FrontPageMag

Subscribe to FrontPageMag feed
A project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center
Updated: 8 hours 52 min ago

The Operation Against General Flynn Started Long Before The Election

10 hours 53 min ago

Michael Ledeen is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center and Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Byron York seems baffled by the discovery in the Mueller report that the FBI was after General Michael Flynn long before the intercepts of his telephone conversations with Russian officials during the post-2016 election transition.  By that time, Obama Administration higher-ups in the intelligence community were warning Trump that Flynn had suspicious intimate contacts with the Russians, possibly in violation of the Logan Act.  As Byron writes:

Mueller strongly suggests something else was up. Obama administration intelligence officials "were surprised by Russia's decision not to retaliate in response to the sanctions," the report said. "When analyzing Russia's response, they became aware of Flynn's discussion of sanctions with Kislyak. Previously, the FBI had opened an investigation of Flynn based on his relationship with the Russian government. Flynn's contacts with Kislyak became a key component of that investigation.

Mueller attributed the information, which is on page 26 of Volume II of the report, to interviews with former Justice Department official Mary McCord, who was deeply involved in the Flynn case, and fired FBI Director James Comey.

The FBI investigation of General Flynn goes back several years, perhaps as far back as 2015.  This was undoubtedly because the intelligence community didn’t like Flynn, who had changed the way intelligence was collected and analyzed on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, taking it away from Washington military and intel officials and relocating it in theater. His methods worked well, but they greatly irritated the Washington-based intelligence crowd.  When Flynn was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), it became known that he intended to audit decades of covert budgets, checking to see if the funding, especially for CIA, actually went to the intended recipients for the approved missions.  If you ask me, the campaign against Flynn that so surprised Byron York is best explained by the intel community’s eagerness to lock him out of their system.  It was reinforced when Flynn criticized Obama’s Afghanistan policy in sworn testimony to Congress.

I suspect that if there is ever a proper inquiry into the operation, we’ll find that the CIA and FBI placed trusted informers inside Flynn’s offices at DIA.  It was clearly very important to them, as we see when Comey overrode his own officers to push the claim that Flynn had misled them.

Still earlier, the intelligence community invented a romantic relationship between Flynn and Russian historian Svetlana Lokhova.  This was one of the false tales that came to us courtesy of British intelligence, most famously the Steele Dossier, and undoubtedly involved the CIA.

When Flynn became Trump’s favorite national security adviser, it became even more urgent for the Dark State to take him out.  Having already organized the operation even before Trump became the Republican nominee, it was a relatively simple task to expand it, and as we know the FBI trapped him, as they had with Scooter Libby and others.

Full credit goes to Byron York for spotting the confirmation of the long-standing anti-Flynn operation, and for asking what it was all about. I believe I have written about the operation more than half a dozen times, but I never expected it to be documented in Mueller’s report. I hope it will be more fully explored when Mueller is questioned.

I also hope that President Trump will soon do the right thing, and pardon General Flynn. The government conjured a phony case against him. Now it’s time to turn him loose. Finally.

Florida’s Crackdown on Sanctuary Cities Begins

10 hours 54 min ago

Florida appears poised to join a righteous law-and-order backlash against so-called sanctuary cities that shield and harbor illegal aliens in defiance of the nation’s immigration laws, after a pro-immigration enforcement bill passed the state’s House of Representatives.

The Sunshine State was home to 775,000 illegal aliens in 2016, according to Pew Research Center.

The state is also home to 15 municipalities that are sanctuary cities, according to Floridians for Immigration Enforcement, which prefers to label those jurisdictions “anarchy cities.”

“Not only do they disobey the law, but I question their loyalty to this country,” David Caulkett, the group’s vice president, said last month.

A bill that cracks down on sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities easily passed the GOP-controlled Florida House and now has a good chance at being approved by the Republican-dominated Florida Senate.

Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, urged lawmakers to approve legislation taking aim at the state’s outposts of immigration lawlessness.

“I’m asking the Legislature to send me a bill during this legislative session to address sanctuary cities and counties in Florida,” DeSantis tweeted February 26. “I’m also calling on more local law enforcement to work with the federal government to ensure our immigration laws are enforced and justice is upheld.”

The House in Tallahassee approved HB 527, the proposed “Rule of Law Adherence Act,” on a vote of 69 to 47 on April 24. Its sponsors are Republican Reps. Cord Byrd and Erin Grall.

According to a legislative summary, the measure, which would take effect July 1 if given final approval, would prohibit and require the repeal of sanctuary policies, as well as require state and local governmental agencies to use their best efforts to support enforcement of federal immigration law, including handing over illegal aliens to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Non-compliance by government officials would be punished. HB 527 would also provide causes of action for personal injury or wrongful death attributed to sanctuary policies. This means victims could sue local governments if illegal aliens are released from custody and injure or kill people.

HB 527 now moves to the Senate where a similar bill, SB 168, is pending. SB 168 is sponsored by Republican Sen. Joe Gruters.

Naturally, the left-wingers at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are spreading horror propaganda in an effort to prevent Florida from taking action.

The ACLU is warning “immigrants” against visiting Florida, even though legal immigrants have nothing to worry about.

An “alert was issued to caution both Florida travelers and residents, especially Black, brown & Latinx communities, of the increased likelihood of racial and ethnic profiling, unjust detention, and possible deportation if these anti-immigrant bills pass.”

It’s tedious stuff.

Although President Trump has enjoyed some success in immigration policy –the ban on travel from terrorism-plagued countries included in Presidential Proclamation 9645 was upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2018— his crackdown on sanctuary cities has been frustrated by black-robed politicians over and over again.

On April 18, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the better part of three so-called sanctuary laws interfering with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) efforts to uphold federal immigration laws in the state of California. According to conservative estimates, the Golden State is home to more than 2 million illegal aliens who make up close to 6 percent of its residents.

The Trump administration, which seems certain to appeal the loss to the Supreme Court, has repeatedly been obstructed by the judicial branch which has arrogated to itself micro-management of the nation’s immigration policies.

An Obama-appointed judge in San Francisco, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick III, issued a permanent nationwide injunction against President Trump’s Executive Order 13768, which would have withheld federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with ICE. That injunction remains in force.

Congressional Republicans have serially betrayed conservatives and handed Democrats victories over President Trump by refusing to cut off funding for sanctuary cities.

The sanctuary movement gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans by, among other things, stigmatizing immigration enforcement. Some left-wingers call sanctuary jurisdictions “civil liberties safe zones” to blur the distinction between citizens and non-citizens by implying illegal aliens somehow possess a civil right to be present in the U.S. Leftists also like to refer to all migrants, including illegal aliens, simply as “immigrants” in order to further muddy the waters. This helps the Left portray conservatives, who are generally not anti-immigrant –they’re anti-illegal immigration— as xenophobic bigots.

Floridian David Caulkett’s suggestion that sanctuary cities be called anarchy cities isn’t bad.

Those cities could also be called traitor cities because they are in open rebellion against the United States just as much as the Confederate Army was when it opened fire on Fort Sumter.

But thanks to some courageous state lawmakers, Florida may be on the verge of having fewer of those lawless jurisdictions that flout America’s immigration laws.

How to Fight the 2020 Jihad Against Trump

10 hours 56 min ago

At the April 5-7, 2019 West Coast Retreat at the Terranea Resort in Rancho Palos Verdes, a conservative media panel addressed Trump’s disruptive challenge to American conservative orthodoxy -- and how the conservative movement can best fight the 2020 jihad against the president. Check out the video and transcript below:

Transcript:

BEN BOYCHUK:  Thank you, Mike [Anton].  Thank you for inviting me, and I especially want to thank David Horowitz and Peter Collier.  Being at this event this weekend is particularly special.  25 years ago this August, those guys hired me and took a chance on kind of a pimply faced punk out of UC San Diego and working for them was an extraordinary experience.  Being edited by Peter Collier, I have the honor of being in the room with two of my editors. Charles Kessler, I worked for the Claremont Review of Books years ago, but Peter was my first real professional editor.  And I'll tell you, once you have an editor like Peter, you never want another.  The first story I ever filed with him, I remember it was about 2 weeks on the job.  He called me up.  It had to have been like 4:55 on a Wednesday and he said, so, about that story you just sent.  And I said, there was an awkward pause, and then I said it didn't really quite meet your expectations?  And he said it sucked.  And, then he proceeded to explain in gory detail while it sucked, which is the difference between a mediocre editor and a good editor, because the good editor will tell you exactly where you went wrong and why.  And, so, in kind of in keeping in the theme that David articulated last night, I've tried to be about 10 percent less sucky over the years, and I hope I've managed to do that. 

When I came to this organization, long-time supporters of this organization will recall a publication called Heterodoxy.  And if you were a college student in the later '80s and early '90s at any university really, Heterodoxy was must reading. It was like a lifeline.  And it was one of these things that, I remember reading it and thinking, gosh, who are these guys, and I would love to be able to write like this, and tried to do that on my own college campus.  And, so it was a thrill to be able to come to work for them, work at this place where Heterodoxy, which is an anecdote to Orthodoxy.  And we live in a time where we could use a lot more Heterodoxy.  I miss that publication, but, American Greatness, the publication that I now edit, is kind of run in the spirit of Heterodoxy.  The 2016 election I think gave us a moment to bring a little more Heterodoxy into the conservative movement.  Much needed.  What conservatism needs really above all right now, and we're seeing it--Victor Davis Hanson made a very good point about this during his talk in the last hour--we need some deviation from accepted standards and norms, because the conservative movement, at least as I think it had come to be, had gotten a bit ossified; had gotten a little bit complacent.  When Trump came on the scene it was easy for Never Trump conservatives as they are called to say, well, he's not a conservative.  You know, he believes in imminent domain.  He believes in tariffs.  Tariffs are evil.  We're not supposed to, I mean, so, Trump was talking about things that were extremely deviant from conservative orthodoxy. 

And for some of us, I think for this organization, for the Claremont Review of Books, I think for the magazine that I started and others, it was as if a light bulb went on, and we saw, wait a minute, there's some opportunities here.  There are some opportunities to ask some awkward questions.  And maybe unsettle some settled assumptions, immigration being a great example of this.  We went from: if you remember what it was like during the George W. Bush administration with the efforts at immigration reform, and these are jobs you have to bring people out of the shadows, because these are jobs that Americans won't do.  And that's just who we are.  Right?  Well, I mean, okay, maybe not so much.  Maybe we need to talk about how to assimilate millions of new comers.  Maybe we need to think a little bit more clearly about the duties and obligations of citizenship.  That was something that the conservative movement at best had given lip service to, but hadn't really provided much in the way of substance.  At the same time, public schools in this country had really given short shrift to civics, and had embraced a kind of multi-cultural ethos that has broken down ideas of duty and citizenship and nationhood.  So, those were questions that needed to be asked.  Above all, the Trump moment had really provided an opportunity for disruption. 

Disruption is not conservative.  Disruption is the very opposite of conservative.  We're not conserving anything when we're disrupting, at least on one level.  But on another level it may be the case that the kind of conservative ends that we seek, an understanding of citizenship, of being able to have a job and maintain a middle class lifestyle, I mean, simple things like that were taken for granted some time ago.  Maybe that requires some disruption to get back to a conservative end.  And that's something that I'm hoping that Michael and Charles will maybe elaborate on a little bit.  I'm going to try to give them some things to play off of here. 

One of the things I want to underscore, emphasize is that when we started American Greatness in July 2016, we believed above all that there was a space for us for what we had to say.  We thought that the legacy conservative media, and I'm thinking in terms of National Review, which had just run earlier that year the against Trump issue that was highly scandalizing, The Weekly Standard commentary, all these legacy publications that were so certain that this guy, Trump: was just a disaster, that he was not conservative, that he opposed everything that we supposedly believe.  We thought we may have had an opportunity there, and so we published a manifesto as sort of in the first week of our publication in which we said the soil of the conservative movement is exhausted.  It needs fertilization, resowing, and diligent cultivation if it is to thrive again.  And, while we will also owe a debt to the giants of the movement who have come before us, we cannot slavishly attempt to relive the politics of 40 years ago.  I think that was true in July 2016, I still think that's true right now.  I think that we have not begun to hit the outer limits of what we need to be talking about.  I think that we're going to find ourselves in a position going into the 2020 election where we're going to be fighting pitch battles with people who were allies just a few years ago. 

I think that what is at stake here is really an understanding of not just what it is to be a conservative, but what it is to be an American.  And, so, we really do need a big fat dose of Heterodoxy in this movement.  And for all the people who are in this room who have taken the weekend, obviously you're important supporters of this cause, and you've been supporters of this cause for a good long while, and you've been in this fight for years and years and years, and I've done this all of my adult life, but I have never felt more energized or felt like this fight has been more important than it is right now.  Because we're not going back, we're not going back to what we had before 2016.  We're not. 

There are going to be a lot of people who are going to try to say what conservatism is and what this movement is, and we are not going to let them, and we shouldn't let them.  For some folks, we are past the point of apologies and past the point of forgiveness.  We have essentially a new movement to build, and it is my hope and my expectation that all the people in this room, this organization, the Claremont Institute, American Greatness, we're going to be at the forefront of that, and, so, with that I'm going to turn it over to Michael Anton to elaborate on this.  Michael is the author of the most important essay published during the 2016 election.  Published by this man in the Claremont Review of Books, The Flight 93 Election.  Michael is a former member of the National Security Council.  He has been in the White House a couple of times, with Trump and with the George W. Bush administration, and he's one of my dearest friends, and, so, Michael, over to you.   

MICHAEL ANTON: I'm currently with the Hillsdale College.  At the Kirby Center, the Allen P. Kirby Center in Washington, so the college is in Michigan.  I don't get there often, but we always have students in Washington and we're probably going to get some more when we open a grad school in the coming days or months even.  So, like Ben, I want to begin with a plug for Peter Collier and David Horowitz, whom I don't really know.  But, in 1987, at age 17, like a lamb to the slaughter, I went off to Berkeley, California and was pretty shocked.  I still am. I'm 49, and I still don't think I've ever gotten over it and I needed to figure out what this was all about.  What is this place?  Who are these people?  How can they think like this and act like this?  And, through a circuitous route, a friend of mine made another friend who claimed to know a Black Panther, and I went to brunch or coffee or something with them at the famous Café Med on Telegraph Avenue, right where Dustin Hoffman is sitting in The Graduate, if you recall this, when stalking Katherine Ross.  And this Black Panther, I mean, this was a very nasty, mean, bad person and he just, I spent about 45 minutes listening to him talk about how evil I was, just because I was white and everything is evil and ‘these’ should be burned down and bragging about violence.  And I thought, this can't be and I just want to back up. My mother's a criminal prosecutor, so it's not like I had too sheltered a life.  I mean, she's doing murder trials. I had some exposure to the bad side of life, but  I was shocked by this.  So when I looked this group up in the library, I found two books, one of which I won't go into at length.  I've written about it before, what it meant to me.  It was Radical Sheik by Tom Wolfe, which is a pretty long exposition of the Black Panthers. 

The other one was Destructive Generation, by Peter Collier and David Horowitz.  And, I said to David last night, I recall reading it in the summer of '88, and I looked it up on my phone after that.  That's impossible because the book was not published until May of '89, so I must have read it in the summer of '89.  Big long chapters and the Black Panthers, George Jackson, Huey Newton, Fay Stender.  I remember all the stuff vividly, and it's describing the physical place where I am now, Berkeley, but also places where I grew up and things like that.  I'm, like, my mother knew Fay Stender; it's a long complicated story.  It was very formative for me.  It really made me understand the differences between the old left and the new left. I didn't understand that before, and that explained it.  Second of all, what the new left was really about, and how the veneer of utopianism on the top was just a little bit of icing and the cake is destruction, not the creative kind, just destruction, destruction. 

I would also commend to your attention if you haven't, Mark Bauerlein in a CRB--Claremont Review of Books issue--maybe one or two issues back. It wasn't that long ago, he wrote a very long review of a collection of David Horowitz's essays, and a very well done review.  It makes you want to read all the essays.  I've read a lot of Horowitz over the years, because I, like Ben, I got Heterodoxy when I was in college, and I subscribed to it until it went, or at least I was reading it until it went away.  One little anecdote, I don't think I'd ever met Peter Collier, but I talked to him on the phone once.  I wonder if he remembers this.  He probably doesn't.  So, I had this idea once I started to figure out what Berkeley is, that I was going to write a novel about it.  And, like Tom Wolfe, my hero, then as now, since I was terrible with deadlines, just ask Charles, I would serialize it somewhere, right?  That's how he did the Bonfire of the Vanities.  He said if I just have to finish a manuscript I'll never finish it, but, if I have a deadline, so he serialized it in Rolling Stone.  I thought, oh, where would I want to serialize it?  I would want to serialize it in Heterodoxy; it's the perfect place to do it.  Somehow I got, maybe Ben hooked me up, I don't remember, but somehow I got to him, and he took my call one day, and I explained the whole thing.  This is what it's going to do; this is what the plot is.  I'm being helped by various faculty members and I'm doing this research.  I think it'll be great for everybody, what do you think?  And he, there was sort of a long pause, he heard me out, and he said, yeah, no, that doesn't really work for us.  But, good luck with it. 

He was encouraging in other ways.  I never did write that book.  So, instead, what I did is I went to grad school, like I was joking earlier, the three of us together, you know we're partying like it's 1996.  This is Claremont 1996.  I got there in 1994.  Charles got there in '86.  Ben got there in '96.  We were all together for about 2 years, and then I left, and then Ben left, and Charles is still there.  So, I went to grad school.  I went into the think tank world a little bit.  I went into politics.  I went into corporate life.  I went back and forth from politics and the corporate life, and then while in the corporate life, in 2016, I became, for all the reasons Ben laid out, frustrated with conservatism in the Republican Party.  I became a fairly early convert to Trump, that is to say, by about, I would say the fall of 2015 I was taking him seriously. By December of '15, January of '16, I was convinced I was going to vote for him, win the primary or not, he was my candidate.  And, I began writing about it with a little group of sort of piratical pseudonymous writers, a blog called the Journal of American Greatness, which only lived for 4 months, from February 2012 to June 2016.  But, if I live to be a hundred, and The Flight 93 Election was not published on the Journal of American Greatness, just to be clear, but if live to be a hundred, that'll still be the greatest thing I ever did.  It was a lot of fun, and we were upsetting people, all the right people were getting quite angry at us, because we were just pointing out the ways conservatism has ossified. 

So, let me give you….Ben mentioned imminent domain and tariffs.  Let me just remind you of one thing.  One of the big attacks, the rightwing conservative attacks on Trump in December, January, was ethanol, right, because he went to, he did what most Republican politicians do, you want to win the Iowa Caucus, you go to Iowa and you pander to the corn farmers about ethanol.  And this was considered a completely unforgivable sin.  And I'm looking at it, and I'm going, all right, yeah, I'm sure this distorts the gasoline market in some way, and the AG market in some way, and it's horrible, but, when we've got a crisis at the border, which I believe we had then and we certainly have more so now, when we've got catastrophic trade policies, we can't win a war or end a war, or even figure out what the victory conditions are supposed to be. Do we not have bigger problems than ethanol?  And why are the conservatives digging into this as their number one bunker?  And I went and had an email exchange with a friend of all of ours.  I won't say who it was, just because it was a private exchange and I don't have his permission, but I remember his words.  I am quoting them from memory, but I think these are correct.  He said I profoundly don't care about ethanol.  Right.  In other words, it may be the worst, the most economically distorting policy every, it just doesn't matter in this circumstance.  So, why don't the conservatives get that?  Well, you know, the question of what is conservatism conserving is a fundamental question.  And, I bring it up a lot.  So if you've ever read anything I've written, you probably think, oh, this guy, he just says the same thing over and over again.  Well, one of the things I learned in politics is you've got to say the same things over and over again for it to have any kind of impact in the public sphere. 

So, I'm going to say this again.  What is conservatism conserving?  I said then and I've said now, in fact in a review that I just turned in to Charles late, but in time to make the magazine I think, I said, I raised this point again.  Conservatism as a thing, as a movement, as a network of institutions and magazines and so on, if you wanted to be high-minded about it, if you would have decided to conserve a certain policy script that maybe gelled in the early '80s, around the Reagan era;  if you want to be cynical about it--which I sometimes am--it just exists to conserve itself.  Right.  But what, if you were to define conservatism in any kind of larger philosophic sense, what should it be trying to conserve, and it seems to me the very obvious answers are : the country, the people, the communities, the industries, the country's interests, and so on.  In other words, all things higher than conservativism as an institution, higher than as a movement or an ideology, and certainly higher than its policy recipe book.  And it stopped trying to do that.  And in some cases, it was arguing for things that were corrosive.  I think our trade policy stopped being beneficial to any notionally conservative interests except higher aggregate GDP, 20 years ago, maybe longer than that. But the conservatives are still pedal to the metal for the same kind of free trade policy that was creating jobs for industrial America in 1955 and 1965, in 2005 and 2015, and they say we need more of it, when it's really obvious it hasn't been doing that in a long time. 

