identified themselves as jihadis. They identified their victims, Muslims or not, as infidels. The invaders massacred civilians. They erected mountains of decapitated heads, or they used heads to terrorize their opponents, shooting them from catapults, for example. They took sex slaves. Slaves were so plentiful that slave prices plummeted. Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Hindu, houses of worship were ransacked of their jewels and precious metals. Booty was divided up lavishly among the suddenly enriched jihadis. The wrecked remains of the house of worship were pulverized and the rubble and dust was spread on the road leading to the mosque, so that Muslims could feel, with their every step, their superiority over the highest aspirations of those they humiliated.

Jews and Christians were taxed and forced to wear a distinguishing mark on their clothing, perhaps in the shape of a monkey or pig. They were denied the right to repair their houses of worship, or to ring bells, or to speak of their faith in public. Pagans, including Hindus, were simply massacred. Those who did not massacre enough Pagans were threatened and reminded that to live by their scripture and their prophet's example, they must kill as many as possible, as ruthlessly as possible. Conquerors insisted on sexual access to the prettiest princess, even if only to humiliate her, by, for example, forcing her to work as a household servant while naked. In other cases, the most handsome boy might be demanded for the conqueror's pleasure.

If there was a library, no matter how ancient and revered, it was despoiled. Legend depicts Caliph Omar justified his burning of the books, to heat bathwater, of the library of Alexandria. "The books will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." No one knows if Omar said this, but we do know that both Muslims and non-Muslims believed it, which suggests that enough jihadis behaved like this that it was plausible. Indeed, the same story is told, about the same caliph, regarding the destruction of Persian libraries. It is true that Saladin's son attempted to bring down Egypt's pyramids, because they are un-Islamic. And Muhammad Sa'im al-Dahr did order the removal of the nose of the Sphynx. The remains of the Colossus of Rhodes, that had survived hundreds of years of Christianity, succumbed to Islamic invaders, who sold them as scrap metal. A Muslim ordered that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, site of Jesus' entombment, be razed to bedrock. Hagia Sophia, a millennia-old Christian church, was desecrated and used as a mosque. Countless Hindu temples faced the same fate. Ctesiphon, one of the largest cities in the world, with a mixed population of Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, became a ghost town all but overnight. Muslim conquerors used its bricks to construct their edifices. Buddhist and Hindu kingdoms in what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan provided unimaginable booty to divinely sanctioned plunderers. The territory, as of the 21st century, has never come close to its former glory. Formerly wealthy Afghanistan and Pakistan are today among the countries whose own citizens most long to escape.

This process, or something very like this process, didn't happen once or twice. It didn't just happen during Islam's first hundred or two hundred years. Jihads like this happened over and over. Indeed, biographies of Muhammad describe him as a warrior and raider of caravans who massacred and tortured captives, took sex slaves, and ordered his men to rape captives even in front of their still-living husbands. Across the globe, in a multitude of tongues, jihadis cite the same Koran verses and hadith to sanctify their behavior. Tamerlane, "The Sword of Islam," who is estimated to have killed five percent of the world's population, cited jihad verses. As did the Barbary Pirates who enslaved Americans, and as did Osama bin Laden.

The cultural, as well as the biological, genocide aspect of jihad is also not of the distant past. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini's right hand man, Ayatollah Sadegh Khalkhali, wanted to bulldoze the tomb of Persian emperor Cyrus the Great, the tomb of Iran's national poet, Ferdowsi, and Persepolis, the 2,500 year old royal Persian city. In 2001, the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas, the largest standing Buddha carvings in the world. In 2012 and 2013, jihadis from the Ansar Dine destroyed ancient Muslim shrines and library manuscripts in Timbuktu, Mali. In 2016, ISIS took time out from the murder, torture, and sexual enslavement of human beings to destroy culture, including two-millennia-old Roman structures at Palmyra. Again, these Pagan structures survived hundreds of years of a Christian Middle East. It took devout Muslims to bring them down.

Spencer's book will dispel pernicious, politically motivated canards, including the following: that there was a Golden Age when Islam was peaceful and tolerant and Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, and Hindus lived happy, productive, free lives under its protection; that Islamic terror is a relatively recent innovation, born, in various versions, with the state of Israel, or with Western colonial incursion; that the primary translation of "jihad" should be "peaceful struggle for noble, personal goals;" that the Crusades were an offensive action, or that they started the conflict between Islam and the West, or that their goal was forced conversion of Muslims; that jihad can be "fixed" through actions by non-Muslims. "If only we had a Palestinian state … If only those Hindus were not so fanatical and nationalistic … If only American films did not depict terrorists as Muslims … If only American school children were forced to recite the shahada … If only Americans were not so xenophobic, white supremacist, Christian fascist … If only we keep Tommy Robinson in solitary confinement a bit longer." None of these will ever end jihad.

Critics will bash this necessary book, if they pay any attention to it at all, by insisting that Robert Spencer is an unreliable narrator. It's not Spencer's words that inevitably paint jihad as one of the most lurid, destructive, and grotesque forces in human history. It is Muslim chroniclers and conquerors themselves. Spencer quotes contemporaneous, canonical sources. Muslim chroniclers boast with pride of their string of unprecedented atrocities. "I bring you slaughter," Muhammad said. "I have been made victorious through terror … the treasures of the world were put in my hand," Muhammad bragged, distinguishing himself from previous Jewish and Christian prophets and saints who were, in Muhammad's estimation, longwinded, but not booty-rich warlords like him. Spencer also quotes non-Muslim eyewitnesses, and books published by the university presses of Princeton, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Georgetown, Fairleigh Dickinson, NYU, Crete, the Universities of Pennsylvania and California, and the State University of New York. Indeed, Spencer does not pretend that he is saying anything new or innovative. Rather, he is merely performing the excellent service of providing a reader-friendly outline of 1,400 years of jihad.

Another possible detraction. "Yes, but, if someone published a history of the colonization of the Americas, that would make for very tough reading." No doubt.

First, committing atrocities is a violation of, not obedience to, Biblical mandates. Conversion by force is almost unknown in Judaism, and there is no Old Testament verse that commands Jews to conquer the world or to force Gentiles to become Jews. As early as the fourth century, when, after three centuries of Pagan Roman persecution, Christianity was beginning to gain worldly power, Saint Augustine wrestled with the concept of "just war." Augustine asked, and attempted to answer, when and how is it consistent with Christian belief to take up arms.

When Christians do take up arms wrongly, they violate the example of Christianity's founder, Jesus Christ. Jesus did not make war; he practiced peace. Jesus did not rape captives; he uplifted women, including the most stigmatized: the ritually unclean woman with a hemorrhage, a woman who had been possessed, and the sinful woman taken in adultery. Jesus did not raid caravans and steal their contents; he said "Render unto Cesar what is Cesar's." Jesus did not torture anyone; Jesus healed. Jesus did not practice ethnic cleansing; he and his followers interacted respectfully with their fellow Jews, Roman Pagans, and Africans. Christian scriptures do not recommend murder, rape, theft, or war.

Indeed, Christianity, with lightning speed, with its emphasis on a loving God's relationship to each human, whom he made in his image, became a support for oppressed peoples. Our Lady of Guadalupe was one such support. She is said to have appeared to an Aztec and to have reassured him that Christ's love and promises extended to all people, not just conquistadors. Just so, the Abolitionist Movement was informed by the Biblical narrative of "let my people go."

Second, accounts of Western Christians' misdeeds are plentiful and well-known. These accounts first appear, invariably, at the same time as Western Christians' misdeeds. This is the case because the Judeo-Christian tradition demands self-examination and public confession when one has failed to live up to Biblical ideals. Witness Psalms 32 and 51. King David engineered the death of his rival, Uriah. David begs for forgiveness, and vows to change. God forgives David, but David suffers horribly as the result of his crime. Witness Bartolome de las Casas, a Dominican friar, who recorded, and acted on, crimes committed by conquistadors.

When Christians engage in destructive behaviors, they critique themselves or they are critiqued by others. Indeed, in "The History of Jihad," Robert Spencer himself is quite open about, and critical of, atrocities committed by Crusaders. There are Western scholars whose careers were founded on, or advanced by, their muckraking, exposing the dark side of Western Civilization. Adam Hochschild, the white, male son of a Jewish father and a Christian mother, won numerous awards for "King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa" about a previously little-discussed atrocity. Taylor Branch, a white man from Atlanta in the American South, won a Pulitzer Prize, a National Humanities Medal, and a MacArthur Genius Award. He wrote a massive, three-volume biography of Dr. Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Struggle. John Cornwell, a former Catholic seminarian, won fame with his controversial book, "Hitler's Pope." When Cornwell's many critics found inaccuracies in his work, they did not riot or kill; they wrote and published.

Where are the analogous practitioners of confession, redemption, and repair in the Muslim world? Where were they a thousand years ago? Bartolome de las Casas did not have a voice only. He also had ears willing to hear his words. Inspired by this one friar, Pope Paul III issued a papal bull, Sublimis Dei, insisting on the full humanity of the newly discovered Indians. Can anyone imagine a Muslim de las Casas having a chat with Muhammad, arguing for the full humanity of the kuffar?

Where are the contemporary Muslim historians exposing the brutal history of jihad? Where are their prestigious prizes, university chairs and awards? Where are the passionate Muslim authors dedicating their lives to robbed, enslaved, raped, and murdered kuffars' long-since-evaporated tears? Where are the affirmative action programs for descendants of the Muslim slave trade? Where are the reparations for the Christians Slavs whose Muslims overlords kidnapped their daughters for sex slave markets, their sons for slave armies? Eastern Europe, historians say, is poorer than Western Europe to this day at least partly because Eastern Europe had to devote so much energy to fighting off jihad. Eastern Europeans provided a bulwark that allowed Western Europe to flourish. Where is Eastern Europe's apology? All of these acts of contrition on the part of Muslims exist in the same imaginary dimension where "jihad" means "befriending Christians."

Consider what happens even to the most circumspect of social critics in the Muslim world. Bassem Yousef is often dubbed "the Egyptian Jon Stewart." Youssef's audience and influence dwarfed Stewart's. Youssef's TV program made gentle fun of anti-democratic trends in the Middle East. The powers-that-be, with the participation of average Egyptians, destroyed him. He lives in exile in the US. Consider Orhan Pamuk, a Nobel-Prize-winning novelist in "modern, secular" Turkey. Pamuk merely mentioned the Armenian genocide. Pamuk was criminally charged. His countrymen burned his books. Consider the stabbings, hacking to death with machetes, and other murders of proponents of secular government in contemporary Bangladesh. Consider the fate of Raif Badawi, a Saudi man sentenced to ten years in prison and a thousand lashes because, in his blog, he dared to say things like this, "What increases my pain is the Islamist chauvinist arrogance which claims that innocent blood, shed by barbarian, brutal minds under the slogan 'Allahu Akbar,' means nothing."

In place of the self-examination and self-correction typical of Judeo-Christian cultures, too many apologists have tried not to confront jihad, but merely to redefine it. CAIR has money and power. It could put those resources to use exposing and rejecting violent jihad. Instead, CAIR made a tawdry attempt to pimp "jihad" as a synonym for "calisthenics" and "making friends with Christians." CAIR was topped by the BBC, who dubbed their TV show "My Jihad," "a tender and funny love story." I'm sure viewers can't wait to see the BBC romantic comedy, "My Holocaust."

One must remind those relativists who wish to relative-ize away 1,400 years of jihad, that, yes, all humans, regardless of ethnicity or religion, do destructive things. Motivations include mental illness, fear, and greed for resources, power, or glory. We can't eliminate greed, fear, or psychopathology, but we can tame them with civilized advances like the Geneva Convention, diplomacy, and forensic psychiatry. The concept of jihad adds to an already overburdened humanity another, completely unnecessary, and diabolically seductive reason to kill and destroy. Shahids, or those who die in jihad, are promised the highest paradise, multiple heavenly virgins, and the opportunity to intercede on behalf of, and be granted divine favors for, seventy relatives.

