Tuesday, November 12, 2019

The Left's Immigration Laws: The Ultimate Con Game - Michael Cutler

by Michael Cutler

Undermining public safety, public health, national security and the jobs and wages of American workers.

I have written ever so many articles about how globalists have used deceptive language to deceive Americans about the true nature of our immigration laws, beginning with President Carter’s edict, issued during his administration, that INS employees, replace the legally accurate term “Illegal Alien” with the deceptive term, “Undocumented Immigrant.”

I focused on this in my article, Language Wars: The Road to Tyranny Is Paved with Language Censorship. Generally we think of immigration fraud as taking two forms - aliens who engage in fraud schemes, such as those who enter into a sham marriage with an American or lawful immigrant, not out of love, but as a ploy to game the immigration system to acquire a green card. 


The other traditional form of immigration fraud involves the manufacture of counterfeit or altered identity documents and/or supporting documents such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses or green cards.


However, there is actually a third form of immigration fraud, by which tens of millions Americans have been conned into believing pernicious lies about about our nation’s borders and immigration laws.  


Over time, this highly coordinated fraud perpetrated by the mainstream media and globalists in both political parties, has convinced millions of otherwise sensible Americans to accept and even laud politicians and their corrupt immigration policies and practices that undermine public safety, public health, national security and the jobs and wages of American workers.


The immigration con game began in earnest with Carter’s Orwellian use of language I referenced at the beginning of my commentary.


Awhile back I wrote an extensive article about all three forms of immigration fraud in my commentary, Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill. In that article I also noted that the 9/11 terrorists and other such terrorists exploited immigration fraud to enter the United States and then preparer to launch deadly terror attacks.


Today American’s have been duped into believing that only bigots, racists and xenophobes would want to secure our nation’s borders and enforce our immigration laws.  In fact consider that the leaders of the Democratic Party now openly demand an end to immigration law enforcement and vilify immigration law enforcement personnel and have established Sanctuary Cities and even Sanctuary States that refuse to cooperate with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents.  These jurisdictions now refuse to honor ICE detainers calling for local law enforcement to not release aliens who have serious criminal histories, so that they could be taken into federal custody to be deported (removed) from the United States to protect communities in the United States.  All too often these aliens have gone on to attack more innocent victims and yet, millions of Americans have been somehow convinced that sanctuary policies are moral and appropriate!


On October 25, 2019 ICE published a news release, ICE announces more Mecklenburg County criminal offenders shielded by current non-cooperation policy that began with this paragraph:


CHARLOTTE, North Carolina – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released additional information Thursday on more unlawfully present foreign nationals facing serious criminal offenses in Mecklenburg County, who under the county’s ICE non-cooperation policy would currently be released back into the local community where they would be free to reoffend.


Among the serious crimes these aliens face include sex crimes against children, drug trafficking and firearms possession.  Incredibly, local authorities will not let ICE know when these criminals may be released.


This is not an isolated problem.  On October 30, 2019 ICE posted a news release, ICE captures Salvadoran illegal alien released by Buncombe County despite conviction for child sex offense


My article, Politicians Must Face Consequences For Crimes They Enable focused on the release, in Prince George’s County, Maryland, of two suspected members of MS-13, Josue Rafael Fuentes-Ponce and Joel Ernesto Escobar.  Both are citizens of El Salvador who are illegally present in the United States who had been arrested on May 11, 2019 and charged with, attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, participation in gang activity, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted robbery, and other related charges.


On May 16, 2019 these two alleged gang members were arrested and charged with brutally murdering a young girl who would still be alive if the ICE detainers had been honored.  That willful lack of cooperation with ICE cost that young girl her life.


I have traveled around the United States participating in various speaking events and frequently folks complain the “Liberals are ruled by the feelings.”


In point of fact, all humans make many decisions that are based on emotions.  Being “cold-blooded” or “heartless” are anything but accolades.  Don’t we raise our children to be considerate and compassionate?


Empathy is not a vice but a virtue.


The problem is that the massive campaign of misinformation and disinformation conducted by the mainstream media in concert with various special interest groups, have conned tens of millions of our fellow Americans into believing that our immigration laws are unfair and based on racism and xenophobia.  In point of fact, our immigration laws don’t only tell us who to keep our and who to kick out, but on who to admit.  Our immigration system is the most generous in the world.   Currently each and every year Ameria admits more than one million lawful immigrants and naturalizes hundreds of new citizens.  These huge numbers are greater than the numbers for all of the other countries on the planet combined.


U.S. Code § 1182 enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded from the United States.  Race, religion and/or ethnicity are not factors.  Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness, are convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies are to be excluded as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed and aliens who would likely become public charges.


Feelings and emotions are powerful and make us human.  Our challenge, in this particularly dangerous era, is to harness these powerful emotions of those who have been conned by the globalists and radical Left so that they will apply their emotions, particularly empathy and compassion to their fellow Americans first.


No rational person would give money to charity if his/her own children were going to bed hungry.  Homelessness is on the rise because of many factors, including the loss of jobs and wage suppression created by flooding America with foreign workers willing to work for substandard wages under substandard conditions, and frequently displace hard-working Americans.  


Flooding America with more people increases the demand for housing, thereby driving up the housing costs, often out of the reach of working poor Americans.  This contributes to record levels of homelessness.


Children, especially those who are members of ethic immigrant communities, are being accosted, beaten, raped and killed by transnational gang members in their schools and not just from Latin America.  Record quantities of dangerous drugs including heroin, meth and fentanyl are pouring into the United States across our all too porous borders- and not just the U.S./Mexican border.


Those who currently oppose immigration law enforcement and secure borders are not our adversaries but our allies, if we can use the facts to win them over to understand that our borders and immigration laws are not only eminently fair, but are our first and last lines of defense. 