The conservatives on immigration: The most you could get, I mean, I saw Mark Corian here, so there are honorable exceptions out there.  But, by and large, the conservatives on immigration, if they had anything to say, a word of warning, it was just to make the usual distinction between legal and illegal, but otherwise say, immigration is good for the economy, we need workers, jobs Americans won't do, and all of these sort of silly slogans.  So, conservative policy was not conserving the things that it was supposed to conserve.  It was working in antithetical ways, and my friends--and that would include Ben and a lot of others--grew to criticize the conservatives for that.  I still do it constantly.  I've lost a few friends for that.  You know, maybe they weren't so worth having in hindsight after all.  But I've also made some great new friends.  Some of whom I think, you know, you would say, by a conventional standard to judge from the way the three of us saw the world in 1996, with those, some of my new friends we would have said back then, oh, those are the guys who are liberals.  Right.  Well, they're for tariffs, or they're for a way more retrenched foreign policy, or they're for economic policy that actually reduces rather than increases the Gini Coefficient.  I mean, when was the last time a conservative talked about the Gini Coefficient?  We should at least be thinking about it.  Because here's one thing I do like to point out to conservative audiences, I spent some time in financing in New York, and around big time financial institutions and people with lots and lots and lots and lots of money who pay, whose income is derived from carried interest in the 2 and 20 if any of you know what that means, and who pay a tax rate that's about half of what all the rest of us pay in ordinary income. 

I just want this to be completely clear to you.  They're not on your side in any way at all.  They're not your friends.  They don't vote for your party, they don't donate to the institutions that you care about.  They are either indifferent to the issues that you are about, or they're actively hostile to them.  And, again, there may be some honorable exceptions, but we're talking about 2 to 5 percent at most.  So, the conservatives completely missed the fact that capital and wealth and productivity had totally realigned with the left with the Democratic Party and with the movement that's against them.  And this is one of many, many things they missed.  In other words, they didn't even miss it just on the policy level, they missed it on sort of the bare political level, whose side are you on?  Are you my friend or are you my enemy?  Right?  Are you my opponent in this particular struggle, or are you my ally?  They didn't even get that.  And, it just became overtime exasperating. 

So, I will say, very quickly, the article I just turned in for Charles is about Tucker Carlson, about his show and about his book.  And he's probably the most polarizing figure on the right, if you want to put that in quotes today.  Now, why is that?  So, the left absolutely hates him.  I mean, they hate him.  Despite the fact that on a lot of the metrix that I just talked about, he's fairly left wing.  When he talks about opioids, the decline of the family, alcoholism and things like that, the typical conservative response is to lambast him for saying that one conservative writer used the phrase victimhood populism.  In other words to say, well, the true conservative position is to say that when anybody makes a bad decision, it's their own fault and you should sort of let then die in the gutter.  And to have the state or anything larger be concerned is nanny statism and it takes away moral agency and so on and that's not what conservatism is about. 

Is it not?  I mean, is conservatism not about conserving the health of communities?  If a community is, let's say has a population of 10,000 in 1970, and the marriage rate is 70 percent and the out‑of-wedlock birth is 5 percent, and, you know, life expectancy is 75, and opioid addiction is essentially nonexistent.  Fast forward 40 years and the divorce rate is 50 percent, out‑of-wedlock births are 40 percent, life expectancy has plummeted by 10 or 15 years, yeah, you can blame all that on the people who are making these bad decisions.  And to some extent, we should.  But we also, we have a thing called politics, and we have political leaders.  And what are they there for if it is not to create conditions in which virtue and the good life can thrive.  And if this is happening around you, and you're nominally in charge or nominally a leader, and you don't do anything about it, either because you don't know how or you don't care, then you're a bad leader.  Right.  If, as to use a Greek analogy that I'm fond of using, you know you read Plato and Aristotle, they like to talk about sheep and shepherds all the time, Socrates says this a lot.  Right, well, if you're a shepherd and your sheep are mangy, or rabid, or dying, or getting eaten by wolves, you're a bad shepherd.  Right.  And you can say, well, it's not my fault.  I mean, that dumb sheep walked off the edge of the cliff, or why did he go over there when the wolf was supposed to be there.  Your job, though, is to ensure the help of the flock and make it better.  It's not to take away every decision necessarily from every individual sheep, but if stuff is getting bad and you're nominally in charge, by definition, you're not, or to borrow a term that Ben used at the beginning, you suck.  Right. 

And that's kind of where our leadership found itself.  And I think Carlson, among many other things, is fundamentally right about this.  Conservative statesmanship needs to be about, first of all conserving communities, but even before we can conserve at this point, we have to dig out of the hole we've gotten ourselves into.  So, we need a lot of restoration.  And that's going to require leadership of a kind that's maybe a bit more intrusive and a bit more nudging, and a bit more pushy than '80's conservatism was used to, or comfortable with, but that's the situation we're in.  And, it doesn't seem to me that that is any less conservative in a more fundamental sense, it's only less conservative if we're going to forever judge everything according to the 1980 Republican platform, and Heritage's Mandate for Leadership book from the same year.  So, if those are to be the eternal scripts, then, yes, I am no longer a conservative.  Though, if there's something higher than that, than I would like to claim the title for myself and say people still reading the Catechism and thinking that's going to solve the problems of 2019 are the ones who aren't conservative. 

BEN BOYCHUK:  All right, so, with that let's turn it over to Charles Kessler.  Charles Kessler is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College.  He's a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute.  He's editor of the Claremont Review of Books, which is one of the most important journals in the country today.  And he is author of one of the best books on the Obama era; it's called We Are The Change.  Is it still in print? 

CHARLES KESSLER:   Yes it is. 

BEN BOYCHUK:    And they can get it?  Good.  It's called We Are The Change. 

CHARLES KESSLER:   I Am The Change.  I Am The Change.  (Laughter)

BEN BOYCHUK:  Oh, I Am The Change.  Got you.  Sorry.  Pardon me. (Laughter) Charles Kessler.  Over to you. 

CHARLES KESSLER:  Thank you, Ben. It's a pleasure to be on this panel with two old friends and colleagues who I admire, and I wanted, especially, to thank David as well for putting this organization together and sponsoring this meeting and for this invitation.

But ladies and gentlemen, I want to say a few things about the actual topic of the panel, which is 20-20 and the future of conservatism, but, of course, that means really the future of Donald Trump, so let me say something mostly about Donald Trump.  His slogan "Make America Great Again" – Some of you may have the hat.  I can't quite see out there – is fundamentally anti- progressive I would say because it implies that American Greatness is behind us, that it was achieved, we were great once and no longer are great.

Progressives believe that greatness always lies ahead of us and, inevitably, ahead of us.  That's why they believe in progress.  The future will be better than the present, even as the present is better than the past.  That's the assumption of an inevitable progress.  Trump's slogan, his candidacy, his presidency challenges that because it suggests that the sources of American Greatness and certainly the illustrations of American Greatness may be more in our past than in the present or even than in the future if we don't take some radical corrective action.  And in opposing progressivism, I mean to say he opposes not only the stern and radical leftist version of progressivism but even a certain kind of lazy Republican version of progressivism.

In a certain sense, the conservative movement peaked with the Reagan presidency.  I don't really think you'd get much of a debate about that among Republicans or conservatives in the country, and after the Reagan era came what I sort of call, more or less comprehensively, the Bush era from George H. W. Bush to Jeb exclamation point Bush, which would include such figures as John McCain and Romney on the Republican side and, in their own way, would include Clinton and Obama, I think, on the left.

But, let's talk about the right.  What characterized the Bush era on the right?  There was a certain impatience and even condescension towards Ronald Reagan and towards Reagan conservatism.  This became apparent from the very beginning of the era when H. W. Bush gave his acceptance speech at the Republican convention and pronounced his famous wish to usher in a kinder and gentler America.  The apocryphal story or at least, as far as I know it's apocryphal, has Nancy Reagan turning to Ronny as they're watching the television and saying, "Kinder and gentler than who," and, in fact, what characterized the standard right, the mainstream right after Reagan was a certain kind of assumed moral superiority to Reagan and to the tough conservative cadres that had assembled around Reagan and had fought many of the battles for Ronald Reagan.

This condescension towards their achievements and towards the sterner virtues  were needed in order to win the Cold War and to revive the American economy and to revive American patriotism, which I take to be the troika of major accomplishments of Reagan conservatism, their acceptance of that as though it had been inevitable and that it was no great feat to have accomplished these things.  They were in the cards, history was going to bring them eventually – issued in, in intellectual terms in the so-called end of history school of thinking.  Frank Cukiama at Stanford is the central intellectual figure  but the end-of history school really had avid readers and believers, not just on the left but on the right as well, and it went with a certain acceptance of status quo, politics on the right and on the left.  And the establishment part of the Republican party has never really gotten beyond that state of mind, that presumed superiority to Reagan, presumed victories which they never actually won themselves and the belief that no more virtue than that was going to be required for future Republican greatness or American Greatness.

That's why it seems to me highly likely that there will be a primary challenger from the Republican establishment to Donald Trump in the 2020 election.  The object of the sacrificial lamb who would be this challenger would be not to defeat Trump, but to damage him, and that's the important thing to realize.  No one thinks they can take Trump out in a Republican primary.  They'll get creamed.  But they hope to make arguments, they hope to appear on the same stage with him, they hope to damage him so that he will lose in the general election to the Democrats.  That's how much they despise him and resist him.  Now the report by the Special Prosecutor, Mueller's report, exonerating the President probably makes it less likely that a big name would want to run against him in the primary, and so Romney, who would be the central castings version of who a likely opponent would be, probably will decline the honor.  Jeb Bush, as you may have seen recently actually said we need to have a Republican to challenge Trump in the primaries, but he declined to do it himself.  If there's a definition of low energy, that would be it.  But it could still be someone like Larry Hogan, the governor of Maryland who's made noises about doing it.  John Kasich who's always making noises about doing it.  Bill Well, a completely inconsequential figure, now on the Republican Party.  Someone, I think, will feel they have to do it in order to save the Republican Party's honor and they think America's honor from Donald Trump. 

Now what is it about Trump's own conservatism that they resent so much?  From a certain point of view, Trump's conservatism is very understandable, very American.  He's pugnacious, he's a nationalist, he's in favor of a kind of return, reinvigorated American patriotism and American Greatness based upon that American patriotism.  He is a believer in American Greatness, not world greatness, not transnational greatness, but the greatness of our people one nation state which of course will have allies and friends in the world, but we are in charge only of our own fate and our own destiny.  He doesn't call himself a populist.  Trump doesn't really use that term, but there has always been a popular strain in the conservative movement going way back to Bill Buckley when he first formulated fusionist conservatism in the 1950s.  He had a famous line back then which I'm sure most of you have heard that he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book and by the faculty of Harvard University.  That's pretty Trumpian, actually, when you think about it.  It’s not that he would expect the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book to know about physiology and meteorology and all the other ologies that one finds at Harvard University and its faculty, but in terms of commonsense self-government, he trusts them more than the does the so-called experts at Harvard.  But to the left today and to an amazing extent to people who are Never Trumpers on the right, many of them, old friends of mine who I am absolutely astonished at the way they've been acting in the last couple of years, but increasingly on the left America itself, the American project, the American nation is nothing more than a litany of sins and grievous moral failures.  Racism, sexism, xenophobia, transphobia.  Um, the list goes on and on. 

And so, in our politics today, increasingly the issue which Trump drew in 2016 and is going to draw again in 2020, I think, could be put in the following way:  America versus anti-Americanism or America versus multi-culturalism or identarian politics or political correctness.  All of these things are overlapping concepts really.  The question that is so basic that Trump poses it even in the slogan on his hat is whether American ever was great and how we can recapture that greatness.   And increasingly the left and many people even as I say on the never Trump front, answer it by saying well really America was never great.  Our greatness if there is to be any, lies in the distant future when a succession of democratic presidents has worked his or her or its will on the American nation. 

When I wrote the book…..I said that it looked likely to me that the future of liberalism--because the book was really about Obama and the rise of modern American liberalism and a little bit about its future, that it looked like liberalism--would have to radicalize in one of two directions: either into a much more open socialist force because in order to pay the bills of the increasingly layered welfare state, it was going to require a lot more taxes and a lot more of a socialist economy.  So one directly was socialist.  The other was, I thought, increasingly postmodern or you could say radical identarian.  Insisting upon that we have no souls.  We have only selves, and ourselves are creatures of our skin color, our ethnicity, our culture that we have chosen, our values that we have chosen and so forth.  In other words, the two directions.  Really one was more Marxist.  One was more Nicaean.  In reality, the left has taken both options and, if you look over the past 10 years, you now have a blatantly socialist Democratic Party or a faction, a large faction, in the Democratic Party that is embracing a form of socialism.  You have increasingly almost every candidate in the Democratic Party must bow and kiss the ring of multi-culturalism and identity politics and anti-racism, anti-sexism and so forth.

We recently saw Joe Bide decrying white male culture and separating himself from his white maleness which wasn't too difficult apparently.  But the issue that 2020 now presents itself is whether America really is a, a Democratic Republic based upon individual human equality.  That all men, that is all human beings, are created equal.  Well whether this is a country based upon equal identity groups, each one of which feels itself oppressed by white males and whether going forward we have to become a much more radicalized, much more Marxist, much more Nicaean, much more socialist country in order to satisfy all of the demands of the incredible diversity of identity groups which have appeared and will appear in our politics. 

Now let me draw this to a conclusion by saying Trump in 2020, in a way of course the Democrats are beautifully setting up his campaign in 2020.  His will be a campaign of restoration, of restoring American Greatness, of restoring individual rights, actual individual rights, of treating Americans as equal, patriotic citizens not primarily as members of a racial or ethnic or gender group.  It is in many ways despite its apparent novelty, it is a deeply rooted, very traditional kind of appeal to Americanism.  It is also going to actually have elements of the old Republican Party platform, the things which Trump has emphasized contrary to a lot of the policy ideas of the post-Cold War American conservatism. His revised status on immigration, on protection, his approach towards judges and so forth have their roots in the old Republican Party pre-Cold War--the party of Calvin Coolidge, the party of William McKinley, the party of Abraham Lincoln.  Far from being a radical innovator in this respect, I think one could make the argument that Trump, whether he knows it or not, is in fact reverting to the norm of Republican politics, reverting to the mean of Republic Party politics in the country.

The last thing I'll say is there are interesting signs that an even bigger issue that he has not really touched in 2016 or much since then may come to the fore in the 2020 elections.  And, by that, I mean higher education.  It's clear that the breeding ground of multiculturalism and identity politics is the academy.  It's higher education.  It's Berkeley, Harvard and all of the elite and non-elite universities across the country and their radical faculties.  Just as David Horowitz has explained to us now for 20 or 30 years.  He was right about this.  He was right about it long before a lot of other people even realized that there was a problem.  And now I think Trump is becoming interested in the political side of higher education.  And this could be something to watch. 

His education secretary has issued regulations.  He has issued an executive order tying the granting of federal research money to the protection of students' free speech and due process rights at universities.  But I wonder whether there isn't more that could be done or that could be called for being done.  In particular, why are there so few Republicans and conservatives teaching at the major universities?  Why is it that it's conservative students overwhelmingly, not liberal students who feel infringements of their rights of free speech and due process?  Don't we need to somehow persuade or induce or force universities to take seriously American history, American principals to revive the grounds of patriotic civic education in American politics.  Shouldn't Donald Trump be bashing not just fake news, but fake education?  And with that, I'll subside.

BEN BOYCHUK:  So I hope we have time for at least a couple of questions?

AUDIENCE QUESTION:     Thanks.  That was great.  In talking about the future conservatism, the future of the country, we tend to leave out the most important element which are the voters, the people.  What does the panel, anybody on the panel, what are your thoughts about the nature of the American people?  Their character?  Their virtues?  Their practical wisdom?  How do they fit into these prognostications?

MICHAEL ANTON  Well I do want to sort of semi respond to something Charles said, or just add to it.  First of all, one of the ironies of the conservative opposition to Trump is again that Trump is – what was the compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush?  What was his father's kinder gentler supposed to mean?  Charles is right.  That was meant to be a repudiation, a rather subtle, but an unmistakable repudiation of Reaganism that the average middle voter, an independent voter, suburban voter who thought Reagan was too harsh, they would look at the Bush' and say these aren't that kind of Republican.  These are better, nicer people.  Well Trump definitely doesn't have kinder gentler rhetoric, but his policies certainly are closer to compassionate conservatism than the caricature of hard-edged Reaganism.  Trump is literally saying let's use the power of the state to make people's lives better.

Now how is that fundamentally different from what W was talking about with the passionate conservative?  I think it's fundamentally different in one way.  I'll just have to blurt it out.  I can't think of a polite way to say it.  Right?  Everybody kind of knew that when George W. Bush talked about compassionate conservativism what he meant was this is aimed at traditional Democratic constituencies.  This is not for the red voters who are already going to vote for me and who cling to their guns and religion.  I've got them in the bag, right?  This is for the urban poor and for minority communities who don't vote Republican.  Whereas, everybody also knew that when Trump said we're going to make America great again, and I'm going to revive communities and I'm going to rebuild manufacturing and get control of the opioid crisis and stop trade giveaways, he was talking directly about red Republican constituencies.  That's what was so anathema about the Trump message that caused people I think in an unexamined way to freak out.  And that's what viscerally makes them angry right now.

A critique that did not originate with me, but that I think is true, is that one of the reasons the Democratic Party has for 20 or 30 years been stronger than the Republican Party is because the Democratic Party knows how to do things for its constituency.  The Republican Party doesn't.  It just takes for granted that it'll get certain votes and then it says, okay, and then we're going to make sure that we get million or two illegal immigrants a year to keep your wages down.  We're going to keep closing factories everywhere and do more trade deals with China and overseas firms and we're going to increase your tax burden and lower the tax burden of hedge fund financiers.  And you're going to vote for us because of the Bible and guns.  So we don't really need to give you anything.  Trump was the first one to come along and say that's kind of stupid, and maybe what the Party ought to do is try to do things for its core constituency, and they're really mad at him for upsetting and exposing the rotten deal that they had been pulling on people for a long time.

BEN BOYCHUK:  I'd like to venture an answer to that question.  The question had to do with the character of the people, and I think the character of the people is by and large – I mean look, we're – the character of the people is by and large okay.  I don't mean this as an insult to anybody in this room and I certainly don't mean this as an insult to my fellow panelists, but we're weirdos.  Most normal people don't pay attention to politics the way we pay attention to politics.  I do this for a living.  He does it for a living.  He does it for a living.  You folks are activists in a lot of ways.  Most people aren't like this.  And so we see things, we are able to look at the kind of the condition of the country and things that are happening, and we kind of despair because why aren't more people paying attention?  Well that's a good question.  And part of our job is to get people, more people to pay attention.  But it isn't necessarily a bad thing that most people want to live sort of normal lives.  And they want to work, and they want to raise their families and they don't want to have to obsess over this sort of thing.  So we have our jobs cut out for us in making people more aware of what's going on and why essentially they're being lied to by the media and by the schools.  But I think by and large I think the people are okay.

CHARLES KESSLER:  I think that's good.  I mean I found it very encouraging the other day to see polls showing that 45 or 50 percent of Hispanics as polled were supporting Trump or were inclined to support Trump.  That is, among other things, a confirmation of the patriotic thesis, I think, and also a confirmation of the jobs boom that is going on and a confirmation of the normality of Hispanic voters who appreciate things like jobs and higher income and greater prosperity and freedom.

BEN HOYCHUK: We have time for one more.

AUDIENCE QUESTION:  I wanted to ask Charles why you think – I realize that Trump recently has attacked higher education, but why stop at higher education?  I don't know why – is it unconstitutional to say that classes have to be taught in English in the United States?  I think all of education needs to be attacked, and I think Trump would be successful doing that.

CHARLES KESSLER:  No, I think you're right.  Obviously, when I get to freshmen now, they already know the entire litany of intersectionality and the whole lingo of identity politics.  We didn't teach them that.  They arrived knowing it.  So they had to pick it up in high school or even before that.  And to that extent, you do need a top down reform, or maybe a bottom up reform in American politics.  But of course ultimately you have to educate the educators, which means you start at the top, you eventually will get down to the people who are teaching high school and K through 12 education.  But you're right.  It is not the Constitution that says that courses must be taught in English.  It's only a few eccentric judges…..There are no nationwide……

MICHAEL ANTON:  California passed this as a valid initiative in 1990, either 6 or 8.  I don't remember.  Proposition 227.  And it worked wonderfully until the state demographic tipped so far left that the people, the creative destruction people without the creativity as I said came in and said, oh, this is really working out well.  Let's make sure we destroy it.

BEN BOYCHUK:  Thank you. (Audience applause)

Apocali Now!

11 hours 2 min ago

Never mind Islamic terrorism, illegals flooding our border, the rise of MS-13, and the opioid crisis – all the Democrat presidential candidates agree that “climate change” is the most imminent, terrifying threat facing America and the world. As their Party’s rising star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put it recently, the world will end in twelve years if we don't address it.