The final nail in the relativist coffin on jihad: the chroniclers Spencer quotes were themselves not sheltered innocents. These people had seen conflict. The Roman and Persian Empires waged war for seven hundred years, on the same territory jihadis first invaded. Both non-Muslim victims and Muslim chroniclers announce that jihadis fought ruthlessly, destroyed totally, and obeyed no previous military convention.

Thought police censors will claim, with zero evidence, that Spencer's book is anti-Muslim. Repeat this as many times as necessary: Muslims are themselves victims of jihad. Muslims are killed. Muslim culture is destroyed. This Muslim-on-Muslim death and destruction is not new. Spencer's book begins with the bloodbath that was proto-Islam. One Arab warlord after another decided that he had a monopoly on Islam, and decided that his neighboring tribe was deviant. Slaughter ensued, all in the name of jihad. The killing was shockingly intimate. Muawiyah, founder of the Umayyad dynasty, Muhammad's brother-in-law and distant cousin, murdered Aisha, Muhammad's widow. One of the oldest copies of the Koran is said to be stained with the blood of Uthman, the very caliph who first called for the Koran to be compiled. His blood was shed by his fellow Muslims.

Immediately upon Muhammad's death, Khalid ibn Al Walid waged war on anyone in Arabia who wasn't in line with emergent Islamic orthodoxy. He was called "the drawn sword of Allah," "the friend of death," and his motto was, "We love death more than you love life." Khalid betrayed and killed his fellow Muslim Malik, put his head in a cooking pot, and raped his wife Layla "like a donkey." "I love the battlefield more than I love my wedding night with a beautiful woman," he said. Khalid had had many "wives." Normal people love life more than they love death, and normal people enjoy making love more than they enjoy killing other human beings. Indeed, the Koran itself, in verse 2:216 says that though Islam "prescribes" fighting" "fighting is hateful" to Muslims. A book exposing jihad is a gift to Muslims as much as it is a gift to the rest of us.

 

The Real Colluder-in-Chief

Fri, 07/20/2018 - 04:07

President Donald Trump’s recent performance at Helsinki was not optimal. Questions tossed at Trump regarding Russian meddling in the 2016 elections were not unexpected and could have been handled in a more nuanced fashion. Nevertheless, the Left’s response to the summit can best be described as unhinged.

Democrats and their mainstream media allies, who've accused Trump of treason, collusion and “high crimes and misdemeanors,” have demonstrated an unmatched level of disingenuousness and hypocrisy. In just under two years, Trump has done more to thwart Russian aggression than his predecessor did in eight. He increased the defense budget and improved the military’s state of readiness, provided lethal military aid to the Ukrainian army, blunted Russian influence in Syria, imposed tough sanctions against Russia and transformed hundreds of Russian mercenaries who threatened U.S. interests in Syria into burnt toast. Trump also substantially loosened crushing regulations imposed by Obama against the U.S. energy sector and has adopted an aggressive stance in advancing U.S. energy interests to the detriment of Russia and other oil-producing nations.

If anyone can be accused of betraying America’s interests, it is Barack Obama, who consistently adopted toxic policies and positions which distanced allies and kowtowed to enemies. 

Let us not forget that it was Obama who was picked up on a hot mic telling Putin’s stooge, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, that “after the elections, I have more flexibility,” to which an approving Medvedev responded, “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

Let us not forget that it was Obama who was dismissive of Gov. Mitt Romney’s assertion that Russia posed the greatest geopolitical challenge to U.S. interests. In a condescending tone he told Romney, “…the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years…”

Let us not forget that it was Obama who slighted our Polish and Czech NATO partners when he decided to scrap a missile defense agreement negotiated by the Bush administration. The unilateral and inexplicable decision to nix the deal appeared to be an attempt to appease Putin while leaving the Poles and the Czechs out in the cold.

Let us not forget that under Obama, Russia gained access to 20 percent of America’s uranium mining capacity under the now infamous Uranium One deal. In addition, Obama initiated a so-called Russia re-set which was aimed at improving relations but which resulted in the one-way transfer of sensitive U.S. technology to the Russians. Needless to say, that technology almost certainly made its way into the Russian military. 

Let us not forget that it was Obama who failed to enforce his own red lines when Bashar Assad used sarin gas against his own people. Obama was then thoroughly outmaneuvered by Putin who patched together a deal which allowed Assad to emerge relatively unscathed. Despite the deal, which called for the removal of WMDs from Syria, Assad continued to use chemical weapons while Obama remained impotent.

Let us not forget that it was Obama who released five Taliban captains for deserter Bowe Bergdahl without giving Congress the requisite legal notice and then tried to peddle the notion through his oleaginous media echo chamber that Bergdahl “served with honor and distinction.” Bergdahl was later charged with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy and was dishonorably discharged.

Let us not forget that it was Obama who gave the Iranians $1.7b in cash, stacked on pallets, in exchange for four hostages the Iranians were holding. The money was almost certainly diverted by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to fund overseas terrorist operations. Obama also freed several Iranian operatives and dropped arrests warrants on others even though they were deeply involved in procuring weapons systems and critical infrastructure for the Iranian military and its rogue nuclear program. The Obama administration deliberately obfuscated this from Congress and the American people. 

And let us not forget that it was the Obama administration that quashed Project Cassandra, a promising Drug Enforcement Agency operation aimed at infiltrating and thwarting Hezbollah drug smuggling, money laundering and arms trafficking schemes. Analysts believe that Obama was fearful of disrupting the Iran deal and therefore derailed Project Cassandra due to its devastating impact on Iran’s proxy terrorist group. 

Many of Trump’s shrillest critics were responsible for implementing some of these deleterious policies including Obama’s former counterterrorism adviser and CIA director, John “al Quds” Brennan. In 1976, during the height of the Cold War, Brennan voted for Communist Party head Gus Hall. That speaks volumes about what kind of person Brennan is. A bombshell Politico report suggested that Brennan was also partly responsible for shelving Project Cassandra. Under Brennan’s skewed outlook, Hezbollah was an evolving organization that contained “moderate elements.” That’s akin to saying that there were “moderate Nazis” in the Reich.

Those calling for Trump’s head over his performance at Helsinki overlook the fact that actions speak louder than words and judging by these, a demonstrably clearer picture of the true Putin lackey and colluder-in-chief emerges. Democrats and their “resistance” allies in the mainstream media would be better served by reviewing the record before frothing at the mouth and making groundless accusations rooted in fantasy and petty partisanship.  

  

The Genocidal Assault on Nigeria's Christians

Fri, 07/20/2018 - 04:06

With the election of President Trump and the reported rise of nationalist parties across the Western world, leftists in America and beyond are having a blast self-styling as “resistors” to “fascism.” 

They are outraged explicitly over the so-called “Islamophobia” of the President’s “travel ban.” 

Yet the perpetually indignant, unsurprisingly, are utterly silent regarding the massive slaughter and persecution by Muslims of Christians throughout Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

For example, how many people know that just last month, over a span of four days, militant Islamic Fulani herdsmen embarked on a killing spree that reduced a dozen Nigerian villages to dust and claimed the lives of at least 200 Christian men, women, and children?  

Open Doors, an organization dedicated to serving persecuted Christians throughout the world, describes these targeted villages as Nigeria’s Plateau State, and describes the region as “the epicenter of Christianity in northern Nigeria’s Middle Belt.”  The organization is still trying to piece together the events surrounding the genocidal attack of Nigerian Christians on June 25th,

According to reports, 120 villagers were hunted down and hacked to death by machete-wielding Muslims while traveling home from the funeral of an elderly villager in In the Nigerian ward of Gidin Akwati.

Also slaughtered that day was a Christian pastor, the Reverend Musa Choji -  murdered by these savages along with his wife and son. 

These terrorists scorched the entire community of Gidin Akwatito the ground.  Reports claim that some of those forced to flee their homes are now hiding in the Bush - remaining ever vulnerable to future attacks.

In a neighboring community of Gidin Akwati , another Christian pastor reported “more than 50 heavily armed Fulani herdsmen” laid waste to his whole village via fire and murdered 100 of his neighbors. Predictably, these Islamic militants destroyed that town's Christian churches while also laying waste to all the homes in the community. Remarkably few people managed to save themselves that day.

This pastor’s wife’s childhood home was also “decimated” - home to 15 people and another unlucky 13 visitors.  

World Watch Monitor reports that the two soldiers and one police officer who was present in the village of Nghar during the attack fled when the Islamic militants invaded. 

Although the violence appears to have climaxed during this one June weekend, the region had been a tinderbox for months. Pastor Steve Kwol, chairman of the Pentecostal Federation of Nigeria for Plateau North, shares details:

“We’ve been living peacefully” with the Fulani herdsmen, he begins. “Since this crisis started in Plateau in recent months, our people have not killed one Fulani man.” However, “they have been killing our people one by one.  We just buried them and carried on.” 

Continuing, Pastor Kwol states that as a consequence of “the ongoing insecurity, there are places where people can no longer go farm,” for when they do, “the Fulani will come and take their cows, or attack them.” 

The pastor painfully reveals the trauma that he personally suffered:  “Just two weeks ago, they shot my wife’s young brother. But he survived. He was discharged on Wednesday and had returned home on Thursday, only to get killed in the last attack, on Saturday.” 

Community members insist that these attacks are part of “a grand plan to Islamize Nigeria.”  According to a Dr. Soja Bewarang, the murders are “no longer farmer and herder clashes” but, rather, a “deliberate attempt to conquer and occupy the land of the people’s ancestral heritage.” 

Reverend Gideon Para-Mallam maintains that the violence, constituting as it makes a steady pattern, is “another Boko Haram in disguise.” 

And speaking of Boko Haram, though the terrorist organization remains alive and well, no one, least of all “the Resistance” and “MeToo” crowd, has shown the inclination to utter a peep about it. 

Yet,  in addition to engaging in the destruction of villages and churches and the perpetration of mass murder, from 2009 to the present, Boko Haram has kidnapped as many as 3,000 women and girls. There are concerns that it is spreading throughout Southeast Africa.

In predominantly Christian Mozambique, throughout June, the members of a Sunni Muslim sect visited a reign of terror upon the residents of the villages that they targeted. Armed with AK-47s and machetes, groups of Muslim men destroyed hundreds of homes and murdered several people—all while loudly reading Arabic words from the Quran. 

The terrorists tormented one elderly man who tried,  in vain,  to make a run for it.  They caught him and beheaded him in front of horrified bystanders. 

A woman named Anshia relays her account of the horror that she endured in Mozambique: She was asleep when she awoke to the sound of gunfire. “I was running behind my husband and my three older children when I remembered that I had left the baby in my room. I went back.”  

At this point, the thugs had already set her home ablaze. One of them “grabbed my hand and slapped me in the face,” knocking her to the floor. It was at this point that she was able to escape.  

Thankfully, she successfully retrieved her unharmed child. 

Where do the self-appointed enemies of “fascism” and “Islamophobia” in the West stand on this, and other acts of profiling, abuse, and murder of innocent blacks and women in Africa?  That's right - crickets.

Photo: Steve Evans

A Tale of Two Killings

Fri, 07/20/2018 - 04:05

Reprinted from City-Journal.org.

Last Sunday, a 59-year-old woman on the West Side of Chicago was killed by a would-be carjacker. The felon walked up to the driver’s side of the car, which was being driven by a 71-year-old man, and pulled his gun. The senior citizen refused to surrender the vehicle and kept driving. The would-be carjacker opened fire at the car, striking the woman in the head and killing her.