Michael Cutler

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/lefts-immigration-laws-ultimate-con-game-michael-cutler/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Son of Two Unrepentant Terrorists Wins DA San Fran Race - Lloyd Billingsley

by Lloyd Billingsley

Chesa Boudin aims for “radical change” and “transformation.”

“Chesa Boudin has won the election to become San Francisco's next district attorney,” CBS News reported late Saturday. “The people of San Francisco have sent a powerful and clear message,” Boudin said in a statement. “It’s time for radical change to how we envision justice. I’m humbled to be a part of this movement that is unwavering in its demand for transformation.”

People in the vast hinterland to the east might wonder who Chesa is, exactly, and what kind of transformation he has in mind. Bernie Sanders was first to congratulate the victor, and San Francisco voters knew Chesa served as a translator for the regime of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Still, a full understanding must start with Chesa’s mother, Kathy Boudin, a Weather Underground terrorist.

As Matthew Vadum noted, Boudin served 22 years in prison for her role in an assault on an armored car in Nyack, N.Y. that claimed the lives of police officers Waverly Brown and Edward O’Grady along with security guard Peter Paige. Boudin gained parole in 2003 and like other felons secured a position at the Columbia University School of Social Work, “where she crusades against the supposedly systemic racism of the justice system.”

That’s the mother, Kathy Boudin, and Chesa was only 14 months old when the $1.6 million Nyack robbery went down. Radical father David Gilbert drove the getaway car and Chesa was duly adopted by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. She gained fame for the celebration of the Manson murders. “Dig it!” Dohrn told an SDS rally, “First they killed these pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them!” Stepfather Ayers had similar plans, but on a larger scale.

As David Horowitz explained before Ayers’ 2013 interview with the Daily Beast, the man is a “shallow murderous liar.” The Weather Underground was created in 1969 with a formal “Declaration of War,” against “Amerikka.” As part of this war, Ayers and his wife famously urged others to “kill your parents” and were still being investigated for murder of a policeman in Los Angeles who was killed by a Weatherman bomb.

After their revolution, Mary Grabar recalls, the Weathermen planned to “order the reeducation of an estimated 100 million Americans and the execution of the estimated 25 million who would resist reeducation.” With that kind of pedigree, no surprise that Kathy Boudin would name her son after Joanne Cheshimard.

“She led the Black Liberation Army when it was a cop-hunting group that assassinated at least six police officers in the early 1970s,” Caleb Stewart Rossiter explains. “Now renamed Assata Shakur, she escaped from prison in 1979 and lives in Cuba, which refuses to extradite her. Kathy Boudin assisted in the armed robbery that funded Chesimard’s jail break.” So that’s where the name Chesa, comes from, and Chesa is not one to rebel against his parents. As it turns out, he’s something of a momma’s boy.

From her prestige perch at Columbia, Kathy Boudin crusades against “society’s reliance on incarceration and retribution.” In similar style, Chesa, who went to All The Best Schools, touts policies of “restorative justice” and “decarceration.” George Orwell was on to this concept in Animal Farm, where the revolutionary critters proclaimed, “rats are comrades.”

For Chesa’s extended family, violent criminals are victims of an unjust capitalist society. And since criminals readily perform tasks such as killing ordinary people who resist the kind of “social change” the Boudin-Ayers-Dohrn axis wants, they must not be unduly punished or incarcerated.

As Jimmy Tobias notes at The Nation, Chesa Boudin is “pushing the most transformative agenda,” and running to be a “decarceral prosecutor.” At the same publication, John Nichols explains, Chesa Boudin is part of “a national movement to change the way that district attorneys operate within the criminal justice system.” That explains the support from George Soros, but over at Mother Jones, Brian Schatz wonders,  “Is Chesa Boudin radical enough?” Chesa surely is, and conditions have never been more favorable.      

In 2015, when a previously deported Mexican criminal, protected by sanctuary laws, gunned down Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier, the DA and public defender teamed up to get him off, even on the gun possession charge. Gavin Newsom supported Boudin’s opponent Suzy Loftus, but the California governor has already reprieved more than 700 convicted murderers, the worst of the worst, including cop-killers. When a Mexican illegal murdered police officer Brian Ishmael last month, Newsom was a no-show at the funeral.

Under Senate Bill 1391, signed last year by Jerry Brown, any criminal under the age of 16 can murder as many people as he or she likes, escape prosecution in adult court, and serve only until age 25. Meanwhile, the Boudin-Ayers dogma that lives loudly within Chesa has never been disturbed by the death of innocents who might not accept the brand of social change abd restorative justice the new DA wants.

To paraphrase Rodgers and Hammerstein, everything’s up to date in San Francisco, but they haven’t gone as far as they can go. Under new DA Chesa Boudin trouble will pile up higher and deeper, like the tons of trash, needles and excrement in San Francisco streets.

Lloyd Billingsley

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/son-two-unrepentant-terrorists-wins-da-san-fran-lloyd-billingsley/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Illiberal liberalism and the onslaught on western values - Melanie Phillips

by Melanie Phillips

The attack on the West has been driven by the combined forces of secularism and Marxist beliefs posing as liberalism, with the aim of creating a new world order in which God is dethroned by mankind, biblical morality is replaced by secular ideology, and truth is subordinated to power.

In the never-ending uproar over U.S. President Donald Trump, his administration’s recent move to lift a ban on traditional Christian adoption agencies went relatively unremarked.

Under President Barack Obama, child-welfare agencies were refused federal grants if they wouldn’t place children for adoption with same-sex couples. Last week, the White House reversed that ruling on the grounds that such agencies would no longer be forced “to choose between helping children and their faith.”

This followed a notable speech last month at the University of Notre Dame law school by U.S. Attorney General William Barr, in which he discussed his Catholic faith and passionately denounced secular intolerance.

The Trump adoption reform was condemned by human rights campaigners as “horrific,” “unconscionable” and “discriminatory” against LGBTQ people.