Well, Evan Sayet has addressed it in a new book and his conclusion is that the Chicken Littles of the left have been whipping up one environmental hysteria after another for over 50 years (none of the dire predictions of which has ever come to pass) and they're at it again. The openly-conservative comedian and philosopher Sayet is perhaps best-known as the author of the enlightening and entertaining must-read titled The KinderGarden of Eden: How the Modern Liberal Thinks, expanded from a must-watch 2007 Heritage Foundation speech that has garnered over 770,000 views on YouTube as of this writing.

Sayet’s newest work is Apocali Now!, a faux children’s book illustrated by nationally-syndicated editorial cartoonist A.F. Branco. The book humorously skewers the left’s perpetual fear-mongering about environmental apocalypses, but also manages to touch on their science denial, hypocrisy, totalitarianism – even the mainstream media’s “fake news.”

I asked my friend Evan some questions about the book and more.

Mark Tapson: Let’s begin with your choice of medium. Why did you decide to take on the left’s “sky is falling” frenzies in a cartoon format?

Evan Sayet: It was quite by accident. I was writing my next book, tentatively titled Countering Culture: The Left’s War Against All That Is Human, and I began to address all of the fake environmental disasters the Leftist media and others have employed through the years that not only failed to be the catastrophe that they, with their “authority,” swore they would be, but, in fact, barely materialized at all, and suddenly I found it all so ludicrous I was singing it to myself.

MT: How did you hook up with A.F. Branco as your illustrator?

ES: Well “hook up” has a whole different meaning these days so I want to make it clear that I have never hooked up with Tony. But, obviously, if this was going to look like a children’s book, I needed an illustrator and, if one needs an illustrator, one of the very first phone calls one makes is to A.F. Branco.

The fact that he instantly signed on meant two things to me. One, that I’d have someone who would make all of my pointed jokes only that much stronger and, two, given how in-demand he is, the fact that he committed to this project without hesitation made it undeniable to me that I wasn’t alone in seeing how important a project Apocali Now! is.

MT: Can you elaborate on one of the lines in the book, on what it says about the nature of the left: “it’s not about science / They just want control and they need your compliance”?

ES: Rahm Emanuel famously stated that there’s “opportunity found in crisis.” Those looking for opportunity, then – the opportunity to get rich, the opportunity to get famous, the opportunity to get powerful – have a vested interested in manufacturing crises.

In “honor” of Earth Day, for example, CBS News reran a clip of their reportage from the first Earth Day 49 years ago, and in the severest of voices, the “most trusted man in America” summed up the story as, “Act now or DIE!!!”

This "act or die" meme that the well-known Leftist Walter Cronkite was selling all those years ago remains – and has been all along – the angle the Democrats play. People who are about to die become hysterical and hysteria blinds people to what is rational. Since the Left is always selling something that is not merely irrational but impossible – a government-created utopia – they need the same kind of "Act now!" Hurry! Time's running out!" sales pitch that used car salesmen employ to pressure people into making bad decisions and buying their product.

The only way the Left could possibly get people to forfeit somewhere between seventy and ninety percent of their income and turn their freedom over to a 29-year-old bartender from the Bronx pitching high speed rail to Europe – or to beat down the doors of the Supreme Court, or march down the street dressed up as giant vaginas – is if they have taken leave of their senses. Hysteria -- like the Left -- is the opposite of reason.

MT: Tell us about your own political history. Have you always been a conservative, or was there a Saul-of-Tarsus conversion in your past?

ES: Like a good many of us who now self-identify as “conservatives,” I thought myself a Liberal and thus a Democrat when I was a child. In those days, life in America was so halcyon that one didn’t have to think very deeply.  And when one doesn’t think very deeply, one believes themselves to be a Democrat. 

The truth is, I always was – and remain – a liberal. The problem is that the Liberal movement (upper case “L”) is not liberal in the slightest. It is the antithesis of liberalism. In fact, true liberalism resides in the Republican party and the conservative movement. After all, what we conservatives seek to “conserve” is this liberal democracy. My “come to Jesus” moment wasn’t that I didn’t believe what I believed; it was when I recognized that what I believed was not found on the Left.

MT: The left has long realized that comedy is a potent political weapon, but this is a lesson the right is slow to learn. There seem to be precious few openly-conservative comedians, even though you’ve proven the left is ripe for skewering. What can our side do to get our act together on this front?

ES: Our problem is neither a lack of humor nor a lack of conservative comedic talent. Our problem is two-fold. First, because they are the keepers of the gates – they are the ones who say whether you have a show on HBO or you don’t; they’re the ones who say you get a late night television show (or even an appearance on one) or you don’t – none of the mainstream opportunities available to a Leftist of even moderate talent or wit is available to those who refuse to toe the line.

There is an answer to this, however, which is to start our own media outlets and yet, though some like my friend Tom Julian [Founder of The JUL-TV Television Network and The Praise & Freedom Network] try, we still don’t have the great benefactors – either the studios or the George Soroses (please don’t put a “sic” there, who the hell knows the correct plural of Soros?”) – who will step up and give us both the creative freedom and the wide distribution that the others receive.

I suspect this is because our side tends to be objectively driven (and there is no less objective a profession than show business) and because “culture” (writ large) is not how people who care first about home and family, community and church, neighbors and friends tend to think.

MT: What’s next for you? And where can people see you perform next?

ES: Dinner. Oh, wait, you meant beyond that. I’m not sure. One of the things in my life that is a double-edged sword is that I work in so many different types of media – I write serious books, apparently, I write kids’ books, I write speeches for presidential candidates and have written speeches for this president. I give serious lectures and comedic talks and still write screenplays and documentaries. So, right now, I’m promoting Apocali Now! because I believe in it. Believe me, this is NOT a “prestige project.” But I do believe it’s an important one. 

We can have as many think tanks as we want. We can produce the most brilliant and truthful policy papers ever written and we do. But when the “new face” of the Democratic party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, states point-blank that “it’s more important to be morally right than it is to be factually right” we’ve got to recognize that we need to come at them from a different angle. I think Apocali Now! does just that.

One more thing, please. I have heard from a number of people that what they’re doing is buying SEVERAL copies of the book. They keep one on their coffee table for when friends come to visit, and they’re quietly leaving the others behind at doctors’ offices, in the seatbacks of airliners, at coffee shops and other places where it might be found and read by someone who might then be moved by the never-ending litany of ecological disasters that simply never came to be.

MT: Great recommendations for disseminating the message. Thanks for putting it out there, Evan – just in time too, since humanity has only twelve years left.

Get Apocali Now! here, and check out Evan Sayet’s website here.

Gay Jamaican Immigrant Defends Israel; Students for Justice in Palestine Come After Him

11 hours 17 min ago

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

In 1985, a twenty-year old Jamaican immigrant came to this country with $120 in his pocket. Thirteen years later, he had a PhD. Two years later, he had begun his career teaching at DePaul University.

In 2019, a coalition of lefties, Islamists and anti-Semites at DePaul are demanding a safe space from him.

Dr. Jason Hill (pictured above) is a gay Jamaican immigrant who teaches philosophy and lectures about civil rights. But after defending Israel, DePaul student organizations, including Students for Justice in Palestine, a notorious anti-Semitic nationwide hate group whose members have praised Hitler and called for another Holocaust, United Muslims Moving Ahead (UMMA), an Islamist campus group, which invited a Muslim cleric who rationalized the murder of gay people, DePaul Socialists, and College Democrats, are demanding that a black gay professor undergo “racial sensitivity training”.

Also joining the local production of outrage theater is the Lambda Theta Phi fraternity.

The coalition of Hispanic frat boys, socialists and Islamists claimed that Dr. Hill's defense of Israel and condemnation of Islamic anti-Semitism created “unsafe and uncomfortable spaces for everyone, especially Palestinian and Muslim students.”

How did Dr. Hill create an “unsafe and uncomfortable” space at DePaul? He used words. He expressed ideas. He wrote an article with arguments that the coalition doesn’t want to counter with its own ideas.  

Meanwhile UMMA featured a lecture by Shaykh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali who had written in ‘The Homosexual Challenge to Muslim Ethics’ that, “Religions, like Islam, have attempted to outlaw the practice by prescribing punishments like, flogging and stoning, for people who either confess to or are caught committing acts of sodomy”, but that, “Attitudes have changed very much today in both the West and the East perhaps due to neocolonial hegemonic pressures.”

In another essay, the Zaytuna cleric defended the Islamic institution of slavery.

DePaul Socialists and the College Democrats don’t believe that UMMA inviting a cleric from Zaytuna College, a notorious hub of Islamist hatred, who implied that if it weren’t for “neocolonial hegemonic pressures”, gay people could still be safely killed in Muslim countries, is a safe space issue.

But a gay professor who voices opposition to Islamic violence against minorities must be condemned.

Does “everyone” at DePaul really need a safe space after a gay black professor celebrated “Jewish exceptionalism” and condemned Muslim anti-Semitism? Jewish students don’t seem to have signed on to this. But apparently, unlike “Palestinian and Muslim students”, they don’t matter.

"We are not only seeking censure, but for Professor Hill to commit to racial sensitivity training and to release a public apology for his immoral conduct," the coalition demanded.

Not only does this coalition want a black professor to undergo racial sensitivity training, even though neither Muslims nor Palestinians are a race, but it claims that it is “immoral” to disagree with them.

Dr. Hill however has laid out the morality behind his reasoning. His hateful opponents have not.

In, “The Moral Case For Israel Annexing The West Bank—And Beyond”, Dr. Hill offered an Objectivist critique of Israel’s failed effort to bring about peace by manufacturing a “Palestinian” state. He accurately pointed out that Israel had the moral and political right to treat the colonial Muslim population of the defeated invaders as “war settlers” or “illegal occupants”. And that Israel, instead, chose to pursue a liberal approach even though it had no actual moral obligation to do so.

“The proper response from Israel should have been to immediately annex the land and make the people there the responsibility of their original political homeland: Jordan,” Dr. Hill argued. Instead, Israel provided civil rights to the Muslim settler population, which they lost in the “Palestinian” state.

“The PA has destroyed the freedom Palestinians enjoyed under Israeli rule and their economy through kleptocracy, corruption, nepotism, and authoritarian forms of governance subject to none of the checks and balances that characterize Israel’s Knesset,” he wrote.

Someone else might have been accused of colonialism, but Dr. Hill’s grandfather was Frank Hill, a key figure in Jamaican independence. And Dr. Hill insists that it’s not a reflexive separatism based on victimhood that justifies nationhood, but the values and ideals of a nation that endow it with rights.

These are the principles that underlie the Declaration of Independence, but have since been abandoned in a haze of moral relativism that defines national rights negatively against some construct, colonialism, imperialism, rather than positively, for its ideas and its respect for the individual rights of its people.

Dr. Hill argued that "Not all cultures are indeed equal", that while "Jewish civilization is an international treasure trove that must be protected", but the ‘Palestinians’ “have never come into their own as a people largely because they have never explicitly held a philosophy that can support freedom, the basic liberal principles of individual rights, and a free market economy.”

The argument against Israel and for Palestine depends on viewing individual rights as irrelevant in the face of group rights and performative victimhood. And nowhere in America are individual rights as thoroughly overwhelmed by performative group victimhood as the modern college campus.

And so DePaul’s Islamist supremacists and socialist anti-Semites are claiming to have been traumatized.

This isn’t the first time the campus hate coalition has come after Dr. Hill looking for a safe space. He ought to be everything that lefties embrace. But instead they have been fighting to force him out.

It’s not hard to see why.

A politically correct philosophy professor wouldn’t appear regularly on FOX News. Or declare on his site that his mission is “Defending the American Dream” and “Fighting for the American People.”

The respected philosophy professor has delivered lectures on such topics as, “Biological Collectivism and The Politics of Racial Identity”, "When We Should Not Get Along: Cosmopolitan Values in a Multicultural World", and “Hiding From Humanity: The Burka and the Obliteration of Human Identity.”

That last one was delivered at the City College of London.

Despite appearing to some to be the embodiment of identity politics, Dr. Hill has instead challenged it. And, like all minorities who question the very political system that exploits them as the justification for its power, he has received a disproportionate share of outrage and fury from that political system.

This isn’t the first time that a DePaul professor was targeted for supporting Israel.

Over a decade has passed since DePaul’s shameful purge of Thomas Klocek, a respected academic, after he confronted UMMA and SJP hate on campus. Klocek was suspended without a hearing for arguing with the anti-Semitic bigots of UMMA and SJP. “The students’ perspective was dishonored and their freedom demeaned. Individuals were deeply insulted,” a DePaul dean wrote.

“Our college acted immediately by removing the instructor from the classroom.”

This was what academic freedom in the face of anti-Semitism looked like at DePaul then. Dr. Hill’s case will provide a test of what academic freedom in the face of anti-Semitism looks like at DePaul now.

 DePaul can stand with Dr. Hill. Or it can stand with the anti-Semites of SJP, who rationalize the murder of Jews, and UMMA, which invited a cleric who rationalizes the murder of gay people.

But whatever it does, it should remember that Americans and the Trump administration are watching.

* * *

Screenshot from YouTube

John Bolton Honors Bay of Pigs Freedom Fighters

11 hours 47 min ago

“It is an honor to address you all today. I am delighted to be here in Miami among such brave and distinguished company. Our nation and this region are forever in debt to you." - John Bolton to the Bay of Pigs Veterans Association on April 17, 2019, the 58th anniversary of the Bay of Pigs freedom fight.

I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things [the Bay of Pigs freedom fight] that happened when I was three months oldWe are not dug into policies that were formulated before I was born.” - an abject President Obama groveling to Communist/drug-trafficking/ terror-sponsors Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro at the Summit of the Americas in 2009 during his famous “apology tour.”

But one craven, sniveling apology to the terror-sponsoring mass-murderers whose lifelong craving was to nuke his country wasn’t enough for President Obama. Hence: The Bay of Pigs took place the year that I was born. I know the history, but I refuse to be trapped by it…I have come here to bury the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas. - a groveling President Obama again apologizing to Raul Castro, this time in April 2016 in Havana, after releasing Castro’s convicted spies and meekly succumbing to Castro’s every demand.

After his gracious opening remarks, national Security Advisor John Bolton went much further: “Each of you witnessed the horrors of socialism and communism. Today, we honor the 58th Anniversary of your extraordinary valor and sacrifice…The United States will never forget the sacrifices you and your brothers in arms made on those hallowed beaches (Bay of Pigs) nearly six decades ago.”

“Aww, come ON, Humberto!” retort some amigos. “Isn’t Bolton’s speech the typical BS all politicians spew at such luncheons?” Well, let’s have a look at the actual Bay of Pigs battle. I report, you decide:

“They fought like tigers,” wrote the CIA officer who helped train the Cubans who splashed ashore at the Bay of Pigs. “But their fight was doomed before the first man hit the beach.”

That CIA man, Grayston Lynch, knew something about fighting – and about long odds. He carried scars from Omaha Beach, the Battle of the Bulge, and Korea’s Heartbreak Ridge.

“They fought magnificently and were not defeated,” stressed Marine Col. Jack Hawkins, a multi-decorated World War II and Korean War vet who helped train them. “They were abandoned on the beach without the supplies and support promised by their sponsor, the government of the United States.”

But in those earlier battles Lynch, Hawkins and their band of brothers counted on the support of their Commander-in-Chief. At the Bay of Pigs, American Grayston Lynch and his Cuban band of brothers learned — first in speechless shock and finally in burning rage — that their most powerful enemies were not Castro’s Soviet-armed and -led soldiers massing in nearby Santa Clara, but the Ivy League’s best and brightest, dithering in Washington.

Lynch trained, in his own words, “brave boys who had never before fired a shot in anger” — college students, farmers, doctors, common laborers, whites, blacks, mulattoes. They were known as La Brigada 2506, an almost precise cross-section of Cuban society of the time. The Brigada included men from every social strata and race in Cuba — from sugar cane planters to sugar cane cutters, from aristocrats to their chauffeurs. But mostly, the folks in between, as befits a nation with a larger middle class than most of Europe.

Short on battle experience, yes, but they fairly burst with what Bonaparte and George Patton valued most in a soldier: morale. No navel-gazing about “why they hate us” or the merits of “regime change” for them. They’d seen Castroism point-blank.

Their goals were crystal-clear: firing squads silenced, families reunited, tens of thousands freed from prisons, torture chambers and concentration camps. We see it on the History Channel after our GIs took places like Manila and Munich.

In 1961 newsreels could have captured such scenes without crossing oceans. When those Cuban freedom fighters hit the beach at the Bay of Pigs, one of every 18 Cubans suffered in a Castro Gulag. Mass graves dotted the Cuban countryside, piled with hundreds who’d crumpled in front of Castro's and Che Guevara’s firing squads. Most of the invaders had loved ones among them. Modern history records few soldiers with the burning morale of the Bay of Pigs freedom fighters.

From the lethal fury of the attack and the horrendous casualties their troops and militia were taking, the Castro brothers and Che Guevara assumed they faced at least “20,000 invading mercenaries,” as they called them. Yet it was a band of mostly civilian volunteers their Soviet-armed and led-troops outnumbered 20-to-1.

Where are the planes?” kept crackling over U.S. Navy radios two days later. “Where is our ammo? Send planes or we can’t last!”

Commander Jose San Roman kept pleading to the very fleet that escorted his men to the beachhead. Crazed by hunger and thirst, his men had been shooting and reloading without sleep for three days. Many were hallucinating. By then many suspected they’d been abandoned by the Knights of Camelot.

That’s when Castro’s Soviet Howitzers opened up, huge 122mm ones, four batteries’ worth. They pounded 2,000 rounds into the freedom fighters over a four-hour period.

“It sounded like the end of the world,” one said later.

“Rommel’s crack Afrika Corps broke and ran under a similar bombardment,” wrote Haynes Johnson in his book, The Bay of Pigs.

By that time the invaders were dazed, delirious with fatigue, thirst and hunger, too deafened by the bombardment to even hear orders. But these men were in no mood to emulate Rommel’s Afrika Corps by retreating. Instead they were fortified by a resolve no conquering troops could ever call upon – the burning duty to free their nation.

“If things get rough,” the heartsick Grayston Lynch radioed back, “we can come in and evacuate you.”

We will NOT be evacuated!” San Roman roared back to his friend Lynch. “We came here to fight! We don’t want evacuation! We want more ammo! We want PLANES! This ends here!”

Camelot’s criminal idiocy finally brought Adm. Arleigh Burke of the Joints Chief of Staff, who was receiving the battlefield pleas, to the brink of mutiny. Years before, Adm. Burke sailed thousands of miles to smash his nation’s enemies at the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Now he was Chief of Naval Operations and stood aghast as new enemies were being given a sanctuary 90 miles away!

The fighting admiral was livid. They say his face was beet red and his facial veins popping as he faced down his commander-in-chief that fateful night of April 18, 1961.

“Mr. President, TWO planes from the Essex! [the U.S. Carrier just offshore from the beachhead] That’s all those Cuban boys need, Mr. President. Let me order…!”

President John F. Kennedy was in white tails and a bow tie that evening, having just emerged from an elegant social gathering.

“Burke,” he replied. “We can’t get involved in this.”

“WE put those Cuban boys there, Mr. President!” The fighting admiral exploded. “By God, we ARE involved!”

Adm. Burke’s pleas also proved futile.

The freedom fighters inevitably forced a retreat. Castro’s jets and Sea Furies were roaming overhead at will and tens of thousands of his Soviet-led and -armed troops and armor were closing in. The Castro planes now concentrated on strafing the helpless, ammo-less freedom fighters.

“Can’t continue,” Lynch’s radio crackled – it was San Roman again. “Have nothing left to fight with …out of ammo…Russian tanks in view….destroying my equipment.”

“Tears flooded my eyes,” wrote Grayston Lynch. “For the first time in my 37 years I was ashamed of my country.”

When the smoke cleared and their ammo had been expended to the very last bullet, when 100 of them lay dead and hundreds more wounded, after three days of relentless battle, barely 1,400 of them — without air support from the U.S. Carriers just offshore and without a single supporting shot by naval artillery — had squared off against 21,000 Castro troops, his entire air force and squadrons of Soviet tanks.

The Cuban freedom fighters inflicted more than 3,000 casualties on their Soviet-armed and -led enemies. This feat of arms still amazes professional military men.

 “We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty!” proclaimed Lynch and Hawkin’s commander-in-chief just three months earlier.

Notre Dame: An Omen

11 hours 50 min ago

Christianity is burning — and with it, Western civilization.

Every major Western (and one major non-Western) social and intellectual force has conspired to rid Europe of Christianity and the civilization it produced.

Within the Western world, the French Enlightenment — the intellectual basis of the French Revolution and the modern West — sought to replace Christianity, and religion in general, with secularism rooted in reason. No G od, Bible or Ten Commandments is necessary for morality or meaning: reason (and science) will replace them.