The night before, on the South Side, a Chicago officer killed a 37-year-old man whom the officer’s patrol partners had observed behaving in a manner suggesting that he was carrying a gun. The officers tried to question Harith Augustus, and he appeared to pull something from his wallet, according to police body-camera footage, possibly his firearms owner-identification card. One officer tried to grab Augustus (the police report said that he became combative), but he pulled away and ran into the street, where he appeared to reach for the gun holstered on his right hip. One of the officers opened fire and killed him. Augustus’s gun was recovered at the scene.

True to script, the officer-involved shooting sparked violent street anarchy on Saturday night, instigated by Black Lives Matter, the Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, and other anti-cop activist groups. Protesters threw rocks and bottles, some filled with urine, at officers. Four officers were injured. Chants included “How do you spell racist? CPD [Chicago Police Department],” and “Murderers.” Protests have continued, drawing intense local media and political attention. “This department is racist . . . and we’re tired of it,” said one of the organizers.

There were no protests against the taking of the carjacking victim’s life. Carjackings have nearly tripled in Chicago since 2015, averaging two per day in 2017 and close to that in 2018. In August 2016, officers tried to pull over a car involved in an earlier carjacking; someone inside the car opened fire and hit one of the officers in the face. The shooter was on parole for attempted armed robbery. In January 2017, a teen carjacker ambushed a 34-year-old mother in an alleyway where she had been parking her car. His initial blow to her head with his gun was so severe that it temporarily blinded her. “Quit trying to kick back, you white bitch,” the assailant said as he pistol-whipped her. Before the attack, the mother had noticed a van suspiciously idling in the alleyway, but decided to continue about her business, likely second-guessing herself about “racial profiling.” In March 2017, a man with a gun forced a 24-year-old woman into the trunk of her car and raced it around the South Side until crashing into a tree. In August 2017, a 28-year-old entrepreneur and student was fatally shot in his car when he refused to hand it over to the carjacker. In November 2017, a pair of thugs accosted an 88-year-old man and stole his Lincoln at gunpoint. They almost immediately crashed into a semitrailer truck and retaining wall; one of the two felons died in the crash.

In the first six months of 2018, more than 60 children under 15 have been shot in Chicago. In June alone, an 11-year-old boy was shot in the head; a 12-year-old girl was killed as she was carrying her baby cousin; and a 14-year-old boy was gunned down by a passing car. Black Lives Matter activists have nothing to say about this violence because it does not involve police officers. Officer-involved shootings are a minute fraction of Chicago’s ongoing carnage—in 2016, they made up 0.5 percent of all shootings in the city. The foot patrol that accosted Augustus was in the neighborhood—the CPD’s Third District—because the local alderman, residents, and business owners had requested greater police protection. The area had seen an increase in open-air drug deals. So far this year, there have been 69 shootings in the Third District, a little under a dozen a month, 15 of them fatal. A witness reported to the Chicago Sun-Times that Augustus was selling “loosies”—single untaxed cigarettes—a practice that shop owners loathe for its contribution to an atmosphere of street lawlessness.

Black Lives Matter has thankfully lost its sounding board in the White House. But at the local level, away from the Resistance-obsessed national media radar screen, its anti-cop poison continues to distort policing and police-community relations. It is a tragedy for Augustus’s family and acquaintances that he lost his life; the shooting must be thoroughly investigated. If any tactical changes are needed to lessen the risk that a police encounter escalates into the use of lethal force, they should be implemented through rigorous hands-on training. But the officers were right to approach an apparently armed man, especially given the area’s record of shootings. Such proactive policing has dropped precipitously in Chicago, resulting in a sharp rise in violent crime since 2014. (Law professors Paul Cassell and Richard Fowles empirically connect the drop in stops to rising crime in this 2018 paper.)

The anti-cop violence against the CPD for a shooting that, though deeply unfortunate, appears to be justified will further lessen officers’ willingness to intervene in suspicious behavior. A Chicago detective told me, in the wake of Saturday’s violence: “Those who care about law enforcement and a civil society cannot win against willful blindness and straight-up lies. This is an open civil war that goes quite beyond Chicago.” The demoralization of law enforcement continues, and it is the law-abiding residents of high-crime areas who will continue paying the price.

Paul Joseph Watson Video: The Truth About Migrants

Fri, 07/20/2018 - 04:01

In this new video, Paul Joseph Watson tells The Truth About Migrants and asks: What is really happening to Europe?

 

Trump Stood Up to Putin, Obama Appeased Him

Thu, 07/19/2018 - 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

“How did we get into this mess?" Obama asked Putin.

It was the summer of ’09 and the two men, one a former community organizer and the other a former KGB officer, were sitting on the veranda of Putin’s dacha. While Obama noshed on three types of pricey caviar, Putin took a bite out of his junior colleague by delivering an extended denunciation of America.

Obama listened without a word of protest to Putin’s attack on America. According to Michael McFaul, his point man on Russia who has been attacking Trump prominently in the media, "the history lesson was even rather helpful because it enabled him to emphasize to Putin: well, I'm different, I'm new."

Putin’s litany of American foreign policy crimes was cunningly fitted to the politics of the left. On that summer day, Russia wasn’t an enemy, but a victim of the Bush administration’s cowboy diplomacy. And Obama was seeking common ground with Russia, Iran and the Brotherhood against the Republicans.

By different, Obama meant that he didn’t care about traditional alliances or national interest. Selling out American allies like Poland had gotten Barry a taste of Vladimir’s beluga. The cost of the caviar was missile defense for Eastern Europe. America wanted it there and the Russians didn’t.

The caviar followed Hillary Clinton’s comically disastrous reset button push. Both Hillary and Obama needed these photo ops. Putin didn’t need the photos. He wanted concessions. And he got them.

The betrayal and abandonment of Poland was only the first of Obama’s many concessions to Putin.

The architects of Obama’s appeasement of Putin have been some of the most militant voices denouncing Trump. McFaul among them. Trump has been accused of making concessions to Putin. But, unlike Obama, Trump made zero concessions to Putin. Not on missile defense. Or on anything else.

Instead President Trump has steadily reversed Obama’s tide of concessions to Putin.

The media is outraged over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But when that happened, Ukraine asked for weapons and the only aid that Obama offered their country was MREs. It took months for Obama to come through with boots and tires. Meanwhile Trump has delivered actual weapons.

Why did Obama refuse to provide Ukraine with weapons? According to senior officials, to avoid antagonizing Moscow. Trump isn’t afraid of Russia. Obama however was shaking in his loafers.

While Trump approved anti-tank missiles for Ukraine, Obama slow-walked shipments of boots, putting them on trucks instead of planes so that they took months to arrive, so as not to upset the Russians. Meanwhile the Trump administration cut the red tape by dipping into its own European stockpiles.

In the time it took Obama to ship boots to Ukraine, Trump shipped Javelin missiles.

Obama shelved missile defense for Poland and the Czech Republic. Trump cut a multi-billion deal for selling Patriot missiles to Poland. When Obama provided Patriot missiles to Poland, he neglected to mention that the batteries would not actually contain missiles. The ambassador to Poland, had noted, "The Poles have not been told that the battery will rotate without actual missiles... but it will also not be operational, and certainly interoperable... this will be a question of basic definitions for the Poles: is it a Patriot battery if it doesn't have live missiles?" Trump’s missile deal comes with actual missiles.

When Obama’s old foreign policy hands crowd the green rooms of CNN and MSNBC, when they pen editorials for Foreign Policy and the Washington Post, accusing Trump of betraying Eastern Europe to Russia, remember these are same people who sent fake missiles on Poland to go with the fake news.

Every new president is entitled to the occasional foreign policy blunder. But sacrificing Poland to Putin wasn’t a singular event. Three years later, Obama was caught on a hot mic assuring Medvedev, Putin’s political flunky, that he needed space on, “missile defense” until the Republicans were defeated.

“This is my last election," Obama wheedled. "After my election I have more flexibility.”

“I understand," Medvedev offered. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

Obama was conspiring with Putin against the American people. He was assuring Putin’s man that he would have more flexibility to appease Russia after he had fooled America.

The media has been screaming that Trump was a traitor, when it was their man who sold out to Putin, while President Trump held the line on missile defense without caring about what Moscow thought.

And it wasn’t just missile defense in Eastern Europe.

Obama’s obsession with dismantling our national defenses led him to ignore Russian violations of the INF treaty. Not only did Obama ignore the violations which had been going for an entire term, but he and his political allies helped cover them up. The motive was a mix of appeasement and cover-up.

“We’re not going to pass another treaty in the U.S. Senate if our colleagues are sitting up here knowing somebody is cheating," John Kerry said.

Obama officials lied about Russian treaty violations to Congress while pushing new treaties with Russia. Then they went on to pull the same trick over their fake WMD deals with Russia’s allies in Syria and Iran. Each time, violations were ignored and a fake agreement was trumpeted by Obama for political gain.

The caviar conference in ’09 set the template for eight years of Obama’s sellouts of America.

The Obama administration hid the Russian violations, not only from Americans, but from NATO. When a former Obama official piously lectures Trump about the importance of NATO, he ought to be asked why his administration put Putin ahead of NATO. The media ought to be asked why it ignored the violations.

In the winter of last year, the media buzzed with stories about Russia deploying a new cruise missile in violation of the INF. And, as the New York Times put it, “challenging Trump”.  But when Russia was violating the INF under Obama, the media accepted the Ben Rhodes spin about smart diplomacy. All the smart appeasement in the world though failed to get compliance or punish the Russian violations.

Instead Obama sold out America by unilaterally complying with a treaty that the Russians were violating.

The Russians rolled Obama on the INF and START treaties. Then they rolled him on Assad’s chemical weapons. And then they went for a triple score by rolling him on Iran’s nuclear program.

That’s how we got into this mess.

Obama did not care about missile defense. The diplomatic outreach of the newly selected leader traded resets with enemies for the betrayal of allies. In Egypt, Obama would abandon Mubarak to the Muslim Brotherhood. When democracy protests broke out in Iran, Obama urged waiting for the dust to settle. The resets were paid with the blood of Iranian protesters, with Christian churches in Egypt and with the Russian expansionism that would lead to the loss of Flight MH-117 and the annexation of Crimea.

The media has spent a day losing its mind because of what President Trump said or didn’t say. Yet Obama not only obsequiously praised Putin, “I am aware of not only the extraordinary work that you’ve done on behalf of the Russian people in your previous role as prime minis-, uh, as president, but in your current role as prime minister,” not only failed to stand up for America when Putin lashed out at the United States, but betrayed us in deeds.

Obama thought of the world as moving in tune to his speeches. His old associates are angry that Trump hasn’t said the right words. But Trump knows that it’s not words that move the world, but actions.

Unlike Obama, Trump doesn’t just talk, he acts.

We do not measure Obama by his words, but by his actions. It was not his speeches that mattered, but the empty Patriot batteries in Poland and the trucks taking two months to deliver boots to Ukraine.

If you doubt who actually stood up to Putin, don’t ask the media. Ask Ukraine and Poland.

We are being lectured on appeasement, treason and weakness by the very people who dismantled our nuclear defenses, who sold off our uranium to Russia, and who rewarded Iran for its nuclear program.

None of their speeches will wash away their appeasement, their cowardice and their treason.

Unlike Obama, President Trump sold weapons to Ukraine. Unlike Obama, he bombed Assad. Unlike Obama, he provided Poland with working Patriot missiles. Unlike Obama, he stood up to Russia.

Hating Lincoln

Thu, 07/19/2018 - 04:09

President Trump has once again drawn the sneers and condescension of the Leftist establishment media with his claim that “I am the most popular person in the history of the Republican Party—92 percent. Beating Lincoln. I beat our Honest Abe.” Lincoln, sniffed Newsweek, “died a decade before the telephone, which is used for polling, was even invented, and about 80 years before job approval polls for presidents started.” CNN intoned magisterially, “That’s a hard claim to back up.”

But lost in the media contempt was the salient fact that Lincoln, as revered as he has been since his death, was a wildly unpopular President in his day, even within his own party. As Trump continues to receive relentlessly negative media coverage despite a booming economy and outstanding success against ISIS and with North Korea, this is good to keep in mind.