Barr, whose speech provoked a furor, was accused of “toxic Christian nationalism” and of violating his oath to defend religious liberty for all Americans. Liberal Catholics said his positions were “fire and brimstone” and a “threat to American democracy” because they “demolish the wall between church and state.”

Yet the new policy on adoption undid discrimination against Christian agencies. And Barr’s speech was a plea for religious freedom against secular intolerance and a well-founded statement of the Christian roots of American culture.

The significance of all this should not be underestimated — not just for Christians, but for Jews and Western culture in general.

Throughout the West, we are living through an eruption of intense political and social turmoil.

This is far more deeply rooted than the controversies of the day over Trump’s character or Brexit. It’s a civilizational struggle based at root on an onslaught on the Christian foundations of the West and the moral precepts of the Hebrew Bible that underpin them.

The attack on the West has been driven by the combined forces of secularism and Marxist beliefs posing as liberalism, with the aim of creating a new world order in which God is dethroned by mankind, biblical morality is replaced by secular ideology, and truth is subordinated to power.

Moral and cultural relativism have accordingly replaced “what is right or true” by “what is right or true for me.” The template of the family as based on marriage between a man and woman has been replaced by “lifestyle choice.”

The belief that humans are the pinnacle of creation and have a duty to steward the natural world has been replaced by the pagan belief in the superiority of the natural world over mankind.

The principle that every individual merits equal respect because all are made in the image of God has been replaced by the doctrine that everyone is entitled to the same outcomes as everyone else, regardless of behavior, thus negating moral responsibility for one’s own actions. We are even questioning the very basis of what it is to be human.

The erosion of this core cultural identity has given rise to identity politics and a grievance culture in which warring groups fight each other for power and supremacy.

All of these principles under attack are Christian and Jewish ones. The sharpest attacks have arisen from the collision in the public sphere between gay rights and conservative Christian or Orthodox Jewish attitudes.

In both the United States and Britain, Christians have been discriminated against over their opposition to gay adoption or gay marriage. Christian adoption agencies that only place children with an adoptive mother and father have been forced to close, depriving countless children of a loving and stable home.

In Britain, ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools whose religious beliefs mean they never teach sexuality in the classroom are being harassed by education inspectors enforcing laws that require such schools to teach children about gay lifestyles.

In his speech, Barr warned that Catholicism and other mainstream religions were the target of “organized destruction” by “secularists and their allies among progressives who have marshalled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry and academia.”

This secular onslaught, he said, was laying siege to “the traditional Judeo-Christian moral system” of the United States and was responsible for every kind of “social pathology,” including drug abuse, rising suicide rates and illegitimacy.

While religion tackled social challenges by stressing personal responsibility, the state merely tried to alleviate “bad consequences.”

“So the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion,” he said. “The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites. The solution to the breakdown of the family is for the state to set itself up as an ersatz husband for the single mother and an ersatz father for the children. The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with this wreckage—and while we think we’re solving problems, we are underwriting them.”

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman accused Barr of “religious bigotry” and described his words as a “pogrom-type speech.” Such critics merely made Barr’s point for him about secular intolerance.

Barr was sounding the alarm about a civilization in existential danger. As he stated, biblical precepts are the foundation stones of the West—and they’re being knocked away.

The U.S. constitution is self-consciously based on Jewish ideals and the example of the ancient kingdom of Israel. This is why traditional, biblically faithful American Christians stand shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish people and are among the strongest supporters of the State of Israel in the world—more so even than many Jews.

Nevertheless, with some honorable exceptions, Jews tend to downplay this support from Christians.

In part, this is because they suspect that the underlying aim of such Christians is to convert Jews to Christianity. While this is true for some, others merely acknowledge that Jesus was a Jew and support the Jews as a blessed people whose land of Israel was divinely promised to them.

There is, however, another reason why so many American Jews disdain Christian support. This is that they themselves have heavily bought into the secular approach to the world, which has replaced religion by mankind-centered ideologies.

This is particularly unfortunate since these universalist ideologies are inimical to Jewish principles, though many American Jews mistakenly think they embody the Jewish concept of tikkun olam, or the “repair of the world.”

They don’t realize, therefore, why intersectionality — the doctrine that links groups that consider themselves victims of the so-called white hetero-normative capitalist patriarchy — has made such an enemy of Israel and the Jewish people.

They don’t realize that through its animus against Jewish religious principles, seen as the basis of the oppressive power structure known as Western civilization, and against Zionism, seen as the ultimate ethnic colonialist enterprise of that civilization, secular liberal universalism entails a fundamental illiberalism, in addition to a deep intolerance towards biblically faithful Jews and Christians.

They don’t realize that this universalist creed they have made into a secular religion is taking an axe to the cultural virtues they themselves take for granted.

In this crisis for Western civilization, the tragedy for these Jews who don’t realize the importance of their own culture to that civilization is that they’re on the wrong side.

Jewish News Syndicate

Melanie Phillips

Source: https://www.melaniephillips.com/illiberal-liberalism-onslaught-western-values/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

How’s Congressman Ted Deutch on Israel? - Professor Elisha Haas

by Professor Elisha Haas

Hat tip: Susie Dym

Congressman Ted Deutch is a true friend of Israel, but his words on the idea of a Palestinian Arab state in Judea and Samaria attest to a lack of knowledge on the ground.

Congressman Ted Deutch (Dem.- Fl.) should be praised for condemning anti-Israel UN Security Council Resolution 2334, in 2017, which then President Obama failed to veto  It takes courage to condemn  a UN resolution promoted by a President from your own party. Deutch should also be praised for courageously supporting recognition of Jerusalem - by a President  from the opposite side of the aisle. 

But  Congressman Deutch has also publicly said that he is “greatly concerned by the possibility of Israel taking unilateral steps to annex the West Bank”. The Congressman should not have publicly criticized Israel, even if he  disagrees.  Tiny Israel gets more than enough criticism, especially on territorial issues crucial to her existence.