The two final deathblows to Christianity in Europe were the world wars. World War I ended most Westerners' belief in the nation-state and the West. Christianity, already weakened by the Enlightenment, was further weakened by World War I. German Christians were killing millions of French and English Christians, and French and English Christians were killing millions of German Christians. So the argument and sentiment against Christianity went. Then World War II saw even more death on the Christian continent as well as the failure of Catholic and Protestant churches in Nazi Germany to offer even minimal noncompliance with the Nazis' Jew-hatred.

With the end of World War II, every internal Western intellectual doctrine was secular. G od, the Bible and religion were regarded at best as innocuous nonsense and at worst as noxious nonsense.

Meanwhile, Europeans brought a non-European ideology into Europe, an ideology that, for more than a thousand years, sought to replace Christianity as the world's dominant religion. The Europeans, believing in nothing distinctly Christian or Western and believing in the moral and intellectual nonsense known as "multiculturalism" — a doctrine that asserts that all cultures are morally equivalent — saw nothing problematic in bringing millions of Muslims into Europe. They had no idea that most of these people actually wanted to replace Christianity with their religion. They had no idea because, in their ignorance and arrogance, they assumed that because they were secular multiculturalists, everybody else was, too — or would be, once they lived in Europe.

They were wrong, of course. And as a result, the two dominant forces in Europe — secular leftism and Islamism — sought the end of Christianity and the West. (The left believes that protecting Western civilization is equivalent to protecting white supremacy.)

This is not producing a pretty picture. Generally speaking, Islam has not been nearly as kind, tolerant, open, medically or scientifically innovative or intellectually curious as Western civilization (and yes, Nazism and communism were born in the West, but they were anti-Western).

Even without tens of millions of Muslims, post-Christian Europe has not produced a pretty picture. This was predicted in 1834, 100 years before Hitler's rise, by the great German poet Heinrich Heine, a secular Jew (who later converted to Protestantism, "the ticket of admission into European culture"):

"Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered, the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. This talisman (the cross) is fragile, and the day will come when it will collapse miserably. Then ... a play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll."

European Christians persecuted European Jews, often brutally. But it took a post-Christian ideology, secular Nazism, to produce Auschwitz — just as it took post-Christian communism to produce the Gulag, the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the Ukrainian and Cambodian genocides.

Moreover, Nazism and communism aside, the left's belief that secular reason can replace G od and the Bible turns out to be completely wrong. The alleged citadels of secular reason — the universities — are the most irrational and morally confused institutions in the West.

I don't know if a worker accident or a radical Muslim set fire to Notre Dame Cathedral (as they have scores of other churches around Europe). In terms of what the fire represented, it doesn't much matter. What matters is the omen: Europe is burning, just as Notre Dame was.

Twitter Notifies Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov About Complaint Regarding His Sri Lanka Jihad Tweet

11 hours 51 min ago

[Order Jamie Glazov’s new book: Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us.]

On Tuesday, April 23, Twitter notified Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov that it had received a complaint about his tweet on April 21st about the world's response to the Sri Lanka Jihad Massacre. Glazov wrote about his confusion about the discrepancy in the international community's reaction to the Sri Lanka Jihad in comparison to how it had reacted to the shootings on mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. He tweeted:

With this tragic Sri Lanka Jihad Massacre having been perpetrated, I am bewildered: Where are all Muslim leaders, and all leaders, wearing the Cross and saying the "Our Father" and "Hail Mary" aloud in public? Or it's only when Islam is a target that everyone dons the Hijab?

Twitter soon informed Jamie that a complaint had been made about his tweet: 

It is commendable that Twitter, this time, took the Frontpage Editor's side -- as opposed to an earlier occasion where it had suspended him for his apparent "violation" of "Twitter Rules" by his referencing of several Islamic religious texts. And in another bizarre and Kafkaesque episode, Twitter warned Glazov that his new book, Jihadist Psychopath, violated Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law. Why Twitter is faithfully doing Pakistan’s Sharia bidding remains an issue many are waiting for Twitter to explain.

In any case, in this new development, the question remains: What is the complaint against Glazov's tweet based on exactly? Is there something wrong with pointing out that many leaders and members of the international community were donning the Hijab after the Christchurch mosque shootings? It is simply a fact that they were.

And so, what exactly is wrong with wondering where all the leaders and people are (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) who are verbalizing the "Our Father" and "Hail Mary" aloud in public -- as an expression of solidarity with Christians after the Sri Lanka Jihad Massacre? What exactly is wrong with asking this question?

In his recent video, after all, Paul Joseph Watson has demonstrated the undeniable facts about the blatant double standards in the international community's reaction to both attacks.

Once again, it is encouraging that, on this occasion, Twitter has not done Sharia's bidding. But it is still extremely disturbing that Twitter is taking "complaints" of this tyrannical kind seriously -- and that it is actually informing the "potential" thought offenders about them. And it is also extremely worrying that Twitter is still enforcing Islamic blasphemy laws.

All people who value free speech should contact Twitter and encourage this leading social media platform to value free speech and reject all totalitarian efforts to silence it.

Let @TwitterSupport and @Twitter know your thoughts -- and make sure to tweet CEO Jack Dorsey: @Jack Dorsey. You can also contact Twitter on their website at: help.twitter.com.

Thank you all so much for your commitment to freedom and liberty!

6 Dem Senators Sell Out Jewish Terror Victims to Restore Cash to Islamic Terrorists

Wed, 04/24/2019 - 04:58

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

In 2002, Shmuel Waldman, an American from New Jersey, was shot while boarding a bus in Israel. The terrorist attack killed 2 people and left 40 injured. Among that 40 was Shmuel whose leg was blown apart, forcing him to undergo multiple surgical procedures, and leaving him suffering from PTSD.

The terrorist who shot him was Said Ramadan, a “police officer” working for the terrorists who run the Palestinian Authority. The attack had been planned by senior Palestinian Authority officials and the Palestinian Authority viewed Ramadan as a hero. Waldman joined other victims of terrorism in a lawsuit against the terrorist group, which is funded by American taxpayers, under the Antiterrorism Act

Waldman v. PLO resulted in a record award of $655 million in damages against the Palestinian Authority terror network. But the verdict was thrown out because an American court lacked jurisdiction over the terrorist group even though the United States provides much of the cash flow that its terrorists rely on.

The Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act was introduced and approved to make it clear that accepting security assistance for its "police force" would place the Palestinian Authority under judicial jurisdiction for lawsuits such as these. The PA could stop funding terrorism or face lawsuits from its victims.

A ruthless battle was waged against ATCA by a variety of groups which understood that the Palestinian Authority would not stop funding and promoting terrorism under any circumstances. These groups falsely claimed that ATCA would undermine American and Israeli security. That was a blatant lie.

The only thing that ATCA would undermine was the flow of tax dollars to Islamic terrorists.

Last year, the Palestinian Authority informed the United States that the terror group would no longer accept any aid from the United States that would expose it to ATCA lawsuits. The terror group’s letter suggested that it might revisit its refusal if the law were changed. That’s just what 6 Democrat senators, led by Senator Dianne Feinstein have set out to do, using the false claim of a humanitarian disaster.

“President Trump’s refusal to provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people is a strategic mistake,” Senator Feinstein claimed, accusing him of "denying funding for clean water, health care and schools in the West Bank and Gaza."

Senator Chris Coons urged that, “It is critical that we restore lifesaving aid to the West Bank and Gaza.” Senator Jeff Merkley insisted that, “Aid to innocent civilians should not be caught up in broader geopolitical battles. We can and should restore aid to children and other vulnerable populations at the same time as we stand steadfastly by Israel’s security.”

But the real agenda revealed by their resolution shows that it’s not about humanitarian aid, but about restoring funding to the Islamic terrorists of the Palestinian Authority.

While Feinstein claims that Trump is preventing “clean water” and “health care” aid, her own resolution actually begins by admitting that, “the Palestinian Authority’s interpretation of the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act… led the Palestinian Authority to reject all forms of United States assistance.”

The problem isn’t Trump. It isn’t the United States. It’s that the Palestinian Authority is a terror group.

The Palestinian Authority, on whose behalf Senator Feinstein is advocating, rejected the money that Dianne wants to give the terror group, because it doesn’t want to face American terror victims in court.

Rather than telling the truth about that, Senator Feinstein and her five accomplices start out by lying about the problem, and about what they want to accomplish, while assuming that the media will never report the truth. They are almost certainly right about that. But wrong about everything else.

The resolution, “Expressing the sense of Congress regarding restoring United States bilateral assistance to the West Bank and Gaza”, specifically demands $196 million for the Economic Support Fund, $60 million for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; and another million for anti-terrorism.

But the Palestinian Authority is a terrorist coalition. Some of its components, such as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, are even officially listed as terrorist groups by the United States. Palestinian Authority “police” deserve the name the same way that ISIS cops did. They’re armed members of a terrorist network with a history of participating in terrorist attacks. This network was set up with United States aid in the Clinton era. Senator Feinstein is vocally insisting that we continue funding terrorists.

If Feinstein, Coons and Merkley were really just concerned about humanitarian assistance, they would not have pushed for funds for the armed components of a terrorist network. This is not about “clean water”, it’s about dirty cash flowing to the enforcers for a terrorist group while leaving their victims out in the cold.

The six senators want the PA’s thugs to get paid, while their victims are left unable to sue them.

Feinstein is joined in this charade by Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Chris Coons, Senator Chris Van Hollen, and Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, and Senator Jeff Merkely.

Senator Van Hollen claims that he wants to help “millions of children” with this resolution.

“There are thousands of children and families in the West Bank and Gaza who need the aid the United States has historically provided," Cortez Masto appealed.

Is it thousands or millions? Since it’s not about the children, the fake numbers don’t actually matter.

If the senators read their own resolution, they would see that it frees terrorists from being sued for the foreign aid they receive from American taxpayers by their American victims in United States courts. 

No wonder that Feinstein, Coons, Van Hollen, Cortez Masto and Merkely keep talking about children. Caring about children sounds a lot better than trying to help terrorists defraud terror victims.

A number of the Dem senators invoke Trump, attacking and blaming him, but as their own resolution concedes, it was the Palestinian Authority that turned down ATCA aid. How is that Trump’s fault?

Why blame President Trump when your own terrorists would rather kill Jews than take your money?

Senator Feinstein is broadcasting support for her resolution from a variety of “humanitarian” groups. A number of these groups, such as Churches for Middle East Peace, are involved in BDS and other anti-Israel activities. Islamic Relief has been accused of supporting Hamas. As has another NGO on the list.

Feinstein, Van Hollen, Merkley, Coons and Cortez Masto are touting support for their “humanitarian” effort that respects “Israeli security” from Islamic USA whose chair, Khaled Lamada, has allegedly praised Hamas, and distributed conspiracy theories which claim that, the Jews are causing Egyptian Muslims to have sex, plan to invade the Nile Valley and that the Egyptian president is a secret Jew.

Democrats are using support from BDS, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic groups to back this resolution. And they are doing so while lying and misleading about the resolution, its aims and its purpose.

Senator Feinstein and her allies have failed to explain what ATCA is or what “legal liabilities” the Palestinian Authority is attempting to evade. That’s because the plain truth is that the six Senate Democrats are trying to defraud terror victims like Shmuel Waldman under the guise of helping children.

But the “children” they’re helping are grown men who need our money for their guns.

Officially, the United States doesn’t buy guns or bullets for the terrorist police forces. But money is obviously fungible. The funds that the United States puts into terror groups frees them to buy weapons.

It is ironic that Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has been known for her militant opposition to Americans owning firearms, and for holding firearms manufacturers liable for gun violence, wants to force those same Americans to pay for guns for terrorists while exempting those same terrorists from liability.

Palestinian “security officials” don’t just carry pistols, but Kalashnikov rifles. Those aren’t the weapons of law enforcement, but of a terrorist and guerrilla organization. They’re not meant to police, but to war.

Senator Feinstein hates “assault rifles” when Americans have them, not when Islamic terrorists do.

The resolution isn’t really about humanitarian aid. It’s about allowing terrorists to get away with murder. It’s about stealing money from their victims. And about weakening America’s negotiating position with a terrorist group by exempting it from accountability to the courts, to its victims and to our government.

“Reporting” on the Sri Lanka Jihadist Massacres

Wed, 04/24/2019 - 04:57

If you think the mainstream media in America are shameless in their devotion to leftist orthodoxy – well, of course you’re right. But there are exceptions: at least some major outlets in the U.S. don’t march in ideological lockstep. Even the New York Times has a good, honest reporter or two. In any event, you don’t have to pay to read these people’s claptrap if you don’t want to.

Imagine, by contrast, living in Norway, where the political left has a total lock on the mainstream news media, and the country’s five million people are forced to pay big time for their non-stop propaganda. TV and radio news are dominated by government-run NRK, to which the sheeple shell out $500 million per annum in compulsory license fees for the privilege of being brainwashed.

Then there’s the print press. In addition to scores of local papers, Norway has about a dozen national dailies, several of which receive generous taxpayer support – supposedly in order to ensure diversity of thought, even though they’re all left-wing. For example, Dagsavisen, a former Labor Party organ that’s now a gaunt rag consisting largely of far-left editorials and columns, sells only 20,000 copies a year while raking in $5 million in state subsidies.

One is constantly reminded that this is a country whose first-ever professor of journalism, Sigurd Allern – brought on board by the University of Oslo in 2002 – was the first chairman of the Workers’ Communist Party of Norway and longtime editor-in-chief of the Communist daily Klassekampen.

Aside from its lockstep ideology, Norwegian journalism is notorious for its laziness, irresponsibility, and all-around mediocrity. Much of it reads like stuff out of a sub-par American high-school paper. Simple grammatical errors abound. Basic omissions from some news articles give the impression that the reporters in question were never taught the five W’s. International reportage consists largely of material paraphrased from the New York Times.

Despite their incompetence, however, Norwegian journalists at the national level – even young and obscure ones – come off as being at least as full of themselves as the likes of Christiane Amanpour and Don Lemon. Plainly, they’ve been trained to view themselves as part of a lofty elite, instructing the peasants in what to think.

This is especially true when the subject at hand is Islam.

Case in point: Ralf Lofstad, a reporter for the Norwegian tabloid Dagbladet. I do not mean to single him out – he’s not very much better or worse than most of his colleagues – but on Tuesday, he wrote a few things that seemed to me highly prototypical of what goes by the name of journalism these days in the land of the fjords and, more broadly, elsewhere in the West.

What happened is this: Lofstad posted a link on Facebook to his newly published article about the aftermath of the church massacres in Sri Lanka. It’s classic sob-sister reportage, the result of the kind of pointless intrusion into the grief of survivors that you can see on CNN when some clod, shoving a microphone into the face of a mother who’s just lost her child, asks her “How do you feel?”

“For me,” wrote Lofstad on Facebook, “this is what the profession of journalism is about – the ability to tell the powerful personal stories. To get to meet these upstanding women [who lost their loves ones in the massacres] was a privilege.” Barbara Walters couldn’t have said it better. 

One of Lofstad’s Facebook followers, a fellow named Per, reacted to this puerile vision of journalism with a highly reasonable question: would Lofstad, in his articles from Sri Lanka, consider providing readers with some context? Although “Christians are the world’s most vulnerable religious group,” Per pointed out, this fact “is almost never mentioned in the mainstream media….Even I, an atheist, think this is, literally, bloody unfair.” Helpfully, he attached several news articles from the international press about Islamic slaughter of Christians in the Middle East, Pakistan, Uganda, and elsewhere. 

How did Lofstad respond? By thanking him for the input? Au contraire. “What have I done to deserve political spam on my wall?” he wrote snottily. “I don’t want activism on my wall.” A couple of Lofstad’s friends agreed. One of them accused Per of – gasp! – trying to tell a journalist what to do. Per replied that he was only trying to provide Lofstad with information: “I just wanted to show you these things, in case you weren’t aware of them.” How dare he! Shooting back, Lofstad claimed that the material Per had posted wasn’t “just information” but was, rather, part of a “personal vendetta,” apparently against Islam.

In the eyes of a journalist like Lofstad, you see, even to mention that there’s a worldwide jihad against Christians underway is to be an activist, a provocateur, a troublemaker. When a lone gunman attacks mosques in New Zealand, it makes sense, to the likes of Lofstad, to start yammering on about “Islamophobia” and “white supremacy.” But when there’s an act of Islamic terrorism against Christians at worship, to mention that Islam has, from its conception, been at war with Christianity and that Christians are currently being murdered en masse by Muslims around the planet is to be a spammer, an activist on an Islamophobic vendetta.

Lofstad further accused Per of the high crime of taking a “didactic tone toward journalists.” In other words: How dare you suggest that you know anything I don’t know! This is the mentality of all too many members of the guild today.

I can recall a time when the marks of a good reporter were his ability to sniff out stories, his skill at cultivating sources, his readiness to go anywhere and talk to anybody who might have useful information. One of the attributes such a reporter requires is humility. Every time he takes on a new story, he has to be acutely aware that there are plenty of other people who know things about it that he doesn’t, and that the most important part of his job is to talk to them, listen to them, and learn from them – whoever they may be.

As it happens, Per gave Lofstad a compliment: while “Norwegian media…are generally not particularly good, either with language, research, or objectivity,” he wrote, “I think you’re well above average at Dagbladet.” But this wasn’t good enough for Lofstad, who, like many others in his profession, has apparently been trained to see himself as a member of a kind of aristocracy, too good to learn from anybody else. What, after all, is there to learn? He already knows what narrative he’s expected to push. For that’s what it’s all about, when you get right down to it – not getting at the truth, but furthering the narrative. And if that involves suppressing certain facts, so be it.

And, again, this is particularly true when the story involves Islam.

Speaking of which, the article to which Lofstad linked on Tuesday was one of three that carried his byline early this week. It followed a Monday news story the thrust of which was that stereotypes about terrorism should be avoided. (“In the U.S.,” one “expert” asserted, “it’s white men who are behind most of the mass shootings.”) Another Tuesday article, about the perpetrators of the Sri Lanka massacre, was credited to Lofstad and no fewer than five other Dagbladet staffers, even though it was based largely on reportage in the New York Times.

As for the piece that Lofstad linked to on Facebook, he waited until the very end to mention – as briefly as possible – the perpetrators, namely “the Islamist group National Thoweed Jama'ath.” But he said nothing at all about that group’s motives and ideology. And, no, needless to say, he didn’t breathe a word about the fact that the worldwide jihadist butchering of Christians by Muslims has reached epidemic proportions.

Video: How the Chinese Government Infiltrates Our Schools

Wed, 04/24/2019 - 04:55

Editor's note: Below is Sean Fitzgerald's new video, "How the Chinese Government Infiltrates Our Schools." The video was created in conjunction with the Freedom Center's Stop K-12 Indoctrination campaign. To read our new pamphlet on this issue, "Leftist Indoctrination in Our K-12 Public Schools," click here or order your own copy here.

 

 

The Left's March to a One-Party State

Wed, 04/24/2019 - 04:30

A panel of distinguished thinkers, including immigration expert Mark Krikorian, historian Michael Ledeen, and Freedom Center Shillman Fellows Bruce Thornton and Robert Spencer, recently discussed the Left's march to a one-party state at the Center's West Coast Retreat, held April 5-7, 2019, at the Terranea Resort in Rancho Palos Verdes, California. Shillman Fellow Mark Tapson moderated the panel. Check out the video and transcript below:

Transcript:

Tapson: When you pay attention to politics, as I'm sure all of you do, one thing you observe very quickly about the left is that they do not play well with others.  They don't even play well with each other, actually.  They don't hesitate to turn on each other to weed out weakness or maintain ideological purity.  They're uninterested in bipartisanship or compromise because as David Horowitz said last night, they're totalitarians at heart, and they have no interest really in sharing power.  They won't be satisfied with anything less than a one-party state and toward that end, they're pulling out all the stops to marginalize, suppress, and ultimately eradicate the opposition.  That's us. 

The title of our panel today is “The Left’s March to a One-Party State and to enlighten us about that topic we have four brilliant gentlemen.  Pardon me for assuming your gender.

Thornton: Or assuming we're gentlemen.

Tapson: You can announce your preferred pronouns as we go along.  I have these four brilliant gentleman to discuss this topic, different aspects of that, of the left’s march.  Immediately to my left, we have Mark Krikorian, immigration expert and the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies since 1995.  He's most recently the coauthor of Open Immigration: Yea and Nay.

Next to him we have Bruce Thornton, professor of classics and humanities at Cal State University Fresno, a research fellow at Standard's Hoover Institution and a weekly front-page Mad contributor and author of nine books including Democracies, Dangers and Discontents.

And then Michael Ledeen, an American historian who has written several books and has served as a consultant to the United States National Security Council, the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Defense.

Last and certainly not least, Robert Spencer, director of the amazing Jihad Watch and author of 19 books now, including The History of Jihad from Mohammad to Isis, Confessions of an Islamophobe and The Complete Infidels Guide to Free Speech and its Enemies, just to name the most recent ones.

Each gentleman is going to take a little time to speak and then we'll have time for questions afterwards.  I'll kick things off with a question of my own.  Gentleman, in what ways is the left forging ahead toward a one-party state and what can we do to stop them?  Let's begin with Mark Krikorian.