Just before Lincoln took office, the Salem Advocate from his home state of Illinois editorialized that “he is no more capable of becoming a statesman, nay, even a moderate one, than the braying ass can become a noble lion.” Lincoln’s “weak, wishy-washy, namby-pamby efforts, imbecile in matter, disgusting in manner, have made us the laughing stock of the whole world.” The Salem Advocate argued, just as Trump’s critics do today, that the President embarrassed Americans before the world: “the European powers will despise us because we have no better material out of which to make a President.”

The Salem Advocate wasn’t alone; the most respected pundits in the nation agreed that Lincoln was an embarrassment as President. Edward Everett, a renowned orator, former Senator and Secretary of State, and 1860 Vice Presidential candidate for the Constitutional Union Party, wrote that Lincoln was “evidently a person of very inferior cast of character, wholly unequal to the crisis.” Congressman Charles Francis Adams, the son of one President and grandson of another, sneered that Lincoln’s “speeches have fallen like a wet blanket here. They put to flight all notions of greatness.”

Critics decided what they saw as Lincoln’s despotic tendencies, often denouncing the very things for which Lincoln is revered as great today. When he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, the Chicago Times decried it as “a monstrous usurpation, a criminal wrong, and an act of national suicide.” The Crisis of Columbus Ohio sounded the alarm as hysterically as John Brennan crying treason after Trump’s press conference with Vladimir Putin: “We have no doubt that this Proclamation seals the fate of this Union as it was and the Constitution as it is.…The time is brief when we shall have a DICTATOR PROCLAIMED, for the Proclamation can never be carried out except under the iron rule of the worst kind of despotism.”

On the day the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, January 1, 1863, former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, former Supreme Court justice, said that Lincoln was “shattered, dazed and utterly foolish. It would not surprise me if he were to destroy himself.”

The Gettysburg Address didn’t go over any better. Edward Everett spoke for two hours just before Lincoln, and was showered with accolades. One man who was in the crowd, Benjamin French, recounted: “Mr. Everett was listened to with breathless silence by all that immense crowd, and he had his audience in tears many times during his masterly effort.” One of the reporters present, John Russell Young, praised Everett’s “antique courtly ways, fine keen eyes, the voice of singular charm.”

The Harrisburg Patriot & Union, by contrast, in its account of the commemoration at Gettysburg wrote: “We pass over the silly remarks of the President. For the credit of the nation we are willing that the veil of oblivion shall be dropped over them and that they shall be no more repeated or thought of.”

Everett himself, an experienced speaker who knew good oratory when he heard it, thought otherwise, writing to Lincoln: “I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes.” In response, Lincoln was grateful but self-deprecating: “I am pleased to know that, in your judgment, the little I did say was not entirely a failure.”

Lincoln did not even command much respect within his own party. The poet and lawyer Richard Henry Dana wrote to Charles Francis Adams in 1863 that “the most striking thing” about “the politics of Washington” was “the absence of personal loyalty to the President. It does not exist. He has no admirers, no enthusiastic supporters, none to bet on his head. If a Republican convention were to be held to-morrow, he would not get the vote of a State.”

In 1864, Lincoln was indeed renominated, but in a way that left Attorney General Edward Bates disgusted: “The Baltimore Convention,” he wrote, “has surprised and mortified me greatly. It did indeed nominate Mr. Lincoln, but…as if the object were to defeat their own nomination. They were all (nearly) instructed to vote for Mr. Lincoln, but many of them hated to do it.”

This is not to say that Trump is a new Lincoln, or that he will be as heralded after his administration as a distant memory the way Lincoln has been. But the lesson is clear: contemporary opinion doesn’t always line up with historical assessment. A notably unpopular President in his day, Abraham Lincoln, has become one of the iconic heroes of the Republic. It could happen again, and likewise the reverse could happen: the near-universal accolades and hosannas that today greet Barack Obama may one day, in the harsh light of history, appear to have naïve, wrongheaded, and foolish in the extreme – at best.

Ted Kennedy and the KGB

Thu, 07/19/2018 - 04:08

Editors’ note: In light of the Left's deranged hysteria in response to President Trump's recent press conference with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, marked by pathological accusations that Trump has engaged in "treason," Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to a forgotten story of verifiable scheming with the Kremlin -- by the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy against President Ronald Reagan. We are reprinting below Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s 2008 interview with Dr. Paul Kengor, who unearthed documentation detailing Kennedy's outreach to the KGB and Soviet leader Yuri Andropov during the height of the Cold War, in which the Democratic Senator offered to collude with the Soviets to undermine President Reagan. There were no screams of moral indignation, or accusations of treason, about this matter from the Left at that time -- nor since.

Ted Kennedy and the KGB.
Frontpage Magazine, May 15, 2008.


Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Paul Kengor, the author of the New York Times extended-list bestseller God and Ronald Reagan as well as God and George W. Bush and The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. He is also the author of the first spiritual biography of the former first lady, God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life. He is a professor of political science and director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College.

FP: Paul Kengor, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

Kengor: Always great to be back, Jamie.

FP: We’re here today to revisit Ted Kennedy’s reaching out to the KGB during the Reagan period. Refresh our readers’ memories a bit.

Kengor: The episode is based on a document produced 25 years ago this week. I discussed it with you in our earlier interview back in November 2006. In my book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, I presented a rather eye-opening May 14, 1983 KGB document on Ted Kennedy. The entire document, unedited, unabridged, is printed in the book, as well as all the documentation affirming its authenticity. Even with that, today, almost 25 years later, it seems to have largely remained a secret.

FP: Tell us about this document.

Kengor: It was a May 14, 1983 letter from the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, to the head of the USSR, the odious Yuri Andropov, with the highest level of classification. Chebrikov relayed to Andropov an offer from Senator Ted Kennedy, presented by Kennedy’s old friend and law-school buddy, John Tunney, a former Democratic senator from California, to reach out to the Soviet leadership at the height of a very hot time in the Cold War. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president---Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, “very impressed” with Andropov.

The thrust of the letter is that Reagan had to be stopped, meaning his alleged aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid, needed to be stopped. It was Ronald Reagan who was the hindrance to peace. That view of Reagan is consistent with things that Kennedy said and wrote at the time, including articles in sources like Rolling Stone (March 1984) and in a speeches like his March 24, 1983 remarks on the Senate floor the day after Reagan’s SDI speech, which he lambasted as “misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes.”

Even more interesting than Kennedy’s diagnosis was the prescription: According to Chebrikov, Kennedy suggested a number of PR moves to help the Soviets in terms of their public image with the American public. He reportedly believed that the Soviet problem was a communication problem, resulting from an inability to counter Reagan’s (not the USSR’s) “propaganda.” If only Americans could get through Reagan’s smokescreen and hear the Soviets’ peaceful intentions.

So, there was a plan, or at least a suggested plan, to hook up Andropov and other senior apparatchiks with the American media, where they could better present their message and make their case. Specifically, the names of Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters are mentioned in the document. Also, Kennedy himself would travel to Moscow to meet with the dictator.

Time was of the essence, since Reagan, as the document privately acknowledged, was flying high en route to easy re-election in 1984.

FP: Did you have the document vetted?

Kengor: Of course. It comes from the Central Committee archives of the former USSR. Once Boris Yeltsin took over Russia in 1991, he immediately began opening the Soviet archives, which led to a rush on the archives by Western researchers. One of them, Tim Sebastian of the London Times and BBC, found the Kennedy document and reported it in the February 2, 1992 edition of the Times, in an article titled, “Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file.”

But this electrifying revelation stopped there; it went no further. Never made it across the Atlantic. Not a single American news organization, from what I can tell, picked up the story. Apparently, it just wasn’t interesting enough, nor newsworthy.

Western scholars, however, had more integrity, and responded: they went to the archives to procure their own copy. So, several copies have circulated for a decade and a half.

I got my copy when a reader of Frontpage Magazine, named Marko Suprun, whose father survived Stalin’s 1930s genocide in the Ukraine, alerted me to the document. He apparently had spent years trying to get the American media to take a look at the document, but, again, our journalists simply weren’t intrigued. He knew I was researching Reagan and the Cold War. He sent me a copy. I first authenticated it through Herb Romerstein, the Venona researcher and widely respected expert who knows more about the Communist Party and archival research beyond the former Iron Curtain than anyone. I also had a number of scholars read the original and the translation, including Harvard’s Richard Pipes.

Of course, all of those steps were extra, extra, extra precautions, since the reporter for the London Times had done all that work in the first place. He went into the archive, pulled it off the shelf, and the Times ran with the story. This wasn’t rocket science. I simply wanted to be extra careful, especially since our media did not cover it at all. I now understand that that blackout by the American media was the result of liberal bias. At first I didn’t think our media could be that bad, even though I knew from studies and anecdotal experience that our press is largely liberal, but now I’ve learned firsthand that the bias is truly breathtaking.

FP: So what shockwaves did your exposure of this document set off in the media?

Kengor: Well, I thought it would be a bombshell, which it was, but only within the conservative media.

I prepared myself to be pilloried by the liberal mainstream media, figuring I’d be badgered with all kinds of hostile questions from defenders of Ted Kennedy. I still, at this very moment, carry photocopies and the documentation with me in my briefcase, ready for access at a moment’s notice. I’ve done that for two years now. The pages may soon begin to yellow.

I need not have bothered with any of this prep, since the media entirely ignored the revelation. In fact, the major reviewers didn’t even review the book. It was the most remarkable case of media bias I’ve ever personally experienced.

I couldn’t get a single major news source to do a story on it. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC. Not one covered it.

The only cable source was FoxNews, Brit Hume’s “Grapevine,” and even then it was only a snippet in the round-up. In fact, I was frustrated by the occasional conservative who didn’t run with it. I did a taping with Hannity & Colmes but they never used it, apparently because they were so focused on the mid-term elections, to the exclusion of almost any other story or issue. The Hannity & Colmes thing was a major blow; it could’ve propelled this onto the national scene, forcing the larger media to take note. That was the single greatest disappointment. I think Sean Hannity might have felt that I wasn’t hard enough on Senator Kennedy during the interview. He asked me, for instance, if what Kennedy did could be classified as treason. I told him honestly, as a scholar, that I really couldn’t answer that question. I honestly don’t know the answer to that; I’m not a constitutional scholar. I don’t have the legal background to accuse someone of being a traitor. I was trying to be as fair as possible.

Rush Limbaugh, God bless him, appreciated it. He talked about it at least twice. So did blogs like Michelle Malkin’s HotAir. Web sources like FrontPage hit it hard. But without the mainstream news coverage, the story never made the dent I expected it would.

I should note that Ed Klein of Parade magazine recently contacted me. He himself got a rude awakening on the media’s liberal bias when he wrote a negative book on Hillary Clinton. I’ve not heard back from him. But he’s a rare case of journalistic objectivity.

If I may vent just a little more on the mainstream press, Jamie: There’s a bias there that really is incredibly troubling. Over and over again, I’ve written and submitted the most careful op-eds, trying to remove any partisan edge, on issues like Reagan and Gorbachev privately debating the removal of the Berlin Wall (I have de-classified documents on this in The Crusader as well), on Reagan’s fascinating relationship with RFK, on various aspects of the Cold War that are completely new, based on entirely new evidence from interviews and archives. When I submit these op-ed to the major newspapers, they almost always turn them down. The first conservative source that I send them to always jump at them. The liberals, however, are very close-minded. Nothing is allowed to alter the template. You can construct the most fair, iron-tight case, and they turn it down. This is not true for everything I write on the Cold War era, but no doubt for most of it. And certainly for the case of Senator Kennedy and this KGB document.

FP: How about trying to place some op-eds on the Kennedy document?