Worse, Congressman Deutch has demanded that Israel preserve “the eventual possibility of a two-state solution” because “Two states ... is the best option“.  This hurts Israel. Congressman Deutch does hold that “Israel’s ability to guard itself from threats is non-negotiable”. But Congressman Deutch does not know whether the two-state outcome does or does not allow Israel to guard itself from threats. Congressman Deutch does not appear to have extensive military experience, either field-wise or technology-wise.

Congressman Deutch has said, “We hope ... to achieve ... a democratic, de-militarized Palestinian state.”     This precisely explains the dangerous false reasoning behind Congressman Deutch’s pressuring Israel to take a very wrong turn. The belief in a “de-militarized” Palestinian state is false – like believing in a “flying elephant”. A flying elephant is a false belief because elephants do not fly -- and whatever does fly, is not an elephant. Similarly, any entity recognized as a “state” (exactly what Congressman Deutch is insisting on) has an inherent right to become as heavily militarized as it wants. This is so even if the state initially swears, signs, affirms and testifies, that it will remain de-militarized.    

Worse, such a state, once established, once militarized, cannot be dismantled – ever. Procedures exist for dissolving a marriage (divorce i.e.). None exist for dissolving a state. Thus,  Congressman Deutch, by using the word “state”, is condemning Israel to a future of being militarily dominated by a hostile army, seconds away from its entire population. No state can survive if its population and all its resources are seconds away from an army bent on its destruction.  Especially since Congressman Deutch is touted as a passionate supporter of Israel, he must be brought to understand that his recommendations of a two-state “solution” would, if accepted, be the death of Israel.

Even full de-militarization would not prevent a “Palestinian” state from indulging in terrorism – since terrorism is conveniently categorized as non-military.  To that, add the naivete of  expecting a new Arab state to magically become a peaceful democracy, when not a single existing Arab state is so.  Even if the Congressman truly thinks instilling democracy in a  new Arab state might work, why not be prudent  and, first, achieve that goal for the many Arab states surrounding tiny Israel, which already exist.

Why rush to promote another failed non-democracy on miniscule Israel’s doorstep?  Similarly, even if de-militarization were theoretically possible (even if elephants could be made to fly) -- can Congressman Deutch point, in practice, to a single relevant precedent of longstanding de-militarization? No. Note the Gaza precedent, although Gaza is not even a de-jure state, it just behaves like a de-facto state since Israel left. Egypt? The Begin-Sadat de-militarization clauses, too, have long proved illusory;  the state of Egypt deploys its threats without Israel’s permission.

Friends of Israel must bring all this to Congressman Deutch’s attention. Many of his fellow legislators are just as lacking in information if not more so, but that is a poor excuse.

Professor Elisha Haas, chairman of the Israeli Biophysics Society, is also former chairman of Professors for a Strong Israel and was among the founders of The Third Way, a centrist Israeli political party. He fought in Judea-Samaria in the Six-Day War and in the Golan Heights in the Yom Kippur War.

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/24707

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

No Safe Spaces: What Happens When Common Sense and Values Disappear - Lauri B. Regan

by Lauri B. Regan

The new reality - when progressive notions of microaggressions and safe spaces become the new normal.

The new documentary No Safe Spaces, starring conservative thinker, radio host, and writer Dennis Prager and liberal, comedian, and podcast host Adam Carolla, is a must-see for anyone concerned with the long-term viability of the First Amendment's free speech protections. While primarily focusing on the hostility to free speech laying siege to America's college campuses, vividly illustrated with compelling clips of violent protests and civil unrest by students from Berkeley to Yale, No Safe Spaces powerfully illustrates how the movement to limit speech has moved into mainstream arenas as well.

Prager and Carolla recognize that "common sense and values" are disappearing for the first time since our country's founding. There are appearances by figures on both sides of the ideological spectrum including liberals Barack Obama, Van Jones, Cornell West, Dave Rubin, and Alan Dershowitz, all of whom recognize the dangers to the country when progressive notions of microaggressions and safe spaces become the new normal.

Prager appreciates how unique free speech is on the world stage. Across Asia, Europe, and even Canada, First Amendment rights are either nonexistent or limited, yet the highly educated elites have decided that our historically exceptional freedoms are now dangerous. Prager observed:
What's happening now in the United States, you are not to be heard on a college campus, or at your place of work. This is brand new. This is one of the few things one could say we have no precedent for in the United States.
In recent years, student-demanded campus speech codes have been promulgated across the country, leading to speakers being disinvited or shouted down. Condoleezza Rice, Christine Lagarde, Charles Murray, Ann Coulter, and Prager are just a few of the more high-profile speakers dealing with disinvites and protests. It cost Berkeley $600,000 for the security required to bring Ben Shapiro to campus, where he received a standing ovation that proved, as he shared, that there are still students "who don't believe that the First Amendment should die under the jackboots and Birkenstocks of a bunch of anarchist, communist pieces of garbage."

And while thankfully Shapiro is right that not all students wish to see the First Amendment shredded, those with the loudest voices certainly do. College students, by a margin of 51% to 36%, favor speech codes, and 49% do not believe in free speech for hate speech, while "40% of Americans under age 35 tell pollsters they think the First Amendment is dangerous because you might use your freedom to say something that hurts somebody else's feelings." As Bill Maher points out, "who told you you only had to hear what didn't upset you?!"

While the Left shuts down free speech with accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, and the like, Prager recognizes that leftists really consider conservatives evil. "They have to think we're evil. Otherwise, they will have to debate us." Yet, sadly, students are no longer taught to critically think and debate ideas. Jose A. Cabranes notes in the Wall Street Journal that Yale's mission statement was changed in 2016 from the decades-long purpose "to create, preserve, and disseminate knowledge" to stating that Yale is now officially "committed to improving the world" and educating "aspiring leaders." Furthermore, most campuses no longer require classes in civics or the Constitution, instead requiring classes in diversity and other identity politics–related topics. Future leaders are not being taught that the First Amendment was designed to protect the exact type of speech that some may find offensive. Prager notes, "The place that is supposed to be the place of ideas, the university, is the most closed place in the United States."