Krikorian: Well, I've been at the receiving end of this effort to create a kind of one‑party, one‑ideology state.  The SPLC has designated us a hate group in 20 – well, it was shortly after November 2016.  I'm not sure what happened then.  I think there was some event there, but we had not been one before that, and we turned into one magically after that.  And this was part of the SPLC's broader effort which is applied to Family Research Council and to many others to silence opponents.  The, nothing changed about us before and after we were officially designated as or a hate group.  They didn't like us before that, but they never graduated us to the hate group list but once President Trump was elected and inaugurated, they decided they needed to add us to their list, and so they came up with some phony rationales.  I mean it's almost ludicrous actually that one of the literally, they gave no reason in their designation of us a hate group but an interview with a blogger they later explained why we were now a hate group.  One of the reasons was, **** gave three reasons.  One of them was a fellow who writes for us sometimes on workforce issues.  He's a former computer programmer turned lawyer, went to a party to meet Ann Colter which was hosted by an organization that they considered a hate group.  So, he appeared at an event.  Didn't appear, he went to a Christmas party hosted by a group they had earlier designated as a hate group and therefore, that made us a hate group.  I mean it's ludicrous.  We pushed back in a number of ways.  One, I wrote and actually got published an op-ed in the Washington Post.  To their credit, they published it describing how this was an absurd designation and harmful to public discussion.  It didn't make any difference. 

We eventually what we did was file a civil RICO lawsuit against the president of the SPLC and the head of their hate group effort and that's what I wanted to just briefly talk about.  This is one of the ways we need to fight back.  There's a lot of things you need to do, but the SPLC is one of the main enforcers of this effort of creating, of suppressing ideological deviationism, and one of the ways we go after them is lawsuits, and we have a long-time supporter who's a RICO attorney, who's used RICO against the employers of illegal emigrants because it is a predicate offense for a civil RICO lawsuit if you'd hired or continue to employee ten illegal immigrants.  One of our allies snuck that in in the 1996 immigration law and nobody noticed, and he's used that a number of times against employers of illegals, and he approached me and said look, don't go after a defamation lawsuit that's harder to win, why don't we try a RICO lawsuit.  And we may or may not win.  That hate group doesn't really mean anything.  It's a made-up thing, but the SPLC has a definition that they use and that we don't meet even that definition, and they know it.  And therefore, their designation of us as a hate group constitutes wire fraud because they advertised on the public wires and that wire fraud is a predicate offense for RICO.  And so we filed a lawsuit against the president and the head of their hate group effort.  We'll see what happens.  They filed a motion to dismiss.  We responded.  The judge has to decide and hopefully at some point this month or so, and we might lose, but the point is we've got to hit back, and everybody's got to hit back in a variety of ways.

The SPLC is melting down now for completely unrelated reasons.  All of you seen it in the news.  The president resigned.  The founder of it, Morris Dees, a sleazy direct-mail impresario who has helped amass literally a half a billion dollars in assets for this Southern Poverty Law Center, and the head of their litigation, the assistant head of litigation have all resigned.  There's all kinds of sexual harassment and racial discrimination issues going on.  But my point is this is the time to hit back.  We have to pile on now relentlessly and ceaselessly.  And a lot of the groups, there are a number of lawsuits ongoing against them.  Something that was actually interesting was FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform which is on the same side of the issue generally as I am but is more a advocacy-oriented group, they filed a complaint with the IRS contending that the SPLC was going beyond its 501C3 status and engaging in explicitly political activities and in response, the SPLC actually founded a 501C4.  They had to do something because their nonprofit status was potentially threatened. 

My only point here is that what we need to do is when we see the weak antelope, the antelope is stumbling, we need to stumble on it.  I mean we need to leap on it and tear it to pieces.  Relentlessly, we need to go and the SPLC is the most dangerous and effective, I think, of these enforcers of these essentially brown shirts of the other side and when they stumble we aggressively, everybody – I know this, the people here who are funders, I'm not asking money for myself.  My point is look for ways to attach them from every angle, every day, all the time because if we can make an example of the SPLC it's not that we win.  It's not that the fight is over, but it would be a significant victory, something that would deter the other side and help inspire and encourage the folks on our side.

Thornton: One of the ways that tyranny - and when we talk about one state or deep state - so I'm going to go back and call it what it is.  It's tyranny.  And tyranny hates diversity.  Now, that might sound weird because all we hear all the time is diversity coming from the progressives.  We know that is not real diversity.  That is a dishonest camouflage for this unified political etiology that wants to concentrate power and drama or power to itself. If you give people political freedom, you have to give them the opportunity to speak openly without fear of retribution.  But also, it's a way to respect the diversity.

In other words, when you're ruled by an elite whether it wealth or birth, they're pretty much all the same.  They're probably related to each other.  And so there's not really a lot of diversity of those who have power.  When you open it up as the Athenians did to the poor was well, Athenians ... which is unprecedented in human history, now you have more diversity.  That makes free speech even more important because of that diversity, so they could all be heard.  The real diversity also means that you can't establish standards of decorum and manners of proper speech or improper speech because there's too many people who have too many different ways of communicating.  And of course, this is exactly what we saw happening over the last 2 years or 3 years when Trump came on the scene.  His style is not a uniquely Trumpian style.  It is the style of a huge, huge section of American identity.  I call it the Huck Finn constituency.  And they didn't find it off putting at all.  Who did?  The elite.  The self-enclosed elite of either party who and went to the same school, lived in the same ZIP Codes, went to some of the same prep schools, had the same vocabulary, used the same standards which is fine for them.  But they wanted that to be the standard for the whole county and as did the progressives because the progressives are technocrats as the communists were, and they believe a technocratic elite that is trained a certain way has the right to rule.

So, who is the enemy of or what principle is the enemy of all those pretentions?  Free speech.  Not nice free speech.  Not Jane Austen tea party free speech but good old American free speech which is a wide, broad spectrum of styles and standards, some many of us may find vulgar and off putting but nonetheless are American as any other.  And that, I think, that's part of what explains a lot of the Republican **** Trump, Animas against Trump and against his followers.  I like to use the analogy from Animal House of how Chervix, or Cervix, um, Rodney Dangerfield and Judge Smales of the Bushwood Country Club and Judge Smales, and nobody roots for Judge Smales in the movie.  So, this, um, this resistance supposedly based on principle wasn't really, I don't think, based on principle.  It was based on protecting a status and a class status is that soon as start putting restrictions on speech saying you can speak this way, not this way, when you bring up civility, decorum, all those wonderful things that we prize, but in political free speech, you're establishing gatekeepers.  Those become tools of exclusion of keeping people out and fortunately, Donald Trump blew through that. 

The last point I want to make that's also I think important in this regard is comedy because it's historical truth that the idea of free speech which arose in Athens in the fifth century and it was free speech.  They had two words to denote free speech.  Both words had different Greek words for equality in it.  Free speech with political equality.  They also at the same time admitted comedy, official state-sponsored comedy.  Not a private producer and director and writer and everything.  A festival of the city that put these on for the citizens, and the citizens attended, and what we judge from the 11 surviving comedies of Aristophanes if you think we have the politics of personal destruction as I think Clinton called it, Greek comedies were way, way beyond what we would see.  They focused particularly on sexual perversion as metaphors for bad politicians.  And they thinly disguised them in the characters or called them out by name, and they were probably sitting in the audience watching.  And that's just the way it was.  That was an exercise of free speech as well because comedy is a method of accountability.  It was for the Athenians.  You put a politician on stage.  You hold them accountable with your ridicule and your humiliation, and you tell them we, the people, are watching, and you're not getting away anything and don't think you're better than we are, because you're not.  And then they'll list off all the alleged horrible things that they've done to show that.

So, comedy is an important dimension of free speech and has been for 2,500 years, and I bring that up because as you call, I'm pretty sure, know comedy in American today is in a dismal, dismal place.  I mean all the late-night shows that are supposed to be funny are not funny.  They're just DNC operatives.  They just take the DNC platform and intersperse hate Trump, Trump criminal blah, blah, blah all through it, and that's it.  It's a political rally.  So, that's just not an entertainment choice I guess is what I'm trying to say in this.  It's not just an entertainment choice.  You diminish free speech in comedy, you're taking away an important political tool for the people to hold politicians accountable, and it may be crude and rude.  It may hurt some people's feelings but in true free speech, there's no standards whatsoever within, of course -- listening and that's how the supreme court so far has interpreted it.

So, without free speech, we don't have political freedom.  They are joined at the hip.  They were born together.  They are essential and what we've seen with political correctness, micro-aggressions, snowflakes, taking into account people's feelings, a vacuous expression, hate speech, all that stuff it's dangerous and really requires that it be fought against any way possible using all the resources, remembering that the Constitution, the First Amendment stands behind it and has been ruled that she can't be impinged.  And universities are doing this to getting away with it and what somebody like Donald Trump and his administration should do, and they've started doing this a little bit, Betsy Voss did, is use the power of the purse against universities.  I believe 60 percent of all money going to universities, including private universities, that's not really an accurate description anymore, get indirectly or directly they get federal funds, our money, taxpayer money.  All right?  And going after that which the president can do, his administration can do, his executive is a good place to start.

And last thing, next time you're alma mater calls you up, starts panhandling you, just do what I do when UCLA calls me, I just say hey, you want more money, make your lazy ass professors teach a full load like a working person, and you'll get all the money you need.  Right?  They work 10 hours a week if that.  Don't give them a dime because A) they don't need it, and B) they don't uphold the values and standards and are not doing what a university is supposed to do.

Tapson: Thanks, Bruce.  Michael.

Ledeen: I don't think we have a sense of how urgent this situation is, how dire are the straits in which we find ourselves.  I'll bet you 1 person out of 100 even in this group do not realize that all the democrats in the United States Senate voted explicitly against the First Amendment in the last 2 years.  The First Amendment was introduced in what, what was it, fiduciary committee I believe about 2 years ago by Senator Cruz.  Every democrat on the committee voted against adding it as an amendment.  Cruz was so astonished, and he brought it up as a separate bill on the floor, word for word the First Amendment.  Not one democrat in the United States Senate voted for it, not one. 

So we give examples of people clamp down on speech and so on.  Never mind all that.  Let's take the language of the Constitution and look at the Democratic Party.  How do they vote?  Where do they stand?  And the answer is they're against it.  So when we're asked the question what evidence is there that they're working for a single-party state, well, there it is.  They want to define the language.  They want to set up what we can say, what we can't say and so forth, and there's no better example of this, and before I get to there's no better example of this, let me just pick up on Bruce's thing. 

For 40 years, I've been running around, begging rich conservatives not to give money to American universities, public, private, doesn't matter, and they all do.  Why?  Because they all want their name on the side of the building.  They all want to be able to get their kids a break.  We see now the corruption of the college admissions.  Whole thing is rotten.  It's all self-aggrandizing.  It has nothing to do with teaching freedom of speech, freedom of thought, free discourse, open debate, search for the truth, all of that, has nothing to do with that, all about money and prestige and power and so forth.  So Bruce is absolutely right.  Don't give them a dime.

The Wall Street Journal a few years ago ran an editorial in which they pointed out that the top universities in America, the Harvards, the Yales, Stanfords, Columbias and so forth have such huge endowments that they could give free tuition to every student, free tuition to every student at a cost of something like less than 2 percent of their endowment.  There's no reason for tuition.  They have all that money already.  They don't need additional funding from us, and God bless Donald Trump who says, "Okay, they want federal funds?  Let them obey federal law."  What a novel thought.  Imagine.  Right?  That is a great thing.  It's one of the greatest things he's done, and believe me, people outside Cambridge, Massachusetts and Berkeley, California, they know he's right when he says that because they see it at work all the time.

Well, there's no better example of how the left is trying to set up a one‑party state, a tyrannical regime in the United States than the story of General Michael Flynn.  General Michael Flynn is a national hero.  There should be statues of him around the country.  First of all, he served for 33 years in the United States Army under all kinds of difficult circumstances, and he won, which is a story that we don't hear enough about.  He changed the way we do battlefield intelligence by taking it out of the hands of Washington bureaucrats, some with stars on their shoulders, some without, some in CIA, some in military intelligence, some in the Pentagon, some at DIA and so forth, and he brought it to bear on the actual situation on the battlefields.  Now, when we got information on the battlefield, irrigations, documents, whatever, that went to analysts in the fields right there who turned it around and decided what to do, and those things were done on the battlefield right away, and that was the end of Al Qaeda in Iraq, a war that we won.  No one ever talks about him.  Flynn did it.  Flynn was crucial to it.  General McCrystal will tell you that when he vouched for Flynn recently.

Well, the people with the stars on their shoulders and the people in the offices in Langley, Virginia and Bowling Air Force Base and so forth did not like that because it took them out of the loop.  They were no longer directly involved.  Glory was not for them.  Budgets for the next project started to shrink.  It was all being done right there by the men and women in the uniform on the battlefield, and so they went after Flynn.  They hated Flynn.  Flynn had to be gotten rid of, so first, they got rid of Flynn at Cent Comm, Central, U.S. Central Command, Afghanistan.  Secondly, when he was named head of DIA in one of Obama's really colossal mistakes, that was a personnel decision for the ages.  What was he doing appointing the one man who knew better and was going to tell the truth?  And third, when he came up in line to become national security advisor and actually did, that was death for them because Flynn was going to change the way intelligence was done, and Flynn was going to carry out, for the first time since 1948, an audit of the clandestine operations of American intelligence, what they did, what succeeded, what they didn't do, what failed and what happened to all those billions?

Well, so they had to get rid of Flynn.  They had good reason for getting rid of Flynn, and they went after him.  My theory, we live in Washington, deep in the swamp, and my theory is that when they saw that they could actually get rid of Flynn, they got rid of Flynn.  We don't have time to go into all the gory details of that.  When they saw that they could do that, Trump's closest advisor, a person famously on the campaign plane and in the campaign meetings with Trump, all during the campaign, when they saw that Trump was not going to defend him, they said, "Well, if we can get Flynn, we can get anybody.  We can even get Trump himself with the same method."  And so with the same bizarre business of controlling the speech, of silencing opponents, of not letting the truth be told, they have waged this coup attempt against the Trump administration, and I will say in closing, my one critical remark:  Trump deserves it because letting what happened to General Flynn happen to him was the biggest mistake that Trump has made, and it is the biggest mistake he could've made because it exposed him and all his people to this terrible business that's been going on every since.  Thank you.

Tapson: Thank you, Michael.  Robert?

Spencer: What the left is trying to do is move the Overton window.  The Overton window is the acceptable range of public discourse.  There have always been restrictions on speech, outright calls to violence and so on have never been acceptable, and the Overton window is rather the social understanding of what you can say and what you can't, and you can't traffic in racial epithets and that kind of thing.  But what the left is trying to do is extend that to any descent from its own agenda and stigmatize and thereby marginalize and silence anyone who expresses any opinion that descents from their own perspective.  And it's important to understand that this is not only happening in the United States, but this is an international effort that has been going on for years, and the chief engine of it outside the United States is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which is 57 Muslim governments, the largest voting block at the United Nations since the demise of the Soviet Union.

The OIC has ever since the Danish cartoons controversy, which I'm sure you remember when there were cartoons lampooning Mohammed printed, most of them quite tame, in a Danish newspaper, and subsequently, there were riots and killings of innocent people around the world.  The OIC began an all‑out initiative to compel the member states of the United Nations actually to criminalize criticism of Islam under the guise of so‑called incitement to religious hatred.  Now, you notice it doesn't even say incitement to violence, but just if you feel dislike toward a religion, then the OIC wants that criminalized, and the American left signed on immediately.  Most people have no idea of how thoroughly they did, but some of the milestones in this effort were when Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, had the United States co‑sponsor Resolution 1618 at the UN Human Rights Council which called on member states to criminalize incitement to religious hatred.  Not only did she sign the United States onto that, but then she went to Istanbul and spoke at an OIC conference in December 2012 where she uttered her famous remarks about how in the United States, we have the first amendment, and so we cannot outright criminalize speech, but we will use old‑fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming to get people to stop saying what we don't want them to say, and this is exactly the strategy that they have pursued.  What the Southern Poverty Law Center is is a large-scale effort at peer pressure and shaming of those who dare to descent from the left, and this is exactly what we have seen happen.

I mean, it's kind of breathtaking to me, but like Mark, I too am a victim of the SPLC.  I've been a hate group for years.  As a matter of fact, I'm three or four hate groups between Jihad Watch and the Horowitz Center and various others.  But the idea that it would be stigmatized, that it would be somehow wrong to oppose jihad terror and to oppose the Sharia oppression of women and gays and others, this is has been a success on a massive scale for the SPLC and the left in general and their media allies.  The Republican establishment, as well as the Democrats for the most part, takes it for granted that you just do not stand up against these things.  It's wrong; it's bigoted,; it's hateful; it's racist, and this is testimony to how effective this effort has been.  Tom Perez, who is the head of the Democratic National Committee and was formerly in the Obama administration, the assistant attorney general, you may recall that several years ago, he was being questioned by a senator about whether he would guarantee that the Obama administration would never introduce legislation to criminalize criticism of any particular religion, and Tom Perez actually refused to affirm that, and he's now the head of the DNC.  And so this effort between Clinton and Perez and the rest of the Democrat establishment is quite clear that they're trying to, and they have largely succeeded in moving the Overton window such that people are afraid to speak out against what any sane and rational human being ought to oppose, and people are afraid to stand up for fear of receiving the same stigma.  And the Council on American Islamic Relations and the other allies of the SPLC in the United States are very energetic, and any time there is any remotely Islamo-critical presentation, even when it comes from law enforcement officials or is sponsored by law enforcement officials and is dedicated to identifying and dealing with genuine terror threats in a particular area, they're right on it.  They label it racist, bigoted and Islamophobic, and all too often, the sponsors, the hotel, the people who are giving the money involved or the hall, they back off, and they refuse to deal with it because they're afraid.

Now, this also has the effect of snowballing and feeding on itself such that people see how it works in other ways, and then they become doubly afraid, and they fall more into line.  Their victories, in other words, create more victories because then they can say, once they have Spencer banned from Patreon, Go Fund Me, Indigogo, PayPal for a brief period and so on, then the SPLC can turn around and say, "You see?  He's banned from all these places.  He must be a terrible person, and you too have to jump on line and ban him as well."  And, of course, it's not just me that this happens to.  This is a universal phenomenon that anybody who sticks his neck out about this is going to suffer.

And so I have to very strongly echo what Mark said about how important it is that we all try to combat this in any way, and in closing, I'll ask, does anybody have half a million dollars that I could have?  Because I'm not going to buy a boat or anything.  What I'm going to do is, this is what happened.  I can't find a lawyer who will sue the Southern Poverty Law Center for me, even though it's plain defamation.  I think the RICO idea is terrific.  It's, it's, there's so many ways that this could go through, but lawyers are afraid to deal with them because they do have a half billion dollars themselves, and they can hire any number of lawyers, and so I've had all kinds of excuses from lawyers.  One of them told me, a very, very great lawyer who has won a lot of free speech cases said, "Well, what they said about you, it's more than 2 years old.  It's past the statute of limitations."  And I think, "Well, it's on their web site right now.  It's not like it's in some old newspaper from years ago."  But people are afraid.  But the thing is, I did find a lawyer who told me he would sue them for me if I could come up with $500,000.00, and he actually has another client who is suing the SPLC who is crowd funding on Go Fund Me for the money to do it, but I'm banned from Go Fund Me because of the Southern Poverty Law Center, so I can't sue the SPLC.  They have it all tied up every which way.  So anybody who has the half million, meet me over here after the talk, and we will get this going.

But in all seriousness, whether I get to sue the SPLC or not, this is an extraordinarily pernicious force, not just the SPLC, but the entire agenda of the left in conjunction with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to destroy the freedom of speech in the United States, to make it such that people think that they will be cast out of polite society, that they will no longer be a decent human being if they espouse certain ideas, which are the ideas that we espouse.  If this succeeds, then America is dead as a free society, and the world will be plunged into dark ages for untold numbers of centuries.  So I do hope that you will recognize the urgency of this problem and do everything that you possibly can to combat this force.  Thank you.

Tapson: Thank you, gentlemen.  How about, is Mike Finch here, or someone?  Do we have a microphone for questions?

Question: Why don't you have class actions and work together?

Spencer: I'm all for that, but, uh, I guess somebody has to initiate it, and this is something that actually there are some efforts to do.  I've been a signatory, I'm sure, probably all the rest of us up here have too, to several joint letters by people who have been targeted by the SPLC, calling upon the media not to take them seriously and others, and I'm hoping that that will be the beginning of exactly the kind of thing you're calling for.

Tapson:  Would anybody else like to address that?  Any other questions?

Question: This kind of free speech case come before the Supreme Court ......