Kengor: Here again, all the mainstream sources turned me down. I had no alternative but to place the op-eds in the conservative outlets. Liberal editors blacklisted the piece. I began by sending a piece to the New York Times, where the editor is David Shipley, who’s extremely fair, and in fact has published me before, including a defense I wrote on the faith of George W. Bush. This one, however, he turned down. He liked it. It certainly had his intention. But he said he wouldn’t be able to get it into the page.

I sent it to the Boston Globe, three or four times, actually. I got no response or even the courtesy of an acknowledgment. It was as if the piece was dispatched to the howling wilderness of Siberia—right into the gulag—airbrushed from history.

The most interesting response I got was from the editorial page editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, another very fair liberal, a great guy, who since then has retired. He published me several times. We went back and forth on this one. Finally, he said something to the effect, “I just can’t believe that Ted Kennedy would do something this stupid.” My reply was, “Well, he apparently did.” I told the editor that if he was that incredulous, then he or someone on his staff should simply call Kennedy’s office and get a response. Hey, let’s do journalism and make news! It never happened.

For the record, one news source, a regional cable outlet in the Philadelphia area, called CN8, took the time to call Kennedy’s office. The official response from his office was not to deny the document but to argue with the interpretation. Which interpretation? Mine or Chebrikov’s? Kennedy’s office wasn’t clear on that. My interpretation was not an interpretation. I simply tried to report what Chebrikov reported to Andropov. So, I guess Kennedy’s office was disputing Chebrikov’s interpretation, which is quite convenient, since Chebrikov is dead, as is Andropov. Alas, the perfect defense—made more perfect by an American media that will not ask the senator from Massachusetts a single question (hard or soft) on this remarkable incident.

FP: So, Kennedy’s office/staff did not deny the document?

Kengor: That’s correct. They have not denied it. That’s important. Because if none of this had ever happened, and if the document was a fraud, Kennedy’s office would simply say so, and that would be the end of it.

FP: Tell us about the success the book has had in the recent past and the coverage it has received outside of the U.S.

Kengor: The paperback rights were picked up by the prestigious HarperPerennial in 2007, which I’m touting not to pat myself on the back but to affirm my point on why our mainstream press should take the book and the document seriously. The book has also been or is in the process of being translated into several foreign-language editions, including Poland, where it was released last November. It is literally true that more Polish journalists have paid attention to the Kennedy revelation than American journalists. I’ve probably sold about 20 times more copies of the book in Poland, where they understand communism and moral equivalency, than in Massachusetts.

FP: One can just imagine finding a document like this on an American Republican senator having made a similar offer to the Nazis. Kennedy has gotten away with this. What do you think this says about our culture, the parameters of debate and who controls the boundaries of discourse?

Kengor: History is determined by those who write it. There are the gatekeepers: editors, journalists, publishers. The left’s ideologues are guarding the gate, swords brandished, crusaders, not open to other points of view. The result is a total distortion of “history,” as the faithful and the chosen trumpet their belief in tolerance and diversity, awarding prizes to one another, disdainful and dismissive of the unwashed barbarians outside the gate.

You can produce a 550-page manuscript with 150-pages of single-space, 9-point footnotes, and it won’t matter. They could care less.

FP: So, this historical revelation is not a revelation?

Kengor: That’s right, because it is not impacting history—because gatekeepers are ignoring it.

Another reason why the mainstream media may be ignoring this: as I make clear in the book, this KGB document could be the tip of the iceberg, not just with Kennedy but other Democrats. John Tunney himself alluded to this in an interview with the London Times reporter. That article reported that Tunney had made many such trips to Moscow, with additional overtures, and on behalf of yet more Democratic senators. Given that reality, I suppose we should expect liberal journalists to flee this story like the plague—at least those too biased to do their jobs.

For the record, I’ve been hard on liberal journalists in this article, and rightly so. But there are many good liberal journalists who do real research and real reporting. And it’s those that need to follow up on this. I’m a conservative, and so I’m not allowed into the club. Someone from inside the boys’ club needs to step up to the plate.

FP: All of this is in sync with David Horowitz’s and Ben Johnson’s new book, Party of Defeat, isn’t it? As the book demonstrates, many Democrats are engaging in willful sabotage in terms of our security vis-à-vis Islamo-Fascism today. And as the Kennedy-KGB romance indicates, a good portion of Democrats have always had a problem in reaching out to our enemies, rather than protecting our national security. Your thoughts?

Kengor: Obviously, as you know and suggest, this does not apply to all Democrats, needless to say. But there are many liberal Democrats who were dupes during the Cold War and now are assuming that role once again in the War on Terror. President Carter comes to mind, as does John Kerry, as does Ted Kennedy, to name only a few. When I read President Carter’s recent thoughts on Hamas, it transported me back to 1977 and his stunning statements on the Iranian revolution, or to 1979 and his remarks on the Soviets and Afghanistan. Many of these liberals and their supporters on the left literally see the conservative Republican in the Oval Office as a greater threat to the world than the insane dictators overseas that the likes of Reagan and George W. Bush were/are trying to stop. That’s not an exaggeration. Just ask them.

History is repeating itself, which can happen easily when those tasked to report and record it fail to do so because of their political biases.

FP: Paul Kengor, thank you for joining us.

Kengor: Thank you Jamie.

The Free Tommy Demo and the Muslim Bus Driver

Thu, 07/19/2018 - 04:03

Saturday’s Free Tommy Robinson rally in Whitehall in London was another heavily attended get-together. The speakers weren’t as bombastic, flamboyant, or as well-known as speakers from previous events, but you can’t have the same people all of the time. People have busy diaries and schedules, and it’s a good thing that the organizers are bringing in such a wide variety of speakers from across Europe, Australia and the States, all of whom have different messages and point of views to put across. The day passed peacefully. The mood was hopeful, jubilant and merry. The weather was glorious, and families had brought their children along to enjoy the day. It was the perfect day for the mainstream media to capture a whole host of wonderful images, and to show the world that Tommy supporters are simply everyday people and not a bunch of thugs. But it’s no surprise that they didn’t do this.

When the festivities came to a close, the crowd departed along Whitehall, making their way to Trafalgar Square and beyond. At the end of the last rally, a bunch of drunken idiots chose to sit on the road and block the traffic, in spite of several requests from other attendees who insisted that they leave the area peacefully. And, of course, these were the only images that made the front pages of the newspapers, along with headlines that screamed something about “far-right violence.” The same thing happened again on Saturday, even although the speakers and compere pleaded with everyone to leave the area without a fuss, which the majority of people did. At the top of Whitehall, at Trafalgar Square, there is a roundabout, and at this roundabout some handful of demonstrators, again, chose to stand or lie on the road and block the oncoming traffic. This time, the same as last time, it happened to be a bus at the front of the traffic they were attempting to stop.

The driver of the bus was a Muslima in a headscarf, although it should be noted that the bus wasn’t targeted because a Muslima was at the wheel. The last time this happened, the driver was a middle-aged white man. On both occasions, it was the bus that was targeted and not the driver. The focus was on blocking the road and bringing the traffic to a halt. Anti-Trump supporters had shut down central London the day before, and earlier on Saturday afternoon the police refused to allow pro-Trump supporters to gather outside of the US Embassy to show their support for the President. Also, it should be noted that on both occasions, both bus drivers could do nothing more than stay in their seats and wait for the police to disperse the crowd in order that their buses could continue on their way.

The last time this happened, when the white middle-aged bus driver was at the wheel, the newspapers focused on the disruption by the “far-right” drunken mob. This time, the reporters ran with the headline that a Muslima in a headscarf demonstrated to the world everything that is great about Britain. She, like the other white bus driver, sat calmly, sometimes smiling, and always waiting for police direction. She, unlike the white bus driver, is now being touted as the face of everything that makes Britain great – tolerance, patience, a sense of humour, the ability to laugh in the face of a perceived threat by “nazis,” courage and the refusal to leave her station (even although she and her passengers were never in any danger, and there was never any reason as to why she or the other bus driver should have abandoned their vehicles).

So again, the people of the UK are being treated to incredibly misleading news from the biased media, as well as being relegated to second place behind Muslims. It is remiss of the media to make much of this Muslima’s behaviour when it was simply an exact replica of the middle-aged white man’s behaviour, the man who was at the wheel of the last bus that got stopped by protesters. On both occasions, police surrounded the vehicle and the passengers and driver were never in any danger. It is misleading headlines and biased news stories such as this one that are making British people feel like second-class citizens in their own country, suggesting that we’ve forgotten what it is that makes us one of the greatest countries in the world. Courage, humor, tolerance, and patience are human attributes that are not exclusively the domain of people in headscarves.

THE LEFT'S EMBARRASSING PLEA FOR OPEN BORDERS

Thu, 07/19/2018 - 04:02
Pro law-and-order immigration advocates in America whine about the emotional arguments and unhinged publicity stunts used by the open borders/abolish-ICE anarchists to sway public opinion.
 
But, when they use these emotional arguments, the abolish ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) crowd are merely playing to their own personal strengths: irrationality, magical thinking, and projection. The important issue is that law-and-order advocates, like us, have failed abysmally to use our own emotional arguments in changing minds on the immigration topic.
 
Indeed, the most persuasive emotional arguments strongly favor secure borders and effective immigration law enforcement.
 
Let’s begin by understanding that a nation’s leaders should be most concerned about the safety, well being and futures of its own citizens the same way that rational parents must prioritize the safety and well being of their own children above all others. From a nurturing perspective, pro law-and-order immigration advocates will have an edge by using this argument.
 
While we are on the topic of children, consider how the DREAM Act and then DACA were sold to us on the lies that this legislative detritus was supposed to help “young immigrants” who were brought here as children and had no control over their situation.  
 
Of course, those “young immigrants” could have been in their mid-thirties and simply had to claim to have been present in the U.S. prior to their 16th birthdays.  Then, when that bill failed to pass, President Obama cobbled together DACA -- again claiming that this was about the children because, “Congress had failed to act.” I wrote about this deception in my article, DACA: The Immigration Trojan Horse, How the original DREAM act was designed to cover 90% of the illegal alien population in the US. 
 
Now the press,  and the Democrats along with certain judges, have gone off the deep end where an estimated 3,000 children have been separated from their parents along the U.S. Mexican border when they were caught being smuggled into the United States.
 
Various religious and charitable organizations like T'ruah and Church World Services have turned this into a media circus. Psychologists have been rushed in to help treat these “traumatized” children. 
 
Had their own caregivers not brought these children across the border - in a brazen act of law-breaking - there would be no separation between family members.  The caregivers took those illegal and irresponsible actions.  The Trump administration was compelled to act as a consequence of the actions of those law-breaking caregivers.
 
Many of those children were not brought into the United States by their parents,  but by human traffickers - this fact has been ignored by the media. Those children’s lives were endangered when they were brought by criminals, with whom their parents possibly conspired with in an effort to circumvent our immigration laws.    
 
Even the children brought here by their parents or other family members were placed at risk by the arduous trek across dangerous terrain -- with it's sweltering temperatures, poisonous insects and snakes at every few feet, and with roving murderous thugs of the drug cartels waiting to pounce on innocent people.
 
The incredible hypocrisy is that those now demanding the demise of ICE are deafeningly silent on the mental condition, and the ultimate fate, of American children in foster care.  
 
The website Children’s Rights Children’s Rights posted a section on Foster Care that included the following statistics:
 
On any given day, there are nearly 438,000 children in foster care in the United States.
 
On average, children remain in state care for nearly two years and six percent of children in foster care have languished there for five or more years.
 
Despite the common perception that the majority of children in foster care are very young, the average age of kids entering care is 7.
 
 
While most children in foster care live in family settings, a substantial minority — 12 percent — live in institutions or group homes.
 
Many of the children were taken from their families in the U.S. because their parents were incarcerated, were homeless or were, in one way or another deemed unfit to care for their own children.
 