For those following incidents of "snowflakes" disrupting civil discourse, free speech, and the rule of law on campuses, the examples used in No Safe Spaces are familiar. But when watching the film, the viewer realizes the extent and seriousness of the problem we face as generations grow more and more intolerant of views with which they disagree, while their authoritarian demands grow more and more unreasonable — and un-American.

Back to Yale, where, in 2015, students surrounded a professor, screaming at him like a crazed mob of lunatics, showing complete disregard for his position of authority. The reason for their fury? His wife, also at Yale, sent an email permitting Halloween costumes the students might have found offensive. Students yelled, "It's not a debate," "I am sick of looking at you," "You are disgusting," and "I want your job taken from you." In a sane world, those students would have been disciplined or even expelled, but not at Yale.

One of the most egregious campus episodes involved another couple who were faculty at Evergreen State College. Bret Weinstein and his wife are liberal Democrats who naïvely believed they would always be welcome on campus — until they learned that the student-imposed "Day of Absence" meant no white people on campus. Weinstein chose to teach anyway and was shocked to learn that the students had no interest in engaging with him to discuss the issue; their only interest was in threatening his safety and destroying him for appearing when whites were forbidden on campus. Weinstein, newly woke, concluded:
In some ways Evergreen is a preview of what's coming. The fact that this is happening across so many campuses means that it is going to spread into every quadrant of society and things are going to get worse elsewhere and so Evergreen is describing a future that is rapidly approaching.
By way of example, the film addresses the impact of this phenomenon on comedians and other media figures. Tim Allen's second highest rated sitcom was canceled for making fun of microaggressions, Kevin Hart was forced to step down from hosting the Oscars, Curt Schilling was fired from ESPN, Roseanne Barr was forced out of her sitcom on ABC, Megyn Kelly's Today show was canceled, and Phil Robinson was suspended from Duck Dynasty.

Then there is the tech industry, with Google's, Twitter's, Facebook's, and YouTube's "global community standards" choosing which speech will be permitted and which removed. PragerU's YouTube channel, with one billion views last year, has over 100 videos that have been placed on a restricted list (for videos containing violence and pornography). Those include videos on Winston Churchill, the Iran nuclear deal, and the Ten Commandments. (Prager, testifying on the Hill, jokes that he'll remake the last video and rename it "The Nine Commandments.")

Several themes permeate the film helping to explain the cause of this trend. This generation has been raised with a victim mentality. If all people are victims, they all need protection, and they are no longer responsible for their own behavior. Carolla recognizes that there is nothing "more debilitating than thinking yourself a victim." His congressional testimony is compelling as he makes an analogy between astronauts who spend time in a zero-gravity environment and today's students.
We're taking these kids in the name of protection and putting them in a zero-gravity environment and they're losing muscle mass and bone density. They need to live in a world that has gravity[.] ... Children are the future, but we're the present, and we're the adults. Can we just bring back order, and could the faculty and administrators on these campuses act like adults who are in charge of these kids who need some gravity in their life?
The film also makes the important point that identity politics is the exact opposite of common sense. Whether victimization, cultural appropriation, social justice, or trigger warnings and safe spaces, academia lauds these values as progressive and positive. Individualism? Not so much. And yet America was founded on individualism, and individual accomplishment until now has always been heralded and encouraged. Prager concludes, "For being who you want to be, America is the true safe space." College administrators are slow to heed the message.

No Safe Spaces makes a compelling case for immediate action, lest we lose more generations to the movement that believes that free speech exists for me but not for thee. It balances the seriousness of the issue with humor, fun visuals, and a dynamic cast to make the case that without diversity of thought on campus ("ideological fascism"), mainstream organizations will be infected by this plight, since these students are our future. The fight will take courage — courage to speak.

Lauri B. Regan

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/emno_safe_spacesem_what_happens_when_common_sense_and_values_disappear.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

YouTube and Facebook are erasing content with whistleblower’s name - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

This inconvenient person will be "disappeared" from cyberspace

The day has finally arrived when our online media monopolies are blatantly censoring the news that Americans can see. Chrissy Clark writes at The Federalist:
Facebook and YouTube are removing all content from their platforms that mentions the anti-Trump whistleblower’s name, whom news outlets including RealClearInvestigations have publicly identified as CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella. No law bans media outlets or any person but the intelligence community inspector general from making the whistleblower’s name public.
A Facebook spokesperson said the platform will remove “any and all mention of the potential whistleblower’s name.

Ciaramella is being made into a non-person, because House Democrats are dead set against calling him to testify in the impeachment inquiry that they are putting on starting Wednesday. They don’t want the public to know that he was an associate of John Brennan, evidently a central figure in the manufacturing of the Russia hoax, that he worked for VP Biden, and that he is a registered Democrat.

History has seen similar efforts to pretend in the media that persons inconvenient to the powerful don’t exist. When Stalin purged people he feared might become rivals, he had them airbrushed out of photos standing next to him.

Stalin had absolute control over the media in the USSR. But YouTube and Facebook dominate online videos and social media to an astounding degree in a “free market”economy. The two platforms dwarf rivals, as this chart showing their reach (the percentage of people in the United States who watch videos on them) demonstrates:
Chrissy Clark points out that the censorship is obviously political in nature:
The irony of this censorship debacle is that protecting so-called whistleblowers only seems to apply to those who help the mainstream media and Democratic agenda. This week, when ABC News was dealing with a whistleblower, her name was not forbidden on mainstream platforms like YouTube or Facebook. In fact, her name was released on YouTube, despite her claims that she is not the whistleblower who released audio showing how ABC suppressed reporting into alleged child rapist Jeffrey Epstein.
Not only are Facebook and YouTube’s standards a form of censorship, they are an example of partisanship on the largest social media platforms in the world.
YouTube is owned by Alphabet, the parent company of Google. If and when Google erases Ciamarelli’s name from possible search terms, the censorship effort will reach an unprecedented (and frightening) height. With Fox News and the other television networks and major newspapers cooperating in the effort to erase Ciamarelli’s name, the only way that Americans will learn about the coup plotters is when they are subpoenaed and forced to testify under oath – before a Senate committee, or perhaps a grand jury and trial jury. If that ever happens….