Krikorian: Well, I'm just trying to get the district court to take the case serious, so one thing at a time.  I have no idea if it gets to the Supreme Court or not.  I mean, we're talking about defamation and civil RICO suits, that sort of thing, which may or may not be even relevant that it's a Supreme Court issue.  This is lawsuits based on current law and whether it applies to these instances or not.  One thing I'd like to bring up, and again, I'm not trying to create work for other people, but it seems to me not only do we need to go after the SPLC, but maybe more importantly, Amazon needs to be sued for complying with this, Patreon, Go Fund Me, etcetera.  I mean, we, for instance, for whatever reason, either I'm too small to bother with or maybe I'm actually less controversial or something, but we've suffered relatively little damage from the SPLC's attacks, but one thing that did happen is Amazon cut us off from the Amazon Smile program where you can direct a certain portion of your purchases to a non‑profit organization, and they weren't even coy about it.  I mean, we asked them what's up, and the letter says, "Well, the SPLC hate list is what we use, and you're on it, so you can't be in this thing."  Well, I mean, I don't know how to do this.  I don't have unending piles of money, but it seems to me one of the strategies, maybe even more important than going after SPLC, is going after the people who respond to SPLC decisions like this and scare them because their businesses, they don't particularly care about the politics, and if they pay a price for adhering or using the SPLC hate list or anything similar like this, they're actually, it seems to me, much better candidates to back off.

Tapson: We have a question from Larry Greenfield, but let me just say that if anyone else has a question, it really helps if you can come up to the microphone so that everybody can here.  So please step up if you've got a question.  Thank you.

Larry Greenfield: Maybe for Bruce and the others.  So political liberty is rooted in free speech, also no religious tests for office.  Do you have some thoughts on the wisdom of the American tradition of limiting communists from being teachers or perhaps today, some guardrails against Islamists in public office or in schools, etcetera?

Thornton: So if I understand you, Muslims should be held to that standard that we held for communists.

Larry Greenfield: So there's a debate about the limits of free speech for candidates, public policy, statesmen?

Thornton: I think that communism as an ideology was frankly an explicitly traitorous in this country, so I didn't have a problem with that per se, but if there were established connections such as we now know, and we knew back then I think, that the American Communist Party was fully funded by the Soviet Union, and that's a foreign power, so that's a pretty clear-cut situation in which you can argue that allowing an agent of a foreign power First Amendment protections.  The first right is the right to life and liberty, so Islam is a trickier situation because you'd have to have a similar sort of direct connection, which has existed, and Robert can talk about this, between charitable organizations in this country that take donations and then funnel them to Hamas or Hezbollah or something like that.  That's why it's necessary for those organizations to be denominated terrorist organizations, and there's a ****.  You can say, "Well, this is a terrorist organization calling for the murder of Americans and the overthrow."  Do we allow those people to have free speech?  If it seemed like there would have to be a connection established between the individual and what that individual's – it's a real dicey sort of area that, you're right, it's a difficult calculation to make.

Ledeen: What scares me most is not that there are crazy Muslims running around saying, "Kill all the Jewish; kill all the Christians," and so forth.  I know just how they feel, but what upsets me is that when they do that, there is in that universe in which they're saying it, the school, a city government, a university, whatever it does, there's nobody who is permitted to stand up and say, "What, are you crazy? Are you kidding?  Look at the history of America.  Read the Constitution.  Read Thomas Jefferson and all these things.  Don't listen to AOC who invents American history every morning," and so forth.  What's missing is our First Amendment rights.  Those are being shut down, and I mean, it's great.  It's funny.  There is great descent in the Muslim world itself.  There are Muslim leaders who call for a Muslim reformation.  President Cici from Egypt for one, and there are others.  We don't have that.  Americans can't do that.  Don't do that.  They are being silenced, and that's what's so terrifying.  That's the undoing of the American system.  That's the threat.

Spencer: It would seem that if a teacher or a professor is a member of a group like the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, which are all the major Muslim groups in the United States, those have been established by the Justice Department as Muslim Brotherhood front groups, and the Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated, in its own words according to a captured internal document, to eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house, an initiative which is actually doing great.  But it would seem if we had a sane political discourse and a sane academic environment, then anybody who's a member of such an organization would not be eligible for a teaching position any more than a member of the communist party should be.  But, of course, if you got rid of all the communists, there wouldn't be any professors.

Krikorian: If I could make a point broader on this ideological test issue, the one area I think where we can at least sort of get the discussion, the concept of what ideological views we can find acceptable, it seems to me one place this really shows up is in naturalization tests.  Now, it affects relatively few people, but it sends a broad message, and they were kind of playing footsy with the idea in the administration, and I don't know where it went, but it seems to me including in a test, either for a green card or for a naturalization, some absolute lowest common denominator principles:  Do you believe in free speech or people, even if they disagree with you?  Do you believe that people can hold any religion or no religion?  Do you believe that religious figures can be criticized without punishment?  People are going to lie, obviously, but it sets down a marker that these are things, if you don't agree with these very elementary principles, you have no place here.  It seems to me that setting those kind of lines and markers is essential, and I think that is some place where this administration could actually do some good because it would flush out even further the other side.  Because you can only imagine what Kamala Harris or AOC or the rest of these knuckleheads would say in response to that, that, "No, we should let people who believe that infidels should be executed, we should let them become citizens."  I think we should set up this situation where they end up saying that on camera.  This obviously doesn't get down to the granular level of teachers, but you have to start somewhere, and it seems to me that is a very useful starting point, very minimal ideological requirements for being part of the American people.

Question: I, I don't know if this is still true, but I believe, at least in the early part of the 20th century, one of the questions if you were an immigrant at Ellis Island was, "Are you an anarchist?"

Thornton: Mm hmm.  It was.

Question: And amazingly, many people answered, "Yes," and it was, "Goodbye."

Thornton: No, that's true.  I have my grandfather's from Ellis Island, a Xerox of the manifest on the ship he came in in 1908, and it has the list of questions they asked and his answers.  It also had his name, which we never knew how to spell his last name, and we finally learned from that because he had Americanized it, and it did have a question, "Are you an anarchist?"  And I'm glad I got it, not just for that but because his case, it said, "Occupation:  Peasant."  "Read and write?  No."  I'm a descendant from a illiterate peasant.  Yay.  You know?

Question: Hi.  What is the alliance between the left and Islam?  When did it start, and how are they deciding to divide up the spoils if they win?

Spencer: I think, in large part, it started as I said around the Danish cartoon controversy, but of course, there are many ways in which it can be traced earlier than that because these are both internationalist globalist entities who want to destroy all boundaries and the nation state.  A lot of people don't realize this about Islam, but Islam is an internationalist impulse inherently.  It's classic Islam, both Semite and Shia thinks that national allegiances are not in the least important and should be eschewed and rejected and that one's allegiance to Allah creates the nation of Islam that is not Louis Farkar.  It predates him by 1400 years, and it creates a super-national entity that is governed by the Kalif, the successor of Mohammed as the military political and spiritual leader of the Muslims.  And of course, the communist leftist impulse, the totalitarian leftist impulse coincides with that very neatly because it also is internationalist and wants to destroy all distinctions between people and level them under a single allegiance.

So I think that they see other as ideological kin.  They see that they are both totalitarian.  They both want to establish an earthly paradise.  The earthly paradise of the communists is, of course, the worker state which is a just society and which enforces its nature as a just society by a reign of terror.  Those who get out of line are sent to the gulag and liquidated, and the same kind of phenomenon exists in Islamic law.  Islamic law is the perfect model for society.  That is how it is envisioned within Islamic theology.  It is the perfect way for society to be ordered.  It is the quintessential just society, and those who get out of line have their heads cut off or their hands amputated or they are stoned to death and so on.  So it's the same thing in both cases, you see?  An earthly paradise enforced by a reign of terror.  And so consequently, I think that particularly at the beginning of the 20th century, and especially when the Saudis struck oil and began to foster the resurgence of Islam around the world, and particularly the jihad imperative, that they saw each other as blood brothers, as kin working toward the same goal.

Now, the thing is what if they win?  Then, they will turn on one another, and then it's anybody's guess who will prevail, but I can give you one example.  The communists in Iran, the Tuda party, they very strongly backed the Iranian revolution, the strongest revolution of 1979 and the Ayatollah Komani.  And the Ayatollah Komani, within a year, had them all imprisoned or dead.  And so I suspect that the same thing might happen to the left in the West should they prevail, which of course we all hope that they won't, and I hope that we won't see, but I think that the left being irreligious of its very nature and not understanding the religious impulse does not take seriously how deeply rooted it is within the human heart and within the hearts of the Muslims that they're dealing with, and they do not realize how hard it will be to eradicate should it come down to being a confrontation between the two.

Thornton: And one more.  I'll add to that from the perspective of the university.  The Muslims, the Arabs have been sucked into the identity politics rainbow, and they are supposedly people of color, although Arabs are Caucasians, but Fidel Castro was a white guy, but I guarantee you, any college student is going to think he's a person of color.  They are victims of the West's original sins of colonialism and imperialism, and this is really rich given that Islam was one of the world's greatest historical imperialist, colonialist, occupying powers.  They're still occupying parts of Christendom today and for a thousand years or less, in North Africa, in Egypt, in the Middle East, in Syria. So in the fantasy narrative of the left, if you are alleged victim of imperialism and colonialism and you're not white, then you are on our side. You are a person of color, you form part of our coalition, and we'll champion you no matter how misogynist or brutal or illiberal you are.

Ledeen: Footnote, reading list, Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong, written right after 9/11.  Still a masterpiece; still fundamental.  And more recently a book I was happy to co‑author with General Flynn, The Field of Fight, and it addresses directly this question of the radical Islamic extreme left-wing alliance against us.

Tapson: David Horowitz's book The Unholy Alliance would be along those lines.  Yes, sir?

Question: Yes, I had a question.  I don't know if Achilles was a mythological person or a real person, but he had a weakness, and it was his heel.So does the, first of all, does the left have a weakness where they're vulnerable? And does Islam, as a social construct, have a weakness that can be exploited?

Ledeen: Well, I mean, we might point out that both of these groups have failed every time they've had the opportunity to run something.  I mean, the Islamic world is a failed world.  It is a failed state, and then the Soviet empire collapsed, imploded without even a whimper.  It was nothing.  One day it was there; the next day it was gone.  Where the only revolution in the world that has succeeded and endured is the American revolution.  We are the one and only truly revolutionary society in the world, except maybe, I know it's a radical to say this, for Israel whose lunar **** is even now orbiting the moon.

Spencer: Another Achilles heel of both parties is their hypocrisy.  The left and the Islamic spokesman in the U.S. both pose as being the champions of human rights, feminism and so on, and of course, Islam is inherently misogynistic in numerous ways and is anything but, and all the Sharia states in the world are human rights basket cases that are viciously oppressive to their own people.  And so we need to, in the classic Marxist manner, press these contradictions and point them out wherever possible.  Whenever I speak on campuses and the young people who bring me there ask what they can do, I say, "Well, you should have a women's rights and Islam day and quote the Koran and quote the teachings of Islam about women," and then when the left complains, say, "What are you talking about?  This is the Koran.  You love this.  This is the holy texts of the brown people, and so what are you complaining about?"  And there's so many ways that that can be exploited that we, for the most part, do not do because the Republicans are not called the stupid party for nothing.

Krikorian: I would underline something Michael said that leftist and Islam are fundamentally anti-human.  That's their weaknesses.  They're anti-modern.  They cannot succeed.  But what this calls for, though, is containment, and I think a great example of this, and I'm saying this to put it on the record so that I get credit for it when it happens, Iran is probably the best laboratory for what we want.  In other words, it's now had Islamic government for 40 years, and it's not necessarily going to fall any time soon, but at some point, maybe next year, maybe 40 years from now, the Mullahs will be hanging from lampposts.  And what Islamic government there has done has shown its inability to deal with modernity.

And what we've seen in Iran is the delegitimization of the faith itself, not just a handful of Mullahs, and so this is the prediction part that I want credit for when it happens:  When the Mullahs are hanged from lampposts, you are going to see mass apostasy from Islam in Iran.  You're going to see hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of people become Bahas, become Zoroastrians, become Christians.  Radio Israel even gets letters saying, "How can I convert to Judaism to move to Israel?"  And that's because both ideologies, political Islam and leftism are anti-modern, cannot succeed.  The challenge for us, though, is to contain them long enough, as we did with the Soviet Union, so that that fundamental incompatibility with human nature can manifest itself, work itself out fully and cause the collapse of anybody who tries that experiment.

Thornton: One last thing:  You know, you talked about the Achilles heel, which is a good question, but we also have to recognize what is our Achilles heel?  And Churchill described it in the 1930s as a mood of unwarrantable self-abatement.  He saw it then.  Orwell saw it then.  They saw it with the English in the inter-war period.  Turning against their own country, and that has developed over the subsequent 70 years, 80 years, it's now in the curriculum.  It's a reflex.  As I've said, it's the original sin that we have to be atoning for.  And the problem is, it sounds old fashioned and almost Biblical, but when you're as wealthy as we are, and historically, we are wealthier beyond the dreams of any people who came before us, not just in terms of how widely distributed wealth is and what it can do for material comfort and security and health and food, etcetera, and in those circumstances, it's hard to wake people up.  It's hard to alert them to what, you know, in different ways, I think we've all been trying to do and the Freedom Center tries to do.  It's just difficult because they look around their lives, most of them, and our bums have iPhones.  Seriously, all over Fresno in traffic hour, there is a bum there with his little cardboard sign, and he's got an iPhone.  He's got a better phone than I do, you know?  Of course, I'm just cheap, so that may be part of it.  But so when you lose morale, Napoleon said, "Morale is to the materialist three to one."  Morale is three times more important than your weapons, etcetera.  And let me just give you a very quick example, and then –

Speaker: We've got time for one last comment, and then lunch is being served right after this where we had breakfast.

Thornton: Very quick.  Don't let anybody tell you that in 1938 in the Munich crisis that Germany could've defeated France and England and the Soviet Union and Poland and Czechoslovakia, which had 40 divisions and one of the largest munitions works in central Europe.  Everybody knows if England had stood up, France would've followed.  That war, I wouldn't think it would last more than half a year.  Hitler would've been done.  What they didn't have was they didn't have morale.  They didn't have the nerve, and that's where we are, and if we persist in it, it won't matter if the Mullahs are hung.  Although, I would disagree.  I'd say they'd get in their private jets, and they would scoot.

Question: I just want to comment.  I think we on the conservatives, the right are living the Achilles heel.  We haven't risen up.  We haven't taken on this challenge, okay?  There was a British politician, and I think made a statement or a quote, and then Albert Einstein repeated it.  He said, "The only reason that evil is successful is that good people do nothing."

Tapson: And on that note, I guess it's time for lunch.

Bernie Wants the Boston Marathon Bomber to Vote

Wed, 04/24/2019 - 04:20

Democrat 2020 presidential primary frontrunner Sen. Bernie Sanders seemed hellbent on ending his candidacy early this week when he endorsed giving still-imprisoned rapists, terrorists, and murderers under sentence of death like Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the right to vote.

Sanders’ comments were the latest in a free-wheeling Democrat contest in which nearly every day brings a policy proposal kookier than the last, whether it is the Green New Deal, which would deindustrialize and pauperize America, the bankrupting “Medicare for All” proposal, or gun control by executive order.

The remarks by Sanders prompted Hollywood left-winger Cher to tweet denunciations of the senator to her millions of Twitter followers.

“Does Bernie Sanders really believe [people] in prison who are murderers!? Rapists!? Child Molesters!? Boston bombers… still deserve the right to vote!?”

Cher, who recently tweeted that Los Angeles should tend to its homeless before welcoming in those who seek asylum, wrote that convicted child molesters, rapists, and murderers of any race shouldn’t be able to “keep [their] right to vote.”

The singer was responding to a townhall meeting broadcast by CNN April 22 at which Harvard student Anne Carlstein asked the self-described socialist senator from Vermont if he supports “enfranchising people” such as “those convicted of sexual assault,” as well as Tsarnaev, whom she described as a “convicted terrorist and murderer.”

Tsarnaev, a Muslim immigrant from Kyrgyzstan, was convicted and sent to death row for the April 15, 2013 pressure-cooker bombing close to the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Three people died and many more were injured.

Sanders walked right into the trap, answering in the affirmative.

The senator said:

And let me just say this. What our campaign is about and what I believe is creating a vibrant democracy. Today, as you may know, we have one of the lowest voter turnouts of any major country on Earth. I want to see us have one of the highest voter turnouts.

And by the way, what we are seeing is more young people getting involved in the political process, but not enough. And in my view, if young people voted at the same percentage that older people voted in this country, we would transform this nation.

But to get to your point. We live in a moment where cowardly Republican governors are trying to suppress the vote. And in fact, right here, as you may know, in New Hampshire, the Legislature and the governor are working hard to make it more difficult for young people to vote.

And to me, that is incredibly undemocratic, un-American process, and I say to those people, by the way, if you don't have the guts to participate in free and fair elections, you should get another job and get out of politics.

All right? So, here is -- to answer your question:

As it happens, in my own state of Vermont, from the very first days of our state's history, what our constitution says is that everybody can vote. That is true. So people in jail can vote.

Now here is my view. If somebody commits a serious crime -- sexual assault, murder, they're going to be punished. They may be in jail for 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, their whole lives. That's what happens when you commit a serious crime.

But I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people. Because once you start chipping away and you say, well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote; well, that person did that; not going to let that person vote -- you're running down a slippery slope.

So I believe that people who commit crimes, they pay the price. When they get out of jail, I believe they certainly should have the right to vote. But I do believe, even if they are in jail, they're paying their price to society, but that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy.

Sanders acknowledged to host Chris Cuomo that his answer could hurt his chances in the election.

“Well, Chris, I think I have written many 30-second opposition ads throughout my life. This will be just another one,” Sanders said.

But I do believe – look -- this is what I believe. Do you believe in democracy? Do you believe that every single American 18 years of age or older who is an American citizen has the right to vote?

Once you start chipping away at that – believe me, that's what our Republican governors all over this country are doing -- they're coming up with all kinds of excuses why people of color, young people, poor people can't vote, and I will do everything I can to resist it.

This is a democracy -- we’ve got to expand that democracy, and I believe every single person does have the right to vote.

Cher isn’t the only public figure to call out Sanders.

Former CNN host and DailyMail.com editor-at-large Piers Morgan told Tucker Carlson on Fox News Channel that Sanders’ remarks were “utter lunacy.”

“I couldn't really believe what I was hearing. This is a guy, frontrunner as you said, to be the potential nominee for the Democratic Party to beat Donald Trump, that's their plan and what they want to do. And their main selling point right now on a CNN townhall is they want the Boston Marathon bomber to be able to vote while he is in prison? While he is on death row?"

Sanders in leading the pack in the race for the Democrats’ presidential nomination in New Hampshire, home of the first-in-the-nation primaries, according to a University of New Hampshire Granite State Poll released earlier this week.

Sanders garnered 30 percent support from likely Democratic primary voters, beating former Vice President Joe Biden (18 percent), South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg (15 percent), Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (5 percent), Sen. Kamala Harris of California (4 percent), Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas (3 percent). Tied at 2-percent support were Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, and New York entrepreneur Andrew Yang. Tied at 1-percent support were Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Reps. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Eric Swalwell of California, and Miramar, Florida Mayor Wayne Messam.

But the primaries in New Hampshire are still 10 months away.

Anything can happen.

The Egyptian Brotherhood Goes to Washington

Wed, 04/24/2019 - 04:10

Reprinted From Islamist Watch.

Spring has arrived in Washington D.C. And a sure sign of the changing seasons in America's capital is the annual parade of Islamist lobbyists, who come in March and April to the heart of Western democracy to advocate, under the guise of human rights, for Islamist causes and to misrepresent the beliefs held by ordinary Muslims.

Just a week before American Islamists descended on the Capitol to push for Islamist-friendly policies during the fifth annual National Muslim Advocacy Day, their Egyptian Islamist allies did the same. On March 24 and 25, Egypt Advocacy Day took place in Washington D.C. Sponsored by Democratic Congressman Tom Malinowski, Egyptian activists and Western human rights lobbyists came together to warn policymakers against Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and encourage the U.S. government to ensure Egypt works "to uphold the democratic principle of peaceful transfer of power."

Representatives of prominent human rights organizations Human Rights Watch, Project on Middle East Democracy and Human Rights First were happy to take part in this effort, seemingly unconcerned that the organizers of this lobbying day are prominent officials of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood movement, which was removed from power in 2013 following enormous protests against its own abuse of powers.

The main organizing body behind the advocacy day is the Freedom Initiative, a group founded by prominent Muslim Brotherhood activist Mohamed Soltan, who was imprisoned in Egypt for nearly two years on terrorism charges, until President Obama pressured the Cairo authorities to release him in 2015. While critics claim Soltan was the victim of political persecution, he has a long history of involvementwith hardline Islamist efforts in both the U.S. and Egypt – openly expressing support for the designated terror group Hamas, and leading chants praising the killing of Jews.