Where is the news coverage about this foster care crisis that involves a far greater number of children in the United States? How many psychologists are rushing to comfort these hundreds of thousands of children in America who are in foster care, not for several weeks but as noted above, in some cases, for years?
 
Once again, the so-called “concerns” about children that have been exploited to evoke antagonism for the Trump administration and immigration law enforcement, are as fake as their other arguments.
 
The facts are crystal clear: our immigration laws have nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity.  Safety, security and employment opportunities for Americans, irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity are at the foundation of America’s immigration laws.
 
The bullying tactic employed by the immigration anarchists whereby they accuse pro-law-and-order immigration advocates of being racists and xenophobes is quickly dispelled by reviewing a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens.
 
This section of law enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded from the United States.  There are absolutely no references about race, religion or ethnicity.  Rather, this section of law that guides CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors at America’s ports of entry.
 
Among these categories are:  aliens who were previously deported (removed), aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable diseases or are severely mentally ill and prone to violence, and aliens who are criminals, spies, war criminals, human rights violators or terrorists.  Exclusions include: aliens who would likely become public charges or work illegally, thereby displacing and suppressing the wages of American workers and lawful immigrant workers.
 
Open borders and a lack of interior enforcement of our immigration laws has enabled transitional gangs to enter the United States and establish themselves in towns and cities around the country.   Recent news of MS-13 gang activity has outraged the American public but the problem has persisted for decades and involves Latin American gangs as well as gangs from around the world.  As an INS agent,  I investigated and arrested criminals from nearly every continent.  Human nature is universal.  All humans bleed red and among all races, religions, and ethnicities we find examples of “The good, the bad and the ugly.”
 
I focused on this issue in my article, America's Gang Crisis: Congressional Hearings Focus On MS-13.
 
The 9/11 Commission, to which I provided testimony, made it clear that multiple failures of the immigration system enabled terrorists, and not only the 19 terrorist-hijackers who attacked our nation on September 11, 2001 but a list of others, to enter the United States and embed themselves.
 
Thousands of innocent people have lost their lives to foreign criminals and international terrorists.  Does this not evoke strong emotions?
 
My family, my neighbors and I lived through the terror attack on September 11, 2001, nearly 17 years ago, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that the attacks left those who witnessed them shaken to the core and causing many to still suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), forever impacting them and their well being.
 
 
That news report began with this excerpt:
Psychological damage has led to a higher risk for heart attack and stroke among civilian 9/11 rescuers and recovery workers, according to a study to be released Tuesday.
 
The American Heart Association interviewed more than 6,841 non-firefighter workers and untrained volunteers who were at Ground Zero following the attacks on Sept. 11, and found that PTSD cases were twice as prevalent than among the general population. Heart attacks and strokes among those blue collar crew members with PTSD were 2.35 times higher than the rest of the 9/11 workers, according to the study.
America has been too willing to permit foreign workers to enter the United States.  This has displaced American workers, driven down wages and caused large numbers of American families to lose their homes to foreclosure, perhaps forcing more American kids into foster care.
 
Will hearing these facts evoke strong emotions?
 
Time and again judges and mayors of Sanctuary Cities have fatuously declared the Trump administration's immigration policies - policies to secure our nation’s borders and enforce our immigration laws - to be “unconstitutional.” 
 
These officials should be required to read Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
"Invasion" has been defined, in part, as:
An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force: the Allied invasion of Normandy | in 1546 England had to be defended from invasion.
• an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity: an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
Facts and emotions are stubborn things.  Where the current immigration debate is concerned, facts, the U.S. Constitution, our laws, our sense of morality, common sense - and even emotions - can be used to counter the unhinged and irrational narratives of the open borders / abolish-ICE crowd.
 
Photo: Sarahmirk

Our Rules of the Game: U.S. Constitution

Thu, 07/19/2018 - 04:01

Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement, leading to President Donald Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, has thrown progressives, the Democratic Party and the news media into an out-and-out tizzy. The online magazine Slate declared, "Anthony Kennedy Just Destroyed His Legacy as a Gay Rights Hero." The New York Times' editorial board said about a second Trump court appointment, "It is a dark moment in the history of the court and the nation, and it's about to get a lot darker."

It's indeed a "dark moment" for those who've for decades used the courts to accomplish what would have been impossible through federal and state legislatures — such as same-sex marriage, abortion and preferences with regard to race and sex. With this Supreme Court pick — and possibly another during his term — President Trump can return us to the Framers' vision of the judiciary — a vision that's held in contempt by many liberals and conservatives.

The U.S. Constitution represents our "rules of the game." Supreme Court justices should be seen as umpires or referees, whose job is to enforce neutral rules. I'll give a somewhat trivial example of neutral rules from my youth; let's call it Mom's Rule. On occasion, my sister and I would have lunch in my mother's absence. She'd ask either me or my younger sister to divide a last piece of cake or pie. More often than not, an argument would ensue about the fairness of the cut. Those arguments ended when Mom came up with a rule: Whoever cuts the cake lets the other take the first piece. As if by magic or divine intervention, fairness emerged, and arguments ended. No matter who did the cutting, there was an even division.

That's the kind of rule we need for our society — the kind whereby you'd be OK even if your worst enemy were in charge. By creating and enforcing neutral rules, we minimize conflict. Consider one area of ruthless competition where that's demonstrated — sports. The 52nd Super Bowl featured the Philadelphia Eagles and the New England Patriots. A lot was at stake. Each player on the winning team would earn $112,000; losers would get half that. Plus, each winner would get a Super Bowl ring that might cost as much as $40,000.

Despite a bitterly fought contest and all that was at stake, the game ended peaceably, and winners and losers were civil to one another. How is it that players with conflicting interests can play a game, agree with the outcome and walk away as good sports? It's a miracle of sorts. That "miracle" is that it is far easier to reach agreement about the game's rules than the game's outcome. The rules are known and durable. The referee's only job is evenhanded enforcement of those rules.

Suppose football's rules were "living" and the referee and other officials played a role in determining them. The officials could adjust the applications of the rules. Suppose the officials were more interested in the pursuit of what they saw as football justice than they were in the unbiased enforcement of neutral rules. In the case of Super Bowl LII, officials might have considered it unfair that the Eagles had never won a Super Bowl and the Patriots had won five. If officials could determine game rules, team owners, instead of trying to raise team productivity, would spend resources lobbying or bribing officials. The returns from raising team productivity would be reduced. Also, I doubt that the games would end amicably. The players probably wouldn't walk off the field peaceably, shaking hands and sharing hugs, as they do now.

We should demand that Supreme Court justices act as referees and enforce the U.S. Constitution. If they don't and play favorites with different groups of Americans, as we've seen, the potential for conflict among the American people is enhanced. Who is appointed to the high court becomes the all-consuming issue. The question is not whether a justice would uphold and defend the Constitution but whether he would rig the game to benefit one American or another.

The Left’s Trump-Putin Meltdown

Wed, 07/18/2018 - 04:10

In a press conference with Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump refused to validate the findings of a deeply corrupt and compromised intelligence community that has been working assiduously since before he was even elected to discredit and destroy him, and now the sky is falling.

Barack Obama’s CIA director John Brennan, who calls himself a “nonpartisan American” but who voted for Communist Party candidate Gus Hall for President in 1976, tweeted in all-out hysterical mode: “Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???”

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) outdid even Brennan in hysteria, tweeting a call for a military coup: “Where are our military folks ? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!”

Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who once called the Muslim Brotherhood “largely secular,” said that the Trump/Putin press conference was “truly unbelievable. On the world’s stage, in front of the entire globe, the President of the United States essentially capitulated and seems intimidated by Vladimir Putin. So it was amazing and very, very disturbing.”

Less hysterically, but in the same vein, 2020 Presidential hopeful Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) tweeted: “The whole world just watched as the President sided with Putin over U.S. Intelligence Agencies. There is no doubt that Putin has launched attacks on the very heart of our democracy, and by not standing up to him today, the President has invited him to do it again.”

In response to that, David Horowitz offered a note of sanity: “US intelligence agencies like the CIA headed by John Brennan who voted for Communist Party head during the height of the Cold War, and launched the Russia-Collusion witch-hunt, and Comey’s FBI.” Horowitz also observed: “Long time appeasers of the Soviet empire in the Democratic Party want to re-start the Cold War with a Russia greatly diminished in power and influence rather than see if we can make deals with this thug regime to reduce the dangers of nuclear war, & rein in Iran’s terror regime.”

Longtime foes and targets of the Left should have seen this, but some didn’t: the hysteria was not all on the Left. Newt Gingrich tweeted: “President Trump must clarify his statements in Helsinki on our intelligence system and Putin. It is the most serious mistake of his presidency and must be corrected—-immediately.”

What was Trump’s “treason”? His “high crimes & misdemeanors”? “The most serious mistake of his presidency”? In the words of NBC’s Chuck Todd, it was “essentially confessing to the world that he believes Putin more [than] the United States of America and its agencies.

But this was, not unexpectedly, wildly overstated and misleading. President Trump did not say that he trusted Putin more than he trusted the United States of America. He expressed his skepticism at the findings of intelligence agencies that have been shown over the last year and a half to have strayed far from their mission and become deeply partisan, shockingly corrupt organizations bent on finding enough dirt on him to remove him from the Oval Office.

The President has repeatedly referred to Robert Mueller’s Russian collusion investigation as a “witch hunt,” and that is exactly what it is. On Tuesday, Trump walked back some of his remarks at the press conference, saying: “I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that meddling took place” from Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign, but added that the meddlers “could be other people also. There’s a lot of people out there.” He also tweeted: “Thank you @RandPaul. ‘The President has gone through a year and a half of totally partisan investigations - what’s he supposed to think?’”

Indeed. Just as there are a lot of people who may have meddled in the election, there are a lot of people in Washington, such as Mueller, James Comey, and Peter Strzok, who have been determinedly working to frame him for months for collusion with Russia for which they have been so far unable to produce any evidence. President Trump was right to be skeptical of the intelligence community, and should stand firm on that skepticism – as well as call for a thorough investigation and reform of the FBI.

It is also interesting that the people who are crying “treason” the loudest today never uttered the word when Barack Obama shipped billions of dollars in cash in the dark of night to the Islamic Republic of Iran, even as the mullahs were chanting “Death to America.” Treason is defined in American law as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Wouldn’t billions given to a terror-supporting rogue state be a great deal more aid and comfort to an enemy than some skepticism about our manifestly corrupt intelligence agencies at a press conference? Of course – but the Leftists who are in hysterics over the Trump/Putin press conference are the same Leftists who applauded Obama’s generosity to the Islamic Republic, and fought desperately to preserve their man’s disastrous nuclear deal with that outlaw state.

It’s a classic case of projection: the ones crying loudest about “treason” today are ones who are actually traitors.

Is the Media the “Enemy of the People”?

Wed, 07/18/2018 - 04:09

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

Traveling on Air Force One to Helsinki, President Trump tweeted that the media was the “enemy of the people”.

It wasn’t the first time that he had said or tweeted it. And it never fails to get a rise out of the media.

President Trump had referred to the New York Times, CNN and NBC News as “the enemy of the American people” shortly after taking office. At CPAC, soon afterward, he declared, “I called the fake news the enemy of the people, and they are — they are the enemy of the people.”

Trump’s comments inspired Washington Post and New York Times pieces comparing him to Stalin. Every marginal political figure looking for 15 seconds of slobbering media coverage, from Senator Jeff Flake to Khrushchev's great-granddaughter, joined in with the silly Stalin analogies.

CBS and NBC vet Marvin Kalb wrote a book ponderously titled, “Enemy of the People: Trump's War on the Press, the New McCarthyism, and the Threat to American Democracy.” Despite the media’s outrage at being called names, it’s not at all shy about calling the President all sorts of apocalyptic names.

 “Mr. President, will you stop calling us the enemy of the people, sir? CNN’s Jim Acosta demanded during a recent tax anniversary reform event.

That’s not too likely.

In a USA Today poll, 34% of voters agreed that the media was the enemy of the people. Other polls also showed a sizable amount of agreement that the media was innately hostile to the American people.

Is the media really the enemy of the American people? Let’s tackle the question objectively.

Enemies hate you and want to destroy you. Do the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, CBS, and the whole alphabet soup of organizations with corporate headquarters in major cities really want to destroy the people who watch their programs, buy their papers and serve them soup after hours?

It seems implausible. But so did the Communists of the Khmer Rouge shooting everyone who wore glasses. Or North Korea’s multi-generational concentration camps, Nazi Germany diverting crucial resources from the war effort to kill Jews, or Venezuela shipping oil to Cuba while its people starve.

Plausibility is a poor measure of what fanatical ideologues might do. Let’s start with what they do, do.

While Jim Acosta was demanding a retraction for being called an “enemy of the people”, the media had thrown every effort into opening the border. The American people are defined by their physical possession of the territory. And that territory and its possession is defined and measured by a border.

You can’t advocate the destruction of the American people and then object to being called their enemy.

Without a border, there is no America and no American people. The territories formerly known as the United States fill up with various peoples who claim the entitlements of citizenship but not its responsibilities, whose identity is not of their current country of residency, but of their country of birth.

You don’t need to be an American to watch CNN, MSNBC or serve soup to one of their reporters. They would rather you weren’t. That’s what replacing Americans with cheap labor and cheap votes is about.

The media’s first allegiance is to the left. Not to America. Its people are not Americans. They’re leftists. The politics of the left are geared at replacing Americans with leftists through a combination of indoctrination, demographic replacement, economic warfare and voter suppression.

Destroying the American people would be an act worthy of an “enemy of the people”.

The media is offended by being referred to as the “enemy of the people”. But does it believe that the American people have the right to exist and maintain their existence? And if so, on what terms?

The media has opposed every war that against Communism or Islamism that the United States has fought. It has sought to undermine our country and our soldiers in these conflicts on various pretexts.

The media has covered up numerous acts of violence by Islamic terrorists. It has sided with Islamic terror networks such as the Muslim Brotherhood. It has urged our government to arm Islamic terrorists. It has supported Iran’s push for a nuclear bomb. It has spread disinformation about the links between Islamic terrorists and their domestic support networks. It has worked to silence law enforcement and intelligence officials who attempted to warn about the threat of Islamic terrorism.

If the Muslim Brotherhood controlled the media, would the news look any different than it does now?

This isn’t a shocking new development. The media repeatedly sided with Communist nations, guerrillas, spies, terrorists and superpowers against our own government. It covered up atrocities by the Soviet Union, glamorized Communist spies, urged that we arm and aid Communist nations, and undermined allied governments, and even our own government and its soldiers when they fought Communism.

There has never been a time in the last century when enemy propaganda wasn’t on the front pages of the major newspapers of America. After the fall of the USSR, the media traded the red for the green. Its collusion with the Islamic conspiracy is a sequel to its collusion with the Communist conspiracy.

Is this the behavior of an American institution or an enemy institution out to destroy America?

On the domestic stage, the media has repeatedly advocated for policies that have cost countless American lives and jobs. Its pro-crime advocacy has empowered gangs and thugs. Its economic programs have devastated cities, agricultural and industrial areas.

The media’s broadcasts claim that America is evil. It empowers the hateful voices of black nationalists and Islamist activists that want to destroy America. It calls for the eradication of the major historical figures. It cheers when Christopher Columbus and George Washington are removed from public places.

Any foreigner watching and reading the media comes away with the impression that America is a racist country whose institutions and populace are utterly despicable, and who have no right to exist.

If an actual foreign enemy were in charge of our news coverage, how different would it be?

There’s really not that much difference between how the media covers America, and how Al Jazeera, RT, Xinhau and other enemy state media cover America.

An enemy media would undermine the government, publish its national security secrets, portray the people in the worst possible light and advocate policies meant to leave America poorer and weaker.

How is that any different from what the New York Times and the Washington Post already do?

The media has spent the year undermining the President of the United States on the international stage. It has leaked classified information, traded in hacked emails from Islamic terror states, made public private conversations with foreign leaders, and colluded with Democrat officials who have been assuring foreign governments, some enemies of this country, that Trump will shortly be removed from office.

Despite its attempts to drape its misconduct in the flag, the closest that anyone from the media has ever gotten to being a patriot was Gillette Stadium. Its scorched earth war on Trump is damaging our international standing. The media doesn’t care because it has no allegiance to this country.

Is it wrong under these circumstances to call the media an enemy of the people?

The media doesn’t support national borders. It opposes any attempt to preserve the American people in some meaningful form. It aids and abets enemies of the United States. It sides with fanatical ideologies waging war on America. It opposes the outcome of any election that its political allies don’t win.

The media claims to be very offended when it’s referred to as the “enemy of the people”. But it’s only the people part that offends it. The “people” are the vague and amorphous grouping that the left claims to be fighting for. Every leftist regime in history murdered the people in the name of the people.

Like every leftist movement, the media wants to destroy the American people… for the people.

The media believes that it is fighting for the people. By the “people”, it means illegal migrants, Islamic terrorists, MS-13 gang members, Baltimore drug dealers, black nationalist separatists and everyone who hates and wants to destroy the United States and the unique national identity of the American people.

A more accurate description of the media would be the “Enemies of the American People”.

Ocasio-Cortez: Capitalism 'Won't Always Exist'

Wed, 07/18/2018 - 04:08

​Democrat giant-slayer and soon-to-be Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came close to saying she supports abolishing the free enterprise system and the precious economic freedoms on which it is based that have made America wealthy beyond its founders’ wildest dreams.

The so-called democratic socialist Ocasio-Cortez whom DNC Chairman Tom Perez hails as “the future of our party,” breezily dismissed the current strength of the U.S. economy, claiming unemployment is low only because Americans are working two jobs. 

Capitalism is a fleeting phenomenon, she told PBS in an astounding display of historical ignorance that would no doubt endear her to anti-American conspiracy theorist Naomi Klein.

I do think that right now, when we have this no-holds-barred Wild West hypercapitalism, what that means is profit at any cost. Capitalism has not always existed in the world, and it will not always exist in the world. When this country started, we did not operate on a capitalist economy.

Asked if democratic socialism, the system to which Ocasio-Cortez claims allegiance, “calls for an end to capitalism,” the candidate said:

“Ultimately, we are marching towards progress on this issue. I do think that we are going to see an evolution in our economic system of an unprecedented degree, and it’s hard to say what direction that that takes … ”

The interviewer interjected: “It sounds like you are skeptical that capitalism is going to continue to be the right answer.”

“Yeah, I think it’s, um, I think it’s, I think it’s at least a question,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “I think it’s absolutely a question.”

At Legal Insurrection, William A. Jacobson marveled at the candidate’s radicalism.

“There you have it. The hottest star in the Democrat universe will not commit to a continuation of capitalism under her Democratic Socialist political world view. That’s the headline.”

But it shouldn’t be the headline. This fraud called democratic socialism is nothing new.

As I’ve written before, democratic socialism is a profoundly dishonest euphemism calculated to make the horrors of communism more palatable. Karl Marx regarded socialism as a necessary way station on the road to the supposed utopia of communism. A socialist is merely a communist who isn’t in a revolutionary rush.

Socialists and communists “all want government or the collective to be master. They all subscribe to bad, un-American ideas, are all in the same ideological camp, and all tend to believe that the ends justify the means. In ideological terms, there is no bright line or safe harbor that neatly separates socialism from communism. They overlap and blend into each other.”

So of course Ocasio-Cortez isn’t committed to the truly revolutionary economic system that has liberated billions of human beings. She prefers the sclerotic, repressive system that murdered hundreds of millions of people in the twentieth century in the pursuit of absurd social justice abstractions.

The evidence of the power of capitalism to do good and effect positive outcomes is overwhelming and irrefutable. As Gayle Smith, then the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said of world poverty rates in 2016:

I think everyone in the room knows that this is a moment of extraordinary progress. Over the last 30 years, extreme poverty has been cut in half. Boys and girls are enrolling in primary school at nearly equal rates, and there are half as many children out of school today as there were 15 years ago.

Ocasio-Cortez’s ignorance aside, the radical leftist upstart’s unexpected primary trouncing of a key member of the House Democratic leadership is sending shockwaves through the Democratic Party establishment.

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) member and first-time candidate Ocasio-Cortez, 28, slaughtered ten-term incumbent U.S. Rep. Joe Crowley, 56, in the primary election June 26 for the 14th congressional district in New York City. Crowley is chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, the fourth-highest leadership position among House Democrats and had been a leading contender to become House Speaker if Democrats regained control of that chamber. Ocasio-Cortez, who previously worked as an organizer for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential bid, won by a margin of 57.5 percent to 42.5 percent.

The photogenic Ocasio-Cortez beat Crowley by running on an extreme-left utopian fantasy platform of abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, expanding Medicare to everyone, providing free college education, guaranteeing jobs for all, as well as a $15 an hour federal minimum wage.

Ocasio-Cortez is a confirmed ignoramus. In one media interview the newly anointed leftist folk hero seemed to confuse ICE with the CIA.

ICE’s “extrajudicial nature is baked into the structure of the agency and that is why they are able to get away with black sites at our border with the separation of our children,” she said during a journey into fact-free paranoia on CNN June 27.

Ocasio-Cortez has called for the abolition of U.S. borders. The politician told an Al-Jazeera spinoff that foreign citizens, border crossers, and illegal aliens ought to enjoy a “right of passage” into the United States.

She explained:

I think that immigration should be safe. I think that we should grant people a safe and documented right of passage. Republicans try all these scare tactics. And they go ‘Oh, open borders.’ Because they’re trying to incite fear. But what we really need to do is demilitarize a lot of what’s going on in terms of the detention of people, which has been happening for a very long time by the way.

The harebrained, politically suicidal promise to abolish ICE is too crazy even for Bernie Sanders who refuses to endorse it. Polling suggests the idea is political poison among Democrat voters.

And contrary to media propaganda, the idea that the DSA is only now “taking over” the Democratic Party is false: it took over the party long ago. The group’s members already largely control the party through various Democrat-related organizations. Virtually every member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, co-founded by the DSA in 1991, is already a member of the DSA, according to DiscoverTheNetworks

DSA, a small-c communist group, is on the rise because the Left is in revolt against the Trump administration and perhaps because Bernie Sanders popularized the “democratic socialist” label, taking away much of the stigma traditionally associated with socialism. Trump Derangement Syndrome has pushed DSA membership nationwide to the reported 45,000-mark.

The far-left CPC has 79 members in the House and one in the Senate (Bernie Sanders).

What is happening now is that DSAers from outside the formal party structure are causing a huge media stink by tossing out Democrat office-holders in insurgent primary campaigns. DSAers have been succeeding at the state and local level but they haven’t been knocking off Democrat office-holders in large numbers at the national level. 

In fact, Ocasio-Cortez is the only DSA-endorsed candidate to take out a sitting congressman. So while her victory is important and is clearly helping her shape party policy, it’s not quite the watershed event leftists build it up to be. It is more like an excuse, or permission, from the party’s radical electoral base to get even more radical.

The destruction of capitalism is what the crazies in the Democrats’ base have wanted for years.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aims to give them what they want.

Page Turning?

Wed, 07/18/2018 - 04:07

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who during the 2016 texted FBI boyfriend Peter Strzok that “Trump’s not ever going to become president, right?!” testified again on Monday in a closed session. Page did not take questions from reporters but members of the House Judiciary Committee were signaling a new direction in their investigation. 

“In many cases, she admits that the text messages mean exactly what they say, as opposed to Agent Strzok, who thinks that we’ve all misinterpreted his own words on any text message that might be negative,” Rep. John Ratcliff told reporters. Rep. Steve King found Page “certainly more cooperative” than Peter Strzok, who texted Page that “we’ll stop” Trump from becoming president. 

Rep. Mark Meadows told reporters “Lisa Page today and again on Friday demonstrated a transparency that we didn’t see from Peter Strzok.” The Freedom Caucus chairman, a strong critic of the FBI and DOJ, remained more guarded than some of his colleagues. 

Texas Republican Louie Gohmert, one of Strzok’s harshest critics, told Fox News “She has given us more insights to who was involved in what.” Page had been “more cooperative,” and Gohmert indicated that former CIA boss John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper could have been involved, along with other FBI supervisors Gohmert did not name. 

As Rep. Matt Gaetz noted Friday, Lisa Page is no longer with the FBI but bureau lawyers, as with Strzok, were telling her which questions she could answer. The FBI lawyers were present Monday but Page apparently showed some defiance. According to Gohmert, when the lawyers reached for the button, “she would answer before the thing could mute her comment.” Darrell Issa didn’t see it that way. 

The California Rep., who last week made Strzok read aloud many of his most incriminating texts, called Page an “evasive witness” who continually sought counsel from FBI attorneys and was “unwilling to answer any specific questions.” 

In the wake of Page’s second day of testimony, reports began to emerge about an immunity deal. On Fox Business Network Monday, Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch said “I think Page has the opportunity to be the anti-Strzok.” Page saw what her boyfriend was doing and “She sees an opportunity or an opening to kind of recast herself, and I think she’s taking advantage of it.”

Members of the Judiciary Committee did not formally announce any immunity deal with Page, and Rep. Gohmert was uncertain about her testimony in a public hearing. A former U.S. Attorney recalled what Page and Strzok had done to stand in need of immunity. 

The principal question for congressional investigators, Andrew McCarthy noted, “is whether the Democratic administration’s law-enforcement and intelligence arms strained to manufacture an espionage case against the Republican candidate, having buried an eminently prosecutable criminal case against the Democratic presidential nominee.” Or as others put it, they cleared Clinton and framed Trump, with the goal of driving him from office. 

As McCarthy explains, when it became clear that Donald Trump would win the Republican nomination, that would increase pressure to shut down the “Midyear Exam,” code for the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails. Page and Strzok would then ramp up “Crossfire Hurricane,” the Russia collusion probe. That is likely the “insurance policy” Page and Strzok discussed in the office of Clinton crony Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Director of the FBI.  

None of Page’s newfound candor was on display from Peter Strzok, who testified that “not once in my 26 years of defending my nation did my personal opinions impact any official action I took.” President Trump watched Strzok’s testimony and called it “a disgrace to our country, and, you would say, that was a total witch hunt.”

Despite the defiance that had Democrat Steve Cohen touting him for a Purple Heart, Strzok did provide new revelations. For example, he told the committee he knew that Bruce Ohr, whose wife Nellie worked for Fusion GPS, provided documents to the FBI. 

Strzok said former FBI boss Robert Mueller never asked him if he was biased against Trump and never asked about “any text message” Strzok had sent to Lisa Page. Strzok would not say what Russia-Trump collusion he had discovered but conceded his texts showed there “might be nothing going on here.”

After two sessions from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page key mysteries remain. Who, exactly, in the FBI was telling Strzok and Page not to answer certain questions? Was the FBI the same as under the old boss James Comey? And is Jeff Sessions’ DOJ the same as under the old boss Loretta Lynch? 

Who first approached Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, and assigned him to run the Midyear Exam?  In a September, 2016, text to Lisa Page, Strzok wrote that President Obama “wants to know everything we’re doing.” So it is possible to guess.

“We’ve got a huge jigsaw puzzle to put together,” Steve King explained. He seeks the names of everyone who interviewed Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016, and wants them all to testify. He also wants the names of the FISA judges, the FISA warrant requests, and all the documentation because “the American people deserve access to all this information.” 

ISIS BEGINS, a Novel of the Iraq War

Wed, 07/18/2018 - 04:06

Frontpage’s guest today is Ken Timmerman, author of several New York Times best-sellers and a frequent contributor to Frontpage. His new book is ISIS BEGINS, a novel of the Iraq War.

FP: Ken Timmerman, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Timmerman: Thanks for having me, Jamie. It’s always a pleasure.

FP: Let’s begin with a quick glance at some of your books: Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson, The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Saddam, Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran, and your two books on Benghazi, Dark Forces, and Deception.

So here’s the first question: what compels an investigative reporter to write a novel, and especially one about persecuted Christians?

Timmerman: Great question, Jamie. Thank you.

I started going on reporting and mission trips to northern Iraq in 2007, and gathered so much material that I thought I should write a book about what my sources were calling the coming “religiocide” of Iraqi Christians. Already then, in 2007, 2008, Christians were leaving Iraq in huge numbers. Jihadi Muslim groups were bombing their churches, murdering their bishops. They kidnapped ordinary Christians, holding them for ransom, and then murdered them when their families couldn’t produce the exorbitant payments they demanded. I was thinking to call such a book, “Blood of the Iraqi Martyrs.” But my agent at the time couldn’t get a single major publisher interested. Not one.

The publishing world just didn’t want to hear about Christian persecution. Even before Obama, when the subject literally became taboo, the notion that Christians were being murdered by Muslims was not popular.

So during one of these trips, Father Keith Roderick, an Anglican priest who then worked for Christian Solidarity International, a terrific group, by the way, convinced me that I should recast this body of material as a novel.

Why? So that ordinary Americans could feel and smell and taste what it is like to be a persecuted Christian, chased by Muslims intent on murder. For that is the reality of Iraq – and of so many other places around the world, such as Nigeria, Sudan, or Iran. He felt a novel would a more emotional impact on readers than a non-fiction book would.

FP: And you’re not new to writing novels, right?

Timmerman: Right, I am not. I have had two novels published. I confess: I actually started my career writing fiction, and studied under avante-garde novelist John Hawkes at the Brown University graduate writing seminar in the early 1970s and went to Paris in 1975 with a novel in my suitcase. I eventually started an expat literary magazine, Paris Voices, that was the center of a whole expat literary scene. But that’s a whole other story.

FP: You may write a memoire on all of this one day?

Timmerman: Shhh! I’ve actually completed the first volume. It will deal with hostages, arms dealers, and the intelligence underworld as I lived it for 18 years in Europe, Lebanon, and Iraq.

FP: Sounds great, you’ll have to back to Frontpage Interview for that as well.  

Timmerman: Oh, sure. But even in my non-fiction, I’ve always tried to include a few personal stories, because I think it’s more honest as a reporter to let my reader evaluate my biases, such as they are. I despise the hypocrisy of so-called “mainstream” reporters who claim to be straight-shooters, when in fact they are just left-wing hacks.

FP: True, true. So let’s begin. Is ISIS BEGINS a fictionalized version of reality?

Timmerman: Well, yes and no. There’s a huge amount of ground truth in the book. Anyone who has ever traveled the road from Erbil to Mosul will recognize my description of it, and of the dangers that lurk in the desert beyond. Some will recognize the corrupt former and current CIA officials who are key characters in ISIS BEGINS. And a truly observant eye might even identify a certain former U.S. ambassador, or a southern state governor, although that of course is mere conjecture.

I’ve also been very careful with my choice of weaponry. You’ll find that Glock 19s figure prominently in the book, as does the Barrett Light Fifty, a sniper rifle. I had several weapons “techs” advise me on these and the Kiowa helicopter, and of course fuel air explosives, which make an appearance in the final action scene of the book.

FP: You don’t depict Christians using all these weapons. How come?

Timmerman: Well, they use some of them, in self defense. Mainly the smaller caliber ones, I’m afraid. That’s of course part of the tragedy: while Assyrian-Chaldean-Syriac Christians have been demanding for years to have their own police force so they can defend the towns and villages of their historic homeland in the Nineveh Plain, politically-correct members of the U.S. Senate have blocked them. Even the Iraqi government had approved the plan. Instead, when Isis finally swept into Mosul in June 2014, the Christians had to rely on the Kurds. And the Kurds, much as many Americans might love them, turned tail and ran.

FP: Your narrator in this story is an Iraqi interpreter who works for U.S. Special Forces. Why did you chose him to tell this story?

Timmerman: I met many people like him on my many trips to Iraq and Jordan, interviewing refugees. It seemed to me that Yohannes – “Johnny” –- was emblematic of the tragic failures of U.S. policy. He helped the United States, even put his life on the line for us; and we walked away from him when the jihadis put a price on his head and began stalking him and his family. But he also gave me a way of telling the broader picture of Iraq’s rich and variegated Christian community.

Along the way, you learn a bit about his family history. His great-grandmother gets chased out of Tabriz, Iran, during the anti-Christian genocide of 1916-1919 and settles in al Qosh, just north of Mosul, an Assyrian town that hosts an ancient monastery that plays a central role in my plot. The monastery was built by an Order of Christian fighting monks founded in the Arabian desert in the 7th century AD. They kept a diary of their interactions with a certain caravan boy, who later married a wealthy merchant, and later still, began having visions of the Angel Gabriel.

FP: Sounds like the prophet Mohammed.

Timmerman: That’s right, the so-called “prophet” of Islam. The Diary of these early monks gives us glimpses of their interaction, and is founded on a well-established tradition in the Middle East that parts of the Koran were actually dictated by a Christian monk named Bahira.

FP: In Islam, such stories would be considered blasphemy.

Timmerman: True, I’m sure that some Muslims will see them as such. But interestingly, the story itself is summarized in a hadith by the most reputable of hadith-compilers, Sahih Bukhara. I reproduce it at the end of the book.

FP: So the Diary plays a central role in the story.

Timmerman: Exactly. Johnny, the interpreter, discovers a photocopy of some of its pages when he accompanies a specops team to take down a jihadi terror cell. That’s how the book starts. The Americans think it’s some kind of code and send it off to Baghdad to be translated. But Johnny tells his supervisor it’s not a code. It’s just written in Aramaic—which, of course, he can read. It turns out that Johnny’s great uncle was initiated into the Secret Order of fighting monks, but subsequently betrayed them. But you’ll have to read the book to enjoy the intricacies of the plot. I had a lot of fun constructing it.

FP: So the key point here -- and there is no substantial spoiler in me saying this – is that the jihadis learn that the current abbot of the monastery plans to release the Diary and spill the secrets of Mohammad and the founding of Islam.

Timmerman: That’s right. And so they plot to attack the monastery – just when all my characters are assembled there together, including the beautiful young Assyrian woman from California who traveled to Iraq to help on the mission trip.

FP: Tell us her name.

Timmerman: Damreena. Dona, for short. I think the most fun I had was writing the dialogue. I think I got most of my characters just right. The bluster and bombast of the corrupt former CIA officer, the honeyed diplomacy of the southern governor, the flower fresh naiveté of Dona as she falls in love with Johnny while encountering the brutal reality of Iraq.

FP: I think you have an upcoming film here that will be an on-the-edge-of-your-seat thriller.

Timmerman: From your lips to God’s ears, Jamie.

FP: One last thing: when does Isis begin?

Timmerman: Simple. The jihadis and the Baathist stay-behind networks, whose alliance begat Isis, had been utterly defeated during the surge and went underground. But the day Obama announced a date certain for the U.S. pullout from Iraq, they began their preparations. Obama told them when they could begin operations. Good lord, he gave them an actual date. So in my book, Isis began the day of Obama’s announcement.

I went back to northern Iraq in the summer of 2017 to witness the utter devastation they wrought on these ancient Christian communities. It’s nothing short of criminal. I hope this book will awaken the conscience of my readers. Talk about this in church or your synagogue. Tell your neighbors. And think about joining the coalition to Save the Persecuted Christians.

FP: Ken Timmerman, thanks for joining us today and congrats on your new novel.

Timmerman: Thanks so much Jamie, it was a pleasure.

Pages