Thomas Lifson

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/youtube_and_facebook_are_erasing_content_with_whistleblowers_name.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

How Should the U.S. Respond to the Lebanon Protests? - John Hajjar

by John Hajjar

An opportunity to strike a crippling blow against Hezb'allah.

I returned to the U.S. from Lebanon less than one month before the October protests began in Beirut and started spreading throughout its cities and towns, shaking the foundations of a regime that spent 30 years mired in corruption and backing Hezb’allah. During my field trip to my ancestral land, mandated by the American Mideast Coalition for Democracy (AMCD), I met with students, politicians, journalists, former military, religious leaders and civil society activists. I also met with ordinary people in different places. The three major issues of discontent among all people I met were:
  1. Frustration with the economic and financial situation, crumbling under the heavy corruption eroding most of Lebanon’s institutions, both public and private;
  2. Fear from the constant domination of Hezb’allah and its peace-through-intimidation of their partisans and those opposed to their domination; and,
  3. Loss of trust in the ruling political, economic, and clerical establishment of the country.
The Protests: “All means All”

On October 18, tens of thousands of Lebanese filled the public squares in Beirut in anti-government demonstrations accusing the leaders of “stealing the people’s money,” and of abandoning the poor to their fate. At first, the demands were socioeconomic, but then the protests got larger and the official goal became bringing down the entire system: the Saad Hariri cabinet, Michel Aoun’s Presidency, and Nabih Berri’s Parliament -- all accused of being behind the mass corruption that the country has been suffering under for decades.

The core of the protests was organized by a network of liberal, patriotic, mostly civil society groups; among them a newly formed political party called “Seven.” Traditional political parties were asked not to join, though their members were welcomed. Hence the Lebanese Forces, Kataeb, and Jumblatt stayed away.

It is imperative to note that a group of left-wing militants also installed themselves in the center of downtown Beirut and gradually attempted to seize the political and organizational command of the leaderless protests.

Hezb’allah, Regime and Far-left Tactics

Hezb’allah, the de facto ruler of Lebanon, perceived the protests as directed against its power. The demonstrators chanted that “all leaders should be forced to resign, all of them,” which in practicality included Hezb’allah. The retaliation of the Iran-dominated militia came fast. Hordes of militants stormed the rallies, destroyed the stands and dispersed the protesters. But the protestors would not be kept down. They came back after each act of violence perpetrated against them.

The regime, unhinged, refused to resign as Hezb’allah rejected a change of system. Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah’s network, which has been suffering financially from U.S. sanctions imposed by the Trump Administration, threatened mass violence if the revolution ejected them from the state. Nasrallah even threatened to cut the wages of the Lebanese Army, immobilizing it, and then unleash his militia on the protesters

Trump Administration’s Position

The Trump administration proceeded with caution regarding the Lebanon protests. One parameter was clear as the first statements from the State Department: “The rights of the Lebanese people to express themselves should be protected.” Another parameter was to ask the Lebanese Army to protect the rallies from Hezb’allah and other militias.

Ironically, but not surprisingly, the Hezb’allah propaganda machine and its far-left allies in Lebanon blasted any potential Trump statement as “meddling” but welcomed supportive statements from radical politicians such as Bernie Sanders as “progressive.”

The Protests’ Future

The popular forces on the streets seem to be resilient and willing to take the political fight through to the end, that is, until a full change is achieved. Despite the resignation of Prime Minister Saad Hariri, the protesters have expressed the will to continue the “revolution.” The uprising is discreetly backed by anti-Hezb’allah leaders such as Christian politician Samir Geagea, Sunni leader Achraf Rifi, and Druze politician Walid Jumblatt, but is practically led by a federation of NGOs, primarily Hezb 7 (with organizer Jad Dagher in the center) and with new leadership of an old party -- the “National Bloc” -- which seems to have moved to the front of the youth revolt.

It is my view (and the view of experts and activists I’ve consulted with) that the “movement” won’t stop, even if attacked by Hezb’allah. The sustainability of the protests rest on several factors:

  1. The protection by the Lebanese Armed Forces;
  2. International and U.S. solidarity, but no direct action at this point;
  3. Support coming from the Lebanese Diaspora, numbering in the millions;
  4. Formation of a technocrat cabinet; and,
  5. Deterring Hezb’allah from physical attacks on the rallies.
U.S. Policy Towards Lebanon
The question now is, what should U.S. policy be regarding Lebanon’s protests? Should we intervene in this crisis? Refrain? Or design strategies to contain Hezb’allah, empower the country’s civil society, and enable Lebanon to free itself from terror and break loose from corruption?

There is no doubt that Hezb’allah and its radical allies are at the core of threats against the U.S. Since 1983, this terror organization has targeted U.S. citizens and personnel in Lebanon, Iraq and other locations. Thus, it is in our national interest make sure that Hezb’allah is checked and eventually disarmed in Lebanon. 

Hezb’allah has assassinated, kidnapped, and threatened many Lebanese politicians, military, journalists, students and other members of Lebanon’s civil society. During the October 2019 protests, it launched several thuggish raids against the protesters, all well documented online. Washington should proceed with caution as Hezb’allah is lethal and can take the population hostage.

On another level, the U.S. has an interest in seeing the Lebanese fight against corruption in their own country as a means to end such corrupt practices in the region and around the world. We want to encourage good governance and state sovereignty.