Other sponsors and supporters of Egypt Advocacy Day included the Egyptian Human Rights Forum, of which Soltan is among the founders. In previous years, a key Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood proxy in America, Egyptian Americans for Freedom and Justice (EAFAJ), has also been closely involved in the annual Egypt Advocacy Day. This year, its officials took part in the lobbying day, but the organization's name and logo were nowhere to be found on official literature.

Perhaps this is a result of a series of articles and reports exposing EAFAJ's extremism, particularly its leading officials Hani Elkadi and Ayat al-Oraby. Curiously, for example, the Project on Middle East Democracy, which sponsored this year's Egypt Advocacy Day, notes on its own website that "A number of experts on the Muslim Brotherhood have spoken out regarding EAFAJ's lobbying efforts and condemned al-Oraby's views in particular. On Twitter, analyst Mokhtar Awad referred to al-Oraby as 'a raving sectarian lunatic.' Awad also posted a video of al-Oraby calling for an economic boycott of Christian businesses, where she states that '[Christians] must be made to understand that the [Islamic symbol] crescent must be on top of the cross.'"

In the days and weeks after Egypt Advocacy Day, EAFAJ held further meetings with congressional staffers and policymakers, to express support for deposed Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi and encourage lawmakers to force the Egyptian government to release "political prisoners" – that is, jailed Muslim Brotherhood operatives. One report alleges that EAFAJ even met with Democratic Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren.

Leading the delegation was EAFAJ president Hani Elkadi, a New Jersey-based activist who is referred to in Arabic media as a Muslim Brotherhood "leader" in America. Elkadi openly supports violent jihadist organizations in Egypt, and routinely publishes anti-Semitic and pro-Islamist rhetoric on his social media accounts. Elkadi was a particularly vocal supporter of Mohamed Kamal, the late jihadist leader behind the U.S-designated terrorist organizations Liwa Al Thawra and Hasm. Kamal was killed in an exchange of gunfire with Egyptian police in October 2016.

Along with anti-Semitic and anti-Christian activist Ayat Oraby, Elkadi was accompanied by Amr Darraj and Ahmed Shehata. Darraj is wanted by Egyptian authorities on charges of coordinating terrorist activity in Egypt from his home in Turkey.

Shehata, meanwhile, is a prominent Islamist activist in America, closely involved with Egyptian Americans for Democracy and Human Rights, another Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood proxy, as well as the international aid charity Islamic Reliefand the community organization Muslim American Society, both of which serve as the flagship institutions of the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Islamism in America.

The April 9 visit of President Sisi to Washington evoked an angry response from Muslim Brotherhood operatives involved with all the recent lobbying efforts. At a protest outside the White House, EAFAJ, along with other supporters of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, wore Muslim Brotherhood insignia and held aloft placards of Mohamed Morsi.

The Washington Post, meanwhile, gave Mohamed Soltan column inches to denounce Sisi and criticize the Trump administration for hosting him. No mention was made of Soltan's radical Islamist affiliations, with his byline merely noting that he is "a human rights advocate and founder of the Freedom Initiative."

Why are politicians, human rights organizations and media outlets offering their support and time to these Islamist activists, given the violence and oppression that swept through Egypt under Morsi's rule? Admittedly, the involvement of Representative Tom Malinowski is not particularly surprising. Malinowski was a vocal critic of plans to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, and has condemned Trump's meeting with Sisi.

But opposition to President Sisi should not mean support for a violent Islamist movement. In December 2017, the Muslim Brotherhood officially declared the United States of America an "enemy state." Were that not enough for elected officials to stay away, Muslim Brotherhood members and splinter groups have wreaked havoc in Egypt over the past seven years, supporting attacks on Coptic churches, and involving themselves in terrorism and assassinations. The Brotherhood's sister organization, the designated terrorist organization Hamas, needs no introduction.

For many in the Arab world, it is a bitter irony that a movement responsible for such widespread violence and hate is now paraded around the halls of the U.S. Capitol as hearty advocates for human rights, democracy and justice. Too often, naïve Western activists and policymakers offer legitimacy to the extremists, leaving ordinary Egyptians to suffer the consequences.

Watson Video: The Notre Dame Fire

Wed, 04/24/2019 - 04:02

In this new video, Paul Watson discusses how Buzzfeed published a big lie about conspiracies, hoaxes and “zero evidence” that some Muslims responded with cheering and smiley-face tweets, when they did; all while the Notre Dame blaze was still raging.

 

Free Speech, Political Freedom, and Comedy

Tue, 04/23/2019 - 04:58

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

At the Freedom Center’s recent West Coast Retreat, I made some remarks on a panel about one-party rule and free speech. By chance, my comments about the role of comedy in reinforcing political freedom and equality were perfectly illustrated that evening by Milo Yiannopoulos’ scathing impersonation of Rep. Ilhan Omar. An identity-politics hustler, vulgar anti-Semite, and master of jihadist taqiyya, Omar represents the totalitarian virus that democratic comedy and free speech have for 2500 years been the vaccines.

Indeed, the idea of free speech was born in ancient Athens at the same time political comedy was. Both followed the world-transforming creation of political freedom and equality for the masses, including the poor. The masses were more diverse in their interests, mores, and education, compared to the more uniform aristocratic or oligarchic elite. For the mass of citizens to exercise its right to contribute to public deliberations over policy, then, they had to be free to openly speak their minds in their own ways and by their own standards. As Sophocles said, “Free men have free tongues.”

This insight about free speech highlights the role that manners, decorum, civility, and politesse have always played in defining an elite, excluding the non-elite, and protecting elite power from challenges. Hence the ancient critics of democracy constantly sneered at the lack of intelligence and verbal sophistication of the poor and working-class citizens, which the critics cited as evidence for the folly of empowering them to advise and manage the state. As Plato’s Socrates complained about deliberations in the Athenian Assembly, “When the question is an affair of state, then everybody is free to have a say––tinker, cobbler, sailor, passenger; rich and poor, high and low––anyone who likes gets up, and no one reproaches him” for his lack of knowledge.

Here we see the origins of the modern idea of technocracy: rule by elites who have the knowledge and techniques necessary for understanding human behavior and progressively guiding politics to some imagined utopia. Needless to say, such assumptions are diametrically opposed to political freedom, citizen autonomy, and self-rule. More dangerously, the notion of technocracy scants the universal human tendency to aggrandize and abuse power, justified by a perceived superiority of an elite. Minimizing the limits put on the free exercise of speech is one way to guard against this “encroaching nature” of power, and thus protect both political freedom and political equality.

Another expression of free speech in Athens comprised theatrical comedies. Ancient comedic productions were literally political, since they were civic occasions managed and produced by citizens, who attended the plays in outdoor public theaters during religious festivals likewise managed by the polis. Since all classes and walks of life attended together, comedies were not limited by notions of style or decorum that necessarily are exclusive. They were egalitarian, the scatological and sexual humor reinforcing the notion of citizen equality based on universal human needs, passions, and weaknesses. No amount of wealth, political power, intelligence, or celebrity made anyone immune to the destructive effects of passion or chance. As the Spartan ambassadors said to the King of the Persians before whom they refused to bow and kiss the ground, “It is not the Greek way to prostrate oneself before another human being.”

As well as publicly reinforcing the notion of political equality, comedy also functioned as a mechanism of political accountability. For those politicians who puffed themselves up and preened about their status, being called out by name on the comic stage and accused of every sexual perversion and vice exposed them to the humiliating laughter of their fellow citizens. In an intensely shame-based social system, such ridicule punctured the awe and unearned respect that elites seek to surround themselves with. And that communal laughter also strengthened the bonds of solidarity among the citizens.

This dynamic of free speech, political equality, accountability, and comedy is just as important in modern America as it was in ancient Athens. That’s why the totalitarian left seeks to weaken the First Amendment by enforcing political correctness as a new form of public decorum that insidiously prods people to self-censorship, and coerces apologies as a public sign of political inferiority and inequality. The success of politically correct surveillance and shaming also has made it harder for comedy to function as a mechanism for holding political leaders accountable. As a result, late-night comedy, Saturday Night Live, and most movies and television sit-coms are  politically correct, but not very funny.

Now the whole of popular culture has become the punch-line to the old gag:

“How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?”

“That’s not funny!”

Like Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who said “There is no humor in Islam,” the politically correct left fears the power of humiliation and ridicule that comes from satirizing and mocking their grandiose pretensions.

This brings us to the creative-destructive power of Donald Trump. The postwar bipartisan establishment accepted the progressive professionalization of democratic politics into a technocracy, with politicians and federal bureaucrats now a “managerial elite” replete with a common mode of speaking and rules of decorum that they camouflaged as “democratic norms.” Of course, these standards reflected a narrow demographic defined by a similar education, socio-economic status, and common cultural cargo. And to many critics they suggested common interests, the main one being maintaining the “rules-based international order” that both at home and abroad had failed the economic and security interests of millions of forgotten Americans, even as it expanded elite power.

Donald Trump exploded that consensus with his brash, braggadocios, at times vulgar style, and his street-fighter penchant for taking two eyes for an eye when injured. In doing so he roused and enthused millions of Americans who had become sick of being ignored and talked down to by  politicians of both parties, especially Republicans who should know better, but who mouthed the “racist” and “sexist” shibboleths of the identity politics Left. And Trump did this with the sort of coarse, in-your-face humor redolent of the obscene jokes of Aristophanes. Trump empowered his followers by puncturing the Republican establishment’s pretentions to moral and intellectual superiority, and their sense that they were entitled to rule. He ridiculed them into submission or irrelevance.

And he has done the same to the progressive the wing of the establishment, his weapon not the comic stage but the twitterverse and campaign rallies. He knows how to incite the Left to ever greater levels of shrill absurdity and pomposity, exposing their hypocrisies and unearned self-righteousness. The best example is his recent threat to ship illegal alien detainees to sanctuary cities. The hysterical and spluttering responses of the Dem leadership has definitively revealed them to be a political cartel with one overriding interest: their own power and its perks and privileges. Their morality and principle are in fact weapons for demonizing and weakening their political enemies, not bettering the lives of the people for whom they claim to care so much. Meanwhile, the president’s economic policies have done more to materially benefit ordinary “people of color” than have the Black Congressional Congress and the NAACP put together.

Love Milo or hate him, he is part of a tradition of political humor stretching back to the ancient Greeks. They understood that their novel invention of citizen rule and political freedom and equality required free speech and comedy to defend citizens against the corruption of politicians by holding them accountable to the ridicule and laughter of the citizens they are supposed to serve. With a Democrat party corrupted by identity politics, eager to censor and silence, yearning for more coercive state power, and flirting with socialism––the most destructive economic, social, and political ideology in history–– not to mention providing us in their zany, goofy policies and pronouncements an endless supply of straight-lines­­, we need more than ever the deflating power of laughter.

Watson Video: The Truth About the Sri Lanka Attacks

Tue, 04/23/2019 - 04:56

In this new video, Paul Joseph Watson sheds light on The Truth About the Sri Lanka Attacks, and he stresses that by the end of this week, it will be a footnote. And he asks: Why? Don't miss it!

 

Katie Hopkins Warns America: Don't Become Like the UK

Tue, 04/23/2019 - 04:53

At the Freedom Center's recent West Coast Retreat at the Terranea Resort in Rancho Palos Verdes (April 5-7, 2019), U.K.'s freedom fighter Katie Hopkins discussed the price she has paid in her battle for freedom in the UK -- and warns America not to become like Britain. Don’t miss the video and transcript of this dynamic speech below!

Transcript:

KATIE HOPKINS: (Applause) That was good.  That was good.  That was very beefy.  Okay, thank you.  Anyway, it's so fun to be here.  Thank you all for having me here.  Thank you in particular to David Horowitz, who I believe is the most inspirational freedom fighter of our time.  Absolutely.  Without David and his gorgeous team, I certainly wouldn't have a platform, and I can't tell you how grateful I am.  I have noticed however, David has become a little bit like the queen.  So, it's his 80th birthday year, and I don't know how many birthdays he's had so far, but I'm figuring by the end of the year, he's gonna have about eight, so he's kind of like the queen of the fight for freedom that we have here. 

I also see my mission--as I saw it maybe 3 years ago--was to warn America, do not fall as we have fallen.  Do not become like us.  Do not let yourselves become the United Kingdom or Western Europe, and I think, you know, it was hard last night listening to Judge Jeanine, and wasn't she fantastic? 

I feel, in part, that I haven't done a good enough job because what happened to us is happening to Judge Jeanine, and is happening to others that you've heard tell that they have to now hand them what they're planning to say on Fox before they even say it.  I'm certainly on the banned list at Fox now.  I just heard that Sebastian Gorka's is being added to that banned list as well. 

So, I fear that I have not done a good enough job of warning in the sense that you guys are not far behind us and the very dark road that we have gone down.  I don't know how you guys feel right now, but do you feel like this thing is getting faster?  There's like a weird acceleration effect going on.  Things seem to be going and turning away from us at quite a rate of knots.  I think that's a frightening thing.

A brief history of me:  I started off in the military.  I was sponsored by the Intelligence Corps through the Royal Military Academy, through my university course and then through the Royal Military Academy.  My father said that it must have gotten confused in the post; that I must have gotten someone else's offer.  My father also says that there definitely is a use for me in life but we just haven't found it yet.  I'd like to point out that I got this nose from my father as well.  I will say another thing you guys tell me quite a lot here, and it's been really nice: that I smell nice.  Yeah, I know, right?  But what's happened is that to Biden has become a verb.  So, people have said, I don't want to Biden you, but you smell really good.  So, Joe Bide should be pleased to know that he's now become an actual verb in our vocabulary. 

Anyway, I started off in a platoon. We were the girls' platoon, the Lumpy Jumpers, they called us.  Some of our lumps were more disappointing than others, and I came out as one of eight graduating the Royal Military Academy, and I guess the Academy is kind of like your West Point, but just, you know, better.  Uh oh.  Things could take a downhill turn from here. 

For various reasons, including the fact that I was born an epileptic, which I hid,  I was determined that not only could I overcome the world and every other thing that was put in my path, I could also overcome epilepsy by hiding it, but eventually, the Army medics found out about my diagnosis of epilepsy and I was militarily retired from the Army.  I was medically discharged and I can see now in my infinite wisdom as an actual adult, that actually, an epileptic with a semi-automatic rifle may not be such a good thing.  (audience laughter)

So I chose to carry on my fight for my country that I was determined to defend in other ways, and I became part of the media, the mainstream media, in fact.  I was a national columnist for Mail Online for 2 years, a national columnist for our biggest newspaper, specifically targeting regular, traditional, working-class people for 2 years, and I had a commercial radio show broadcast in the center of London that was at the top of its ratings.  But of course, once you start to really fight for your country and ask the awkward questions, those sorts of positions become untenable quite rapidly. 

So, once you start to ask, if Islam is so fantastic, why is that Muslims always come to Christian lands?   Once you start to ask, why is it that we tiptoe around the cultures that choose to join us, but we fail to stand up for the cultures they choose to join.  Why is it that the majority of the men targeting our white girls are Pakistani Muslim men?  Once you start asking those questions, you become quite unpopular in the mainstream, pretty fast, with your bosses.  So, I lost my radio show.  In quick succession, I lost my newspaper column. 

Once they've come for you professionally, then they come for you personally too.  So, they came for me financially with lawfare, case after case after case, where now, you can be sued for libel just through a tweet in the UK.  They came for me and my children, so I was reported to Social Services as a bad mother, and Social Services were involved in my family to see if it was appropriate for me to keep my three children.  And then they come for you physically, as well, of course. 

Judge Jeanine spoke about the fact she could no longer report in the streets of New York because people feel empowered to attack her in the street, verbally, in New York.  In the UK, that's physically, too.  So, a couple of Jihadis set out to behead me for my comments on Islam.  This was a couple years ago now.  They are both now in jail, so that's a win for the system, I suppose, and a win for me, too.  But the female wanted my head as a wedding present from her Jihadi husband.  She was called ***(Katie uses satire name) I think.  In ever quite got the detail.  And together with her fiancé, a gentleman called ***(Katie uses satire name), they plotted to behead me.  They got one of those dummies, like a shop dummy; my father says the resemblance was uncanny, and they practiced chopping my head off. 

People came into my home where I have my children, way down in the countryside, away from the towns, away from the cities, way far away; my little nest with lovely Mark Inn, that many of you know, my three children. They are 15, 14 and 10 now, and in the middle of the night, they came and installed a panic alarm into my home, told me that if anyone should break in, I should run to the top floor, shake this box and hopefully, help would come.  Then they left in the middle of the night and told me not to worry.  This is the sort of thing we're up against in the UK.  You can see how you guys are following not so far behind us, I guess. 

I'm not concerned by any of these things.  I have the attitude that if I put myself out there, that's absolutely appropriate, and if I don't like any of this stuff, I can go home and sit on my sofa and shutup.  And frankly, I signed up to fight for my country a very long time ago, and I will continue to do that until someone else decides that my time is up. 

And I will fight on to defend my country from the Jihadists and the Islamists.  We're somewhat overrun by Jihadists right now.  Sweden just agreed yesterday to take 230 back direct from the Islamic State, and we have the returning brides of ISIS.  I think you guys had one of your own.  So, in that same week, notice, the UK had one, Shamim Abegha; Canada, where's my Canadian representatives, had one; and America had one.  Isn't it great that ISIS can coordinate their international press releases with our mainstream media?  Yeah?  That stuff doesn't happen by accident, you know.  They are actively working against us, and for once in our life, Britain did something right.  Our home secretary tore up her British citizenship and said no.  You will not come into our country; a decision which she is appealing with taxpayers' money, given that she's been bedded by 52 Jihadis and has multiple sexually transmitted infections, it's about the only kind of appeal she's ever likely to have. 

Returning Jihadis wanting to come back to our country,  I really question that, don't you?  Jihadis?  You know what you're supposed to do if you're a Jihadi?  You're supposed to go and blow yourself up.  The idea is that you get a lifetime in paradise and 72 virgins, which is more than you'll find in Minnesota.  So, answer me this, returning Jihadis: how does that work?  Because really, if you're a returning Jihadi, you aren't really Jihadi, at all, are you?  You're just a bit crap at your job.  My view is, we don't need any more returning Jihadis into my country.  I'm sorry, we have to laugh, but you know what, humor sometimes is what's gonna win this fight for us.  I'm determined of it, and aside from pointing out the obvious, and going to the places where other people won't go, I spend most of my time in no-go zones in either Sweden, migrant camps at Cali, skid row, the places our mainstream media politely refuse to go because it's not near a five-star hotel.  The white farmlands of South Africa where our white farmers are being genocided from the land, and no one wants to talk about it because they're the wrong color. 

Aside from spending time there, I've just returned from a week at your border in Mexico.  I spent time with ranchers on the frontline, who nobody seems to talk to.  The volunteer Border Force who are doing a brilliant job just because they so believe in this country; they're desperate to defend it.  And the charities down there, aiding and abetting the movement of illegals through America.  And I can confirm firsthand, America is in trouble in the border, not just because of illegal immigration, not just because of Mexican families and their children being trafficked across the border straight into the arms of the Border Force, and not just because of a wall, or a lack of one; it's not even because of the endless supply of drugs, although I observed firsthand, and walked the routes and the mechanisms for all of these things.  America is in trouble at the border because of a systematic, coordinated and well-funded processing of people into your country for profit.

Politicians, the Catholic bishops of the USA, private businesses and charities, are all complicit in this trade of human flesh.  Your tax dollars are funding the movement of people into your country.  Your tax dollars are pushed into the pockets of businesses, charities and people profiting from the movement of illegal aliens, and the profit margin on an illegal alien is about 65 percent.

Two days ago--I have a clip to show you in just one moment.  Two days ago, I stood in the doorway of the Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande, and I filmed this clip.  It shows four border patrol vehicles arrive in convoy and unload their cargo of 75 illegals into this shelter in McAllen.  This was a scheduled trip and a planned delivery.  Please, may I ask us to play Clip 1?

Catholic charity rep: Do not take pictures of this, ma'am.

Katie Hopkins: Why?

Catholic charity rep: Why?

Katie Hopkins: Yeah.

Catholic charity rep: Very simply, their family members now know you're here, the people who they borrowed money from know they're here –

Katie Hopkins: Uh huh.

Catholic charity rep: – and now they'll extort 'em for the money, so if you want to put 'em in danger, –

Katie Hopkins: I don't. 

Catholic charity rep: –keep taking pictures.  If you want to put 'em in danger, keep taking pictures.

Katie Hopkins: This is a Catholic charities center.  It's a risk, a center for the illegals coming across the borders.  There are 1, 2, 3, 4 border control, border control vehicles here to drop off people, I'm thinking.  The lady is very upset that I'm taking this video of the vehicles arriving.  She said if people know they're here, they'll come get 'em because they will extort money from them, so that is evidence, I guess, of the traffickers at work here.  I will stop this video now, so we don't upset this lady any further.

KATIE HOPKINS:  Thank you.  The Border Force are moving trafficked people, and there are allegations and paper trails to support the assertion that taxpayer dollars flow back into the hands of the traffickers to reimburse for their part in this transaction.  As I say, about 75 individuals came out of those Border Force vehicles, and each illegal child is worth, they estimate, and around the order of $56,000.00 to the charities in terms of placement funds and opportunities for them.  The Catholic Bishops of the USA received over $29 million in 2018 for moving illegals into America.  The Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service received $28 million in 2018 for the facilitating illegal alien import.  All you have to do is follow the money.  Just after that clip was taken, a couple of individuals came out of that place, tried to take my phone from me and delete that video.

The problem at your border is the profit made per human head.  I truly believe – People said, what can we do?  Build the wall, stop them, how does he stop them?  I truly believe if you stop the profit per head-- 65 percent margin--you could help stop the flow of people.  And you're not alone in this.  I take no pleasure in any of this.  We've already lived through our own NGOs providing the same ferry service for migrants across the Med--from Libya into Southern Italy--Pushed politically by the globalists, enabled by our churches, facilitated by the left.  Where go, sadly, you guys follow. 

The UK is in a dark place.  I just finished a road trip from Paris to the lost parts of UK to Israel, to tell a news story of immigration and migration not being told.  This is a silent exodus of people from Western Europe.  Across Britain and Europe, it's a very British kind of migration that's underway, we're politely excusing ourselves from the places that we used to call home, looking for a new place to live.  The exodus of French Jews from Paris is much more stark.  They need to flee to find a place of safety.  For British families, it's a feeling that they no longer belong.

I traveled to a little town in the middle of England, in Yorkshire.  It's a place of rolling green hills, a place of mills and streams of the past, a place of Yorkshire tea, and this place is called Sable Town.  Sable Town has 4,000 residents.  It is now 97 percent Muslim.  When I was in town with my non-Muslim cameraman, we raised the white British contingent, non‑Muslim contingent, by a full 1 percent, just by being there.  You know, this has nothing to do, actually, with color or religion, per se.  This is about feeling the odd one out, about feeling isolated, about feeling like you no longer belong, looking around and not seeing one familiar face that you recognize.  Everything changing, languages changing, English is now the fourth language in the majority of our state schools and inner cities.  The shops change, and you are some, I am some oddity, now, standing out in the street.  We were sold all this on diversity, you know?  But where is the diversity here?  And 97 percent Muslim.  We were told multiculturalism had all the answers, but where is that when there's only 3 percent of us left behind?  Sable Town has a mega-mosque which I visited and was asked to leave, and it has its own Sharia court, in the Midlands, in the heart of England. 

The lady I met in the market town nearby told me, it's a no-go zone for white people, and this is happening all across the UK.  I didn't just pick one little town to make an example of it.  Whites are now a minority in London, in Leicester, in Lowton, in Bradford, and Birmingham by 2035.  By 2050, Muslim births will outnumber the number of births to any other religion in my country.  People are moving out because we don't want to leave our children somewhere we don't think they're going to be safe when they grow up.  And I went to hear the same stories in Paris, where Jewish families are much more openly under attack.  In the old French Quarter, the Islamists are making their intentions clear. 

Recently, 18 families, I visited a few of them, received letters direct to their homes, telling them to get out or they will be killed.  The police came and told them they couldn't protect them.  Last year, little Muriel Knoll, and 82‑year-old lady who lived in the relatively poor suburbs of Paris, was attacked by her Muslim neighbor.  She was stabbed then thrown from her balcony.  I went to the place where she used to live.  Muriel had survived the roundup of Jews in Paris, she survived the Valdiv before people were moved off to the camps, but she could not survive Paris in 2018. 

And this sense of fear, I promise you, is widespread; of being a target.  And it isn't just the big terrorist attacks that make the news headlines--   the Marche, specifically targeting a Jewish supermarket, not just the Charlie Ebto slaughter-- the French, Jewish French people talk of the stuff of everyday, the stuff in the margin, of being called a dirty Jew in the street by Muslims, of the children having to take off their kippah before they walk in the streets for fear they'll become attacked, and told not to hang around outside the synagogue, of being told to text their mom as soon as they get home, as soon as they're safe, of the armed guard stood outside the Jewish schools.  A rabbi tells me that the Jewish communities are like a weathervane for the wider population, that we should see them as a signal or a warning of the storms that are going to come our way, and the truth is, that Jewish families are being hounded out of Europe through fear, from Paris, from Germany, from the UK.  And Christian families like mine, are looking to Hungary and Poland for a new place to call home.

I followed these Jewish families to Israel-- to look for hope I think.  And they were relieved to feel safe.  They now worry for their family and friends in France and Europe.  They talk, and it gives me the shivers, just talking about it now.  They talk about needing to treat every day like the first of September, 1939.  They talk about having a suitcase by the door, so people can get out quickly.  One lovely elderly couple who escaped to Israel sat in their lovely apartment in Tel Aviv.  They bought another one just up the road for their daughter, hoping she'll come.  And they say, we have to remember, that history has taught us well, and that the pessimists are now in LA with a pool, and the optimists went to Auschwitz.  They say we have to remember in Western Europe; we cannot afford to be optimists anymore.  But they also spoke of their joy; their joy of returning to a homeland, the sheer relief of finally feeling accepted and safe and welcome.  The husband said he burst into tears at the airport. It sets me off every time, when they were greeted by an enthusiastic welcoming party of Israelis, so thrilled to see them.  And they were presented with all their papers and their documentation for this new life in this new land. 

8,000 others made that journey last year and the exodus, the Jexodus, is set to continue.  And if I may, I'd just like to play Clip 2 which is this new documentary I've been making called Homelands. I think it's helpful to hear their stories firsthand, not from me.  CLIP:

Katie Hopkins as narrator: In Western Europe, a silent exodus is underway.  There are huge changes afoot here, barely perceptible to outsiders.  Across the UK and Western Europe, indigenous people who've watched their countries change beyond all recognition.  This is a silent retreat of Jews and Christians from Western Europe.

Streeter interviewee: They try and beat you down with that all the time.  Far right, far right, and it's not the place, **** It's working-class English people.  You just feel like sitting duck, it isn't –

Interviewee:       Sable Town's a different area for a white person.

Katie Hopkins: Sable Town is a no-go area?

Interviewee:       It's a no-go area for a white person.

Interviewee:       Going to the synagogue on Yom Kippur, I passed a café in the street and two men came up and told me I'm a dirty Jew. 

Interviewee:       They think you are in trouble, and you are in the big trouble because you are not safe and we are much more safer than you.

Interviewee :     Some things can't be asked.  People have eyes.  They don't have hearing.  They don't see what's going on. 

Interviewee:       What we are heading for is a Muslim-dominated society that we cannot accept it. 

Interviewee:       From this angle, it's a hellhole. 

Interviewee:       On September 1, 1939, the Nazis invaded Poland, World War II began, but they didn't stop on September 1, and some Jewish communities in the world should treat every day, this might be September 1, 1939. 

Interviewee:       In Germany, before the war, the pessimists ended up having a swimming pool in Hollywood, and the optimists ended up in Auschwitz.  Being Jewish in Europe now, you can't be optimistic.

You know, I came away full of admiration for these brave people starting a new land together, formed and forged from this strong pride in this kind of strong national identity, and I was really saddened, too, by the glaring realization that I do not have an Israel.  We do not have an Israel, and so we must build one together.  Together, with America, we must build and defend a place we can feel safe for our children to grow up and call home; a Christian heartland where we can live without fear of becoming the targets for attack, and where we're not forced out from within, where others may join but not to segregate or isolate, but to integrate. 

63 million Americans began this project in 2016.  You voted for Trump, you voted for pride in your national identity, and you voted to create a place to call home.  And I've made it my mission for 2019 to kiss every single one of you.  Be afraid.  Although I smell nice, so it's good.  I'm gonna Biden you to death (audience laughter).  And because of you, there is hope.  You are like a thread pulling through Europe, giving us something to hold onto, making it okay to see that it's all right to put our country first. 

Salvini now says Italy first.  The Swedish democrats say Sweden first, and the AFD say Germany first because of you.  Because of you, we have this hope and together with these nation builders, we will strive to create places where Christians and Jews can still find a place to call home; a place of refuge.  You know, sometimes you may fear for your country.  You may fear that all is lost.  The noise from the other side can feel overwhelming, but I am here to tell you, all is not lost.  It is going to be okay.  There is hope.  We may silenced, but we are many; 63 million Americans, 20 million British people, 38 million Brazilians, 3 million Hungarians, 15 million Italians, I could go on and on.  And together, we are waking up to the fact that the fight back for our countries is on.  We can do this.  We have to do this, and we will do this together.  We will turn out for 2020.  Together, we fight back for America, for our God and for your land.  Thank you very much, indeed. (Applause)

Federal Grant Financed Anti-Semitic Song at U. of No. Carolina

Tue, 04/23/2019 - 04:51

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

“This is my anti-Semitic song,” Tamer Nafar declared.

The setting was the UNC-Chapel Hill. And this was the moment that, “Conflict over Gaza: People, Politics, and Possibilities", a conference of UNC and Duke University’s notoriously pro-terrorist Middle East departments went, beyond its expected implicit anti-Semitism to explicit anti-Semitism.

The Gaza conference, with a roster of speakers from anti-Israel groups, at least one of which has been accused of funneling money to Hamas institutions, was true to form. The BDS speaker disagreed only over how much to boycott Israel. The conference was full of posters glamorizing violence. And the books on sale were even more explicit in their defense of anti-Semitic Islamic terrorism against Jews.

A journalist for The Tower picked up a copy of "Hamas: A Beginner’s Guide" and read its claim that, “Intrinsically and religiously Hamas could not be anti-Jewish.”

But Nafar’s “anti-Semitic song” was the moment that put the Gaza conference on the map of hate.

UNC Chapel Hill and Duke’s Middle East Studies departments were already notoriously hives of hatred. In February, UNC’s Center for Middle East and Islamic Studies brought in Linda Sarsour, who has frequently clashed with the Jewish community and is a supporter of the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader, to speak. In April, Duke’s Israel Apartheid Week had featured support for the PFLP, an anti-Semitic terrorist group responsible for the murders of Jews, and calls for the destruction of Israel.

And Steven Salaita, who had declared that, Zionism was “transforming anti-Semitism from something horrible into something honorable”, had spoken at UNC Chapel Hill.

When Amcha Initiative, a Jewish civil rights group, published a list of Anti-Israel profs, Duke and UNC both won four places each on the list. UNC and Duke’s hate was funded by $235,000 in grant money from the Department of Education.

Jonah Kaplan, a journalist with ABC-11, reported that $5,000 or over 10% for the Gaza conference, with its anti-Semitic song, support for BDS and glamorization of terrorism, came from a federal grant.

"Let's try it together," Nafar urged his audience. "I need your help. I cannot be anti-Semitic alone."

Nafar was right. He couldn’t be anti-Semitic alone. The taxpayers, local, state and national, had to help.

Anti-Semitic poetry and hip-hop are a common feature of anti-Israel campus events. But this one was caught on video. UNC Global initially launched a defense of the conference and claimed that the video had been taken out of context, but before long it, UNC Chapel Hill and Duke, were on the defensive. 

UNC Interim Chancellor Kevin M. Guskiewicz admitted that the rhetoric was "disturbing and hateful".

But while UNC and Duke leaders have condemned anti-Semitism, and some department heads that sponsored the conference are asking for their money back, a largely symbolic gesture, there has been no meaningful action to ensure that the hate at UNC Chapel Hill and Duke will finally stop.

That’s why Rep. George Holding is actually standing up and demanding action and accountability.

The Georgia congressman wrote a letter to Secretary of Education Betsy Devos saying, “I have difficulty understanding why tax dollars should be spent on such an activity.”

"It's school-sponsored anti-Semitism in the fact that it received so much federal money and it received the support of so many prominent academic departments " Sam Zahn, a Jewish undergraduate, said

As various organizations, including UNC departments and the Rotary Club, examine their funding, Rep. Holding is urging the Department of Education to examine why it helped fund anti-Semitism at UNC.

Among the questions that Rep. Holding is asking the Department of Education to answer is whether the Gaza conference glorified violence, as The Tower report suggests it did, whether it endorsed BDS, again the report shows it did, whether any part of the DOE grant helped make the conference happen, and whether the hateful conference could serve as grounds for revoking the grant to Duke-UNC.

ADL boss Jonathan Greenblatt’s Twitter feed is full of denunciations of Islamophobia, but he never bothered to tweet about actual anti-Semitism caught on tape. Let alone demand action.

But Rep. Holding is doing just that. His letter is a powerful reminder that on radical campuses, the only meaningful form of accountability comes from the power of the purse. Universities across the country have not only become incubators of hate, but their bigotry is financed by the taxpayers they victimize.

“Conflict over Gaza” had a number of sponsors, from the Rotary Club to other UNC departments, that are hurriedly fleeing the fallout. UNC Global admitted that, "the center is in conversation with co-sponsors who have requested a return of their funds and the center is working directly with them."

The co-sponsors page for the Gaza conference has been taken down as no sponsors want to be associated with it. Even UNC’s School of Government and School of Law have demanded refunds.

UNC School of Law Dean Martin Brinkley blasted the UNC Center for Middle East and Islamic Studies, and demanded the department's money back, complaining, "I have been forced to spend most of the last two days responding to outraged members of my own community who are ashamed and embarrassed to see the law school shown as a sponsor of what they consider hate speech."

UNC School of Government Dean Mike Smith also demanded the department's money back, writing, "It simply is wrong to defend this explicitly anti-Semitic performance under the cloak of academic freedom. It crossed a bright line and you should have the integrity to reject it and take responsibility for it."

The financial cost of the anti-Semitic Gaza conference may be hard to calculate. Earlier this year, in response to Linda Sarsour’s appearance, there had been messages such as, “I’m an alum of UNC. No more donations from me if you allow this Jew hater to speak.” Now the hatred is even more unambiguous. And the Middle East Consortium has inflicted real and lasting harm on UNC.

As anti-Israel activists have embraced BDS, it’s being met with its own form of BDS with alumni divesting from hateful campuses. Rep. Holding’s letter is a welcome move that ought to be emulated by more Republicans when dealing not only with anti-Semitism, but other forms of ‘approved hate’ on campus.

Despite engaging in Pelosi-esque condemnations of the general problem of anti-Semitism, neither UNC nor Duke have condemned the specific department, the personnel responsible, or Nafar, the rapper, by name. They have shown no sign of putting procedures in place to prevent a recurrence of the problem.

Not unless they are forced to.

How deeply rooted is the problem of anti-Semitism at UNC?

UNC comparative lit prof Elyse Crystall, who also serves as the faculty adviser for the notorious campus hate group, Students for Justice in Palestine, led the defense of Nafar's anti-Semitism.

"I don’t think he was being anti-Semitic. I think he was satirizing our own stereotypes of Palestinians," Crystall claimed.

The radical anti-Israel academic had her own brush with anti-Semitism when she sent out an email about a Jewish candidate, writing, "Her resume/bio includes mention of her being active in Beth El synagogue. A red flag for me."

But not a red flag for UNC.

In the days to come, UNC will try to distance itself from Nafar, but before all this, the conference claimed that he was the “world’s first Palestinian rapper” and billed him as the “spokesman of a new generation.”

Like so much of the Gaza conference, that was a series of lies.

Not only isn’t there a “Palestine”, but Nafar grew up and lives in the Israeli town of Lod. Even if there were a Palestine and even if Nafar lived there, the first “Palestinian” rapper was actually Massiv.

Nafar has so little “Palestinian” cred that he just released a song urging fellow Israeli Arabs to vote in its election to take out Netanyahu. That’s because the “first Palestinian rapper” is actually living in a 70% Jewish city halfway between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Despite all his “Palestinian” rhetoric, Arab labels wouldn’t distribute him because Nafar’s family holds Israeli ID cards making them “traitors”.

Nafar was discovered by an Israeli rapper named Subliminal who let him perform at his club. Then Nafar turned on him and, at some point, discovered the lucrative college circuit. That brought him to UNC.

The anti-Israel college circuit has featured terrorist-supporters, Holocaust-deniers, and anti-Semitic rappers before. But the video of Nafar’s anti-Semitic song is raising the question of whether taxpayers should be footing the bill. That’s the question that Rep. Holding is asking. It’s one that more Republicans should be asking. Campus hate won’t end with letters or petitions. It won’t end with outrage.

It will only end when colleges are held financially accountable.

Cross-Border Terrorism

Tue, 04/23/2019 - 04:45

As the Windsor Star reported last week, “A Canadian man convicted of terrorism for nearly killing a Michigan police officer while yelling ‘God is great’ in Arabic was sentenced to life in prison on Thursday, after boldly declaring that he only regretted not having a machine-gun during the knife attack.”

The Canadian man is Amor Ftouhi, 51, a Tunisian who moved to Montreal in 2007. In 2017, Fthouhi entered the United States at Champlain, NY, and drove 1,000 miles to the Bishop Airport in Flint, Michigan. There Ftouhi attacked police officer Lt. Jeff Neville, striking him the neck. As the Star reported, investigators found that “Ftouhi wanted to take Neville’s gun and start shooting people,” which the Muslim confirmed in court. 

“Do I regret what I did? Never,” Ftouhi told U.S District Judge Matthew Leitman. “I regret I didn’t get that machine-gun. I regret I didn’t kill that cop.” The man who yelled Allahu akbar as he attacked also spoke out on other themes. 

As his photo revealed, Ftouhi is as pale as Justin Trudeau, but he “felt discrimination in Canada because he wasn’t a white Christian.” Ftouhi pledged allegiance to his Muslim faith and said western countries and Arabic countries should be cursed if they “don’t rule according to Allah.”

Ftouhi’s attorney Joan Morgan claimed the attacker had mental health issues but “is more than what his actions were.”According to an Associated Press report, the lawyer claimed Ftouhi “wasn’t attempting to create mass casualties,” and “wanted to be killed so his family could collect life insurance and he could become a martyr.” Judge Leitman told the court that Ftouhi’s own remarks “persuaded me beyond any shadow of a doubt” that a life term was appropriate. 

Lt. Neville survived but a loss of feeling on the right side of his face forced the officer to retire.  Neville praised the fellow officers and bystanders who took down the attacker and said Ftouhi, “should never walk the streets as a free man again.”  The case invites comparisons to an attack across the border in Windsor, Ontario. 

On October 8, 2017, Anne Widholm, 75, was walking alone on the Ganatchio Trail when she suffered a vicious attack that left her near death. Windsor police arrested Habibullah Ahmadi, charging him with aggravated assault. The accused attacker, 21, was described as a “Windsor man” but unlike Ftouhi, his photo did not appear. 

News reports said Habibullah was also known as “Daniel” but provided no information about the accused attacker. Habibullah was not quoted and neither was any relative, friend, co-worker or fellow student in Windsor. 

On July 25, 2018, a Peter Langille story on Windsor’s AM800 radio said Widholm suffered “life threatening injuries” and the charges had been upgraded to attempted murder. More important, “Ahmadi’s trial will be before a judge alone and his trial will be set in January 2019.”

The report cited no police or court source for those claims. 

Anne Widholm died on December 15, 2018, a full 14 months after the October 8, 2017 attack but no trial date was set in January 2019. A January 21 story by the Windsor Star’s Dalson Chen touted plans for an Anne Widholm memorial, including a bench, a plaque and “possibly a floodlight.”

Such a memorial does not show up in the April 14, 2019, Windsor Star report by Taylor Campbell announcing a trash pickup on the Ganatchio Trail in memory of Anne Wildholm “the woman who was viciously attacked while walking there in 2017 and later succumbed to her injuries.” Readers might have noted something unusual about the story.

Seven photos show volunteers picking up trash, but not a single photo showed Anne Widholm, subject of the memorial. By all indications, the Star has never shown a photograph of the attack victim, nor that of Habibullah Ahmadi, the man accused of attacking her. 

The clearest information in the case came not from police or attorneys but Dr. Balraj Jhawar, the neurosurgeon who treated Anne Widholm for what he described as “the worst skull fractures I’ve seen in my 12 years here in Windsor” and “among the most brutal things I’ve seen in my career.” Police said the attack was “random,” but Dr. Jhawar wasn’t having it. 

“For all of us who live here in Windsor, we can’t tolerate this. This is not just another assault,” Jhawar explained. “This is concerning to me. This is maybe representing a new, dark side of Windsor that we can’t let propagate.”

Dr. Jhawar described victim Anne Widholm, as “a super good person. This is the calibre of woman we’re talking about here.” After two surgeries taking eight hours, Dr. Jhawar said, “I believe she will survive.” She didn’t. 

Anne Widholm slipped into a coma and died 14 months after the attack. More than four months later, in April of 2019, the accused murderer has still not come to trial and nothing has emerged about his motive. 

“Canadian man” Amor Ftouhi said he wanted to kill a cop to show that Allah is the greatest. Ftouhi was tried and sentenced, and as Lt. Neville said, “should never walk the streets again.” “Windsor man” Habibullah Ahmadi accused of the October 2017 attack is not on record about his motive. The major certainty in the case is that “super good person” Anne Widholm will never walk the Ganatchio Trail again.  

Pages