Based on these considerations, in the wake of the October protests, I would advance the following considerations for a U.S. policy towards Lebanon. The United States should:

  1. Clearly state that the protesters have a fundamental universal right to express their views and organize peaceful demonstrations;
  2. Warn the authorities in charge not to suppress these protests and call on the security forces, and particularly the Lebanese Armed Forces, to protect these demonstrators from thugs and militias;
  3. Ask the regime to acquiesce to the demands of the protesters and resign from power, leaving it in the hands of an interim nonpartisan Government whose only mission is to organize legislative elections;
  4. Extend support to the new Parliament to develop new legislation for the country;
  5. Partner with the next government to implement reforms and apply international resolutions including UNSCR 1559 and 1701; and,
  6. Assist the Lebanese Armed Forces and the security forces to protect the citizens of Lebanon and to disarm militias.
A new U.S. policy should also involve a special team to handle the Lebanese crisis both in Beirut and in Washington, D.C., in light of the dramatic events that have taken place and continue to evolve.

John Hajjar is the Co-Chair of the American Mideast Coalition for Democracy.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/how_should_the_us_respond_the_the_lebanon_protests.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Nikki Haley blows the lid off cabinet-level insubordination (aka, #resistance) against Trump - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

More high officials feel the need to "save the country" from the duly elected president

Donald Trump’s election has triggered a level of treachery that threatens the basis of our constitutional republic. The words "constitutional crisis" are bandied about too often, but this incident fits the bill all too well. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley is promoting her book that debuts tomorrow, and gave an interview yesterday to CBS in which she revealed the shocking news that two senior appointees to the Trump White House were conspiring against him, and attempted to enlist her in their cabal to seize his constitutional powers for themselves. 

Fox News summarizes:

Grabien screen grab
Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley blasted former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, recalling a private conversation where they defended resisting President Trump, telling her they did so out of necessity.
Haley told "CBS Evening News" anchor Norah O’Donnell that she did not appreciate having the former officials confide in her, as she described in her new book, “With All Due Respect.”
"[I]nstead of saying that to me, they should've been saying that to the president, not asking me to join them on their sidebar plan," Haley said.
Haley said that the two men “confided in me that when they resisted the president, they weren't being insubordinate, they were trying to save the country” and how “Tillerson went on to tell me the reason he resisted the president's decisions was because, if he didn't, people would die…."
“Saving the country” is the excuse offered by virtually all coup plotters when they override the established powers and install their own people in power. It is the logic of a banana republic. Haley responded entirely appropriately:
“It should've been, 'Go tell the president what your differences are, and quit if you don't like what he's doing,'” Haley told O’Donnell. “But to undermine a president is really a very dangerous thing. And it goes against the Constitution, and it goes against what the American people want. And it was offensive."
Here is the entire interview:

Thomas Lifson

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/nikki_haley_blows_the_lid_off_cabinetlevel_insubordination_aka_resistance_against_trump.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Germany: "We Expect Imams from Abroad to Speak German" - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

Turkey continues to hold effective veto power over Germany's Islam policy.

  • The latest annual report of Germany's Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution.... warned that the Erdoğan-aligned Islamist movement Millî Görüş is strongly opposed to Muslim integration into European society....
  • The Konrad Adenauer Foundation also reported that the German government's initiative to offer Islamic theology courses at five German universities has failed to produce German-speaking imams. This failure stems, in part, from the fact that the Turkish government has refused to cooperate with the initiative.
  • The German government is unlikely to ban the foreign financing of mosques anytime in the near future. Such a move would, presumably, infuriate Erdoğan, who controls the floodgates of mass migration to Europe. Turkey continues to hold effective veto power over Germany's Islam policy.

The German government, after years of equivocating, has approved a measure that would require clergy from abroad to prove that they have sufficient German language skills before they are allowed to work in Germany. According to Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (pictured), "Knowledge of the German language is indispensable for a successful integration... This is all the more important when clergy are reference points for many other immigrants. (Photo by Michele Tantussi/Getty Images)

The German government, after years of equivocating, has approved a measure that would require clergy from abroad to prove that they have sufficient German language skills before they are allowed to work in Germany.

The move, aimed at cracking down on foreign government control over Muslims in Germany, comes after an academic study found that approximately 90% of the imams leading the 2,000 or so mosques in Germany are from abroad.

The new measure, approved by the Cabinet on November 6, would amend two German laws — the Employment Regulation for Foreigners (Beschäftigungsverordnung) and the Residence Act (Aufenthaltsverordnung) — to stipulate that, in the future, anyone seeking to obtain a residence permit for the exercise of religious employment must demonstrate a sufficient knowledge of German.

Important details about the measure, which must still be approved by the German Parliament, remain unclear. The government said that during a transition period, proof of "simple knowledge" of German would be acceptable. It did not, however, clarify how long that transition period would be, define what is a "sufficient" level of German, or say what will happen to the foreign imams currently leading German mosques. Will those imams be exempt from the measure, will they be required to learn German, or will they be replaced by other imams who have the requisite language skills?

The government did say that the legal changes, which will affect not only Muslim clerics, but also clergy from other religious communities, is aimed at facilitating the integration of newcomers into German society:
"Religious communities are for many immigrants a point of reference and identification. In addition to conducting religious or pastoral activities, those working for religious reasons, because of their office, serve as role models and advisers for the peaceful coexistence of different cultures and religions. As such, they are important for a successful integration of new immigrants in Germany. Such an integrative function succeeds best when religious staff are themselves well integrated."
German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer added:
"Knowledge of the German language is indispensable for a successful integration. That is my firm conviction. This is all the more important when clergy are reference points for many other immigrants. This regulation will make an important contribution to successful integration in Germany."
The new measure comes in the wake of a study, produced by the center-right Konrad Adenauer Foundation, which found that an overwhelming proportion of imams in German mosques are from abroad. The study — "Imams: Made in Europe?" — found that between 2,000 and 2,500 imams working in Germany are from abroad, mostly from Turkey, North Africa, Albania, the former Yugoslavia, Egypt and Iran.

The Turkish government controls 986 of the approximately 2,000 mosques in Germany. This control is exercised through the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB), the largest Muslim umbrella organization in Germany and a branch of the Turkish government's Directorate for Religious Affairs, known in Turkish as Diyanet.

In recent years, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has greatly increased the size, scope and power of Diyanet, which now has an annual budget of $2.1 billion (€1.9 billion), five times that of Turkey's National Intelligence Organization (MİT), according to the independent Turkish news site T24. Diyanet now has 117,000 employees, compared to less than 10,000 at the MİT.

The Turkish clerics in Germany, whose salaries are paid directly by Diyanet, are effectively Turkish civil servants who do the bidding of the Turkish government. The German government has accused Erdoğan of using DITIB mosques to spy on followers of U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gülen, accused by Ankara of organizing a failed coup in July 2016.

In October 2019, the mayor of Berlin's Neukölln district, Martin Hikel, in an interview with the newspaper Bild, said that supporters of Erdoğan were using German mosques to pray for the Turkish military incursion of Kurdish areas in northern Syria. This, he said, was fueling tensions between Kurds and Turks in Germany.

Erdoğan has also repeatedly used DITIB mosques to discourage Turkish migrants from integrating into German society. German politician Cem Özdemir, co-chairman of the Green Party, has said that DITIB is "nothing more than an extended arm of the Turkish state." He explained:
"Rather than being a legitimate religious organization, the Turkish government has turned DITIB into a political front organization of Erdogan's AKP party. Turkey must let go of the Muslims in Germany."
Meanwhile, the Erdoğan-aligned Islamist movement Millî Görüş (Turkish for "National Vision") controls 323 mosques in Germany, according to the Konrad Adenauer Foundation study. The movement, which has around 10,000 members in Germany, is, after the Salafist movement, the second-largest Islamist group in the country.

The latest annual report of Germany's Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, BfV), the domestic intelligence agency, warned that Millî Görüş is strongly opposed to Muslim integration into European society:
"According to Millî Görüş, Western Civilization is presently dominated by a 'vain' order based on violence, injustice and exploitation of the weak. This 'vain' system must be replaced by a 'just order' that is based exclusively on Islamic principles, rather than on man-made and therefore 'arbitrary rules.' All Muslims should participate in the realization of the 'just order.' To do this, they must adopt a certain attitude and gain a certain vision ('Görüş') on earth, namely a national/religious ('Millî') vision, a 'Millî Görüş.'"
Another 300 mosques in Germany are controlled by the Turkish Association of Islamic Cultural Centers (Verband Islamischer Kulturzentren, VIKZ), which trains its imams in Cologne. More than 70 mosques are operated by the Bosnian community in Germany (Islamische Gemeinde der Bosniaken in Deutschland, IGBD), whose imams are trained in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The remaining mosques in Germany are run by smaller Muslim communities based in North Africa and Iran.

The Konrad Adenauer Foundation study also noted that foreign imams with no German language skills often enter Germany on tourist visas:
"Individual preachers who travel to Germany for a limited period of time with tourist visas (especially during Ramadan) and who generally have no knowledge of their host country are also considered problematic in Germany. They are, in part, sent by foreign actors and religious authorities such as the Al-Azhar University and Mosque in Cairo and are usually dependent on donations and membership fees of the hosting mosque communities."
The Konrad Adenauer Foundation also reported that the German government's initiative to offer Islamic theology courses at five German universities has failed to produce German-speaking imams. This failure stems, in part, from the fact that the Turkish government has refused to cooperate with the initiative. The report states:
"The Islamic associations distrust state-initiated theology courses and fear interference with content. In addition, they often lack organizational competence, content-related professionalism and human resources to constructively support the development of Islamic theology in Germany. Observers therefore take a critical view of the chances that DITIB might engage in fundamental cooperation with German universities for the qualification of imams. Such cooperation would diminish the control and accessibility of Diyanet in Germany and undermine its interest in the preservation of Turkish national identity."
Observers say that language requirements alone will be insufficient for foreign imams to promote integration and prevent radicalization.

In an essay in Die Welt, political editor Ricarda Breyton explained the crux of the problem:
"The new law stems from the German coalition agreement, which states, 'We expect imams from abroad to speak German.' The Interior Minister expects the new regulation to be an 'important contribution to successful integration in Germany.' But how effective is the project when it comes to actually pushing back radical ideas and foreign influences?
"The problem lies, above all, with the Turkish religious authority Diyanet. It is directly subordinate to the Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Turkish government and sends imams from Turkey to run DITIB mosques. These imams are paid by the Turkish state. This complicates integration and facilitates Turkish influence. Over and over again, there have been problems in Turkish DITIB mosques. Not only with questionable sermons, but also spying on Muslim parishioners....
"Many financially weak mosque communities in Germany cannot afford to finance their own imams. Even in the future, they will depend on financial assistance from abroad — and thus remain subject to foreign control."
Volker Münz, a parliamentary spokesman for the anti-mass-migration party Alternative for Germany (AfD), said that immigration authorities must carry out exhaustive background checks of each individual, "where he comes from, what he has done and what he is pursuing here." He added:
"What the Federal Cabinet has launched is insufficient. In the future, foreign clergy will only have to demonstrate sufficient language skills. This in and of itself will not promote integration but at best will facilitate rudimentary communication.
"The real problem, namely that clerics from Turkey or Qatar come and influence people with Turkish or Arab roots in this country, is not solved.
"The financing of clergy from abroad must be banned altogether."
The German government is unlikely to ban the foreign financing of mosques anytime in the near future. Such a move would, presumably, infuriate Erdoğan, who controls the floodgates of mass migration to Europe. Turkey continues to hold effective veto power over Germany's Islam policy.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15152/germany-imams

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter