The Republican White Togas at Work for the Queen of Sleaze - Clarice Feldman

by Clarice Feldman

I doubt that Americans are so addlepated as to pick an incompetent, thoroughly corrupt globalist over an often-vulgar man who loves his country and has accomplished a great deal.

Years ago I wrote of my contempt for the white togaed squishes of the right who flee the grounds of the forum when jackals attack their allies in order to keep their garb free of stain. This week in the lead up to the second presidential debate tonight, they’re at it again.

Just as evidence of the Clinton corruption is once again made manifest in the release of more of her emails and a closer look at the late revised Clinton foundation filings, they flee Trump because of a suspiciously timed tape of an eleven-year-old conversation with GHW Bush’s nephew, Billy Bush. If, like a toddler, you are easily distracted by shining objects. you’ll fall for it. If you’re a grownup who realizes the fate of the world and this country depend on your vote you won’t.

1. How Hillary Broke the Law and Destabilized North Africa, creating a Refugee Crisis and a catastrophe in Libya and Syria

General Mike Flynn laid out the catastrophic results of then-Secretary of State Clinton’s actions in Libya, based on false claims that Qaddafi was engaged in widespread attacks on civilians.

While no saint, Qaddafi was key to our counterterrorism efforts in the area. Ignoring the advice of the secretary of defense and lawyers in her own department, Secretary Clinton allowed 18 shipments of arms from Qatar to Libyan jihadis who were on the State Department’s own list of foreign terrorists, in apparent violation of federal law (28 U.S. Code 2339A and 2339B). The arms shipments were funneled through a Qatar cleric “who brokered their release from prison” after Clinton persuaded the President to grant the terrorists full diplomatic recognition.

If that wasn’t bad enough, Flynn underscored the connection to the Clinton Foundation in her otherwise puzzling conduct:

Qatar has donated anywhere from $1 to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, and emails reveal members of the Qatari royal family were privileged with back channel meetings with Secretary Clinton at the State Department. While whipping up support for the Libya military campaign, Clinton told Arab leaders, “it’s important to me personally,” the Washington Post reported.
Hillary Clinton’s prosecution of foreign policy in Libya crossed several lines: she showed extremely bad judgment by ignoring military and intelligence officials, she let personal interests conflict with U.S. foreign policy and, most importantly, she may have broken the law -- again.

2. Hillary’s speeches to Big Donors Reveal clearly her Deceptive nature and her view of Trump and Sanders supporters

Wikileaks revealed a batch of new hacked emails involving Hillary this week. As people sort through them, some gems from the well-paid speeches she gave to big corporate donors showed up. 

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]”

According to Politico:

Hacked audio of a conversation between Hillary Clinton and donors during a February fundraising event shows the Democrat nominee describing Bernie Sanders supporters as "children of the Great Recession" who are "living in their parents’ basement."
Speaking at a Virginia fundraiser hosted by former U.S. ambassador Beatrice Welters, Clinton says in a clip released by the Free Beacon that many of her former primary opponent's supporters sought things like “free college, free health care,” saying that she preferred to occupy the space "from the center-left to the center-right" on the political spectrum.
During the conversation, also reported in the Intercept, Clinton confesses to feeling "bewildered" by those to her far-left and far-right in the election.
"There is a strain of, on the one hand, the kind of populist, nationalist, xenophobic, discriminatory kind of approach that we hear too much of from the Republican candidates," she said. "And on the other side, there’s just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we’ve done hasn’t gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don’t know what that means, but it’s something that they deeply feel."

4. Mud Slung and Squishes Run

Just as this hit the wires, NBC released a video of Billy Bush, a cousin of GW Bush and a nephew of GHW Bush, a TV personage, in a taped locker-room type conversation he had eleven years ago with Trump. For some this echoes the usual leftwing last minute charges against George Bush and John McCain falsely accusing them of sexual misconduct.

Trump quickly issued an apology: "I've never said that I'm a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I'm not. I've said and done things I regret and the words released today on this more than a decade old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me knows these words don't reflect who I am. I said it, I was wrong and I apologize," Trump said.

Measured against the criminal corruption of Hillary and Bill this would seem to an ordinary observer to be insignificant. For Hillary it was “horrific”. Tom Maguire responds: 

The October Surprises keep piling up. Can'ya believe Trump made lewd comments about women? But Politico delivers the punchline:
“The audio represents an extraordinary level of vulgarity --Democrats quickly condemned Trump for casually joking about sexual assault -- even for a candidate who seized the Republican nomination through his proud embrace of political incorrectness.
‘This is horrific,’ Hillary Clinton said on Twitter. “We cannot allow this man to become president.’ “
A shortage of Twitter-space undoubtedly prevented her from tweeting her real thought, which must have been "We cannot allow a man like this to become president again".
As to whose mind might be changed by this, who can tell. The undecideds out there probably have guessed by now that this is Trump being Trump. 

I used to be a Democrat so nothing shocks me, but Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and others quickly virtue-signaled, in effect playing for Hillary.

Mitt’s response was the most perfervid. He claimed the taped words “demean our wives and daughters and corrupt America’s face to the world”. I cannot improve upon the responses of my online friends “daddy” and James D” to this nonsense.

James d:

The premier arts center in the nation's capital is named for a man who would have sex with anything that had breasts and a pulse, including a mobster's daughter and an East German spy, whose brother probably had Marilyn Monroe murdered, and whose other brother got an employee drunk, drove her into a river and left her to drown.
The former "conscience of the Senate" was a former klansman, and pretty much every public building in his state is named for him.
The husband of the current Democrat candidate for President (and a former President himself) settled a lawsuit for sexual harassment against a former employee, sodomized an intern in the Oval Office, and had about a million other sordid affairs, while his wife the current candidate used her taxpayer-paid staff to shred the reputations of her husband's victims.
All of those things happened while the criminals in question actually held high office.
How about you criticize THAT before going on about something Trump said during a private conversation a decade ago while he was a private citizen, you sanctimonious loser jackass. 

Daddy could not contain himself on Romney’s claim that this corrupted “America’s face to the world”.

Correct. It must make Putin and his mistress awful upset, and France's Hollande and his current mistress awful upset, and Italy's Berlusconi and all his former babes terribly upset, and Prince Charlie’s (“I want to be your tampon Camilla") awful upset, and Mexico's president and his second Soap Opera Babe awful upset, and Canada's Trudeau (first or second doesn't matter even if she's banging Mick Jagger) and their babes on the side awful upset, and the head of the UN Climate Council, Pachori, who had to resign for banging underage whatevers awful upset, and whoever Hu in China was banging before he started banging his current TV show squeeze awful upset, and all the Middle Eastern potentates with multiple wives and dozens of concubines awful upset, and ISIS and their Yazidi Christian women sex slaves awful upset, and Kim Jung crazy Norkorea who puts his used chicks naked into cages to be devoured by ravenous dogs, it must make him awful upset too.
Yep. Trump saying "Grab her by the pussy" 11 years ago must make them all awful upset. Hopefully they'll give us some ice to put on it. 

In any event, GW Bush admitted he and his dad used the same sort of talk in private, and Vernon Jordan said when they were golfing he and Bill Clinton did, too.

5. Meantime, following Obama’s disengagement of America in the world and his destruction of U.S. military power, the world is getting more and more dangerous

Obama purges the officer corps, cuts our nuclear arsenal, and directs the military to focus on diversity appointments and transgender training. He strips veterans benefits and overlooks the shockingly bad care provided in VA hospitals while providing funds for transgender surgery for the troops, and generous benefits to illegal aliens and unvetted Syrian immigrants. In the meantime, Russia flexes its muscles in Syria, the Far East and Eastern Europe.

John Schindler reports: 

Today’s biggest news, however, comes from Estonian reports that the Russian military is sending Iskander-M missiles to Kaliningrad on a civilian freighter. It’s expected to dock in Kaliningrad today with its alarming cargo.
The Iskander-M system, called SS-26 by NATO… has a range of 300 miles and can carry either a conventional or a nuclear warhead. An Iskander-M based in Kaliningrad can strike targets deep in Poland and across the whole Baltic region. Make no mistake, this is primarily an offensive weapons system.
There’s a reason that the Kremlin promised to not ship this missile system to Kaliningrad back in 2009, in exchange for President Obama’s scuppering of missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic. Activating an Iskander-M unit in Kaliningrad, west of the Baltic republics, is rightly seen as destabilizing by NATO’s whole eastern flank which, despite security promises by the White House, remains vulnerable to Russian attack. For Warsaw and several other NATO capitals, this move resembles a Baltic version of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
This constitutes a direct challenge to Washington by Moscow -- and by Vladimir Putin to Barack Obama, personally. The KGB officer in the Kremlin is seeking to get in one last, grand strategic humiliation for our president before he leaves office. And why not? Such reckless antics have worked well for the Russians so far, given Obama’s preference to avert eyes and hope for the best whenever Moscow misbehaves.

Unlike many, I believe that Trump will do fine in tonight’s debate, and I agree with Milton Rosenberg, who argues that ‘evaluation apprehension” keeps polls from accurately reflecting the margin of Trump’s support over Hillary's.

I doubt that Americans are so addlepated as to pick an incompetent, thoroughly corrupt globalist over an often-vulgar man who loves his country and has accomplished a great deal. I think this leak came so early in the month because Clinton and her allies fear this is true.

Clarice Feldman

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/the_republican_white_togas_at_work_for_the_queen_of_sleaze.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

New York Times to Obama: Hit Israel hard - Chana Roberts

by Chana Roberts

NY Times tells Obama to pass decision in UN spelling out borders of Israel, 'Palestine.'

The New York Times has demanded US President Barack Obama use his last months in office to hit Israel hard diplomatically.

Apparently, this is in response to the fact that the Israeli government "approved the construction of a new Jewish settlement in the West Bank," which is simply "another step in the steady march under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to build on land needed to create a Palestinian state."

Last week, the Israeli government approved a plan allowing Amona residents to move to the neighboring town of Shilo, where they would be housed in a new neighborhood on government land planned specially for them.

Shilo is a town in in the Biblical "hills of Ephraim," and is now under the jurisdiction of the Binyamin Regional Council.

In an article written by their "Editorial Board," the NY Times writes that, "The best idea under discussion now would be to have the United Nations Security Council, in an official resolution, lay down guidelines for a peace agreement covering such issues as Israel’s security, the future of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees and borders for both states."

The article continues to say that this neighborhood "is designed to house settlers from a nearby illegal outpost, called Amona, which an Israeli court has ordered demolished because it is built on private, Palestinian-owned land."

In truth, no one has yet come forward claiming ownership of the land Amona is built on. Instead, left-wing organizations have found property deeds given out by King Hussein of Jordan. No taxes were paid on the land, no one did anything to it, no one knows who the owners are, and the founders of Amona built in good faith on land they were told was unowned.

Though there has been a de-facto building freeze in Judea and Samaria for several years, the NY Times insists that, "A failure to freeze settlements has long been at the center of tensions between successive American administrations and Israel. This latest decision was especially insulting...If the new settlement was known earlier, it might have affected those [military aid package] negotiations. "

The article continues, "The most plausible pressure would come from Mr. Obama’s leading the Security Council to put its authority behind a resolution to support a two-state solution and offer the outlines of what that could be...it is the kind of political pressure Mr. Netanyahu abhors and has been working assiduously to prevent."

The New York Times ran its editorial just one week before the United Nations Security Council is set to hold a public debate on Israeli "settlement activity" in the Judea and Samaria, as well as Jewish building in greater Jerusalem.

This meeting is known as an Arria Formula meeting, and was set in response to the Palestinian Authority's request. The Palestinian Authority, headed by former KGB agent Mahmoud Abbas, has tried several times to pressure the UN Security Council members to issue a resolution, such as the one described above. The PA also hopes that the Arria Formula meeting will spur UNSC action against Israel.

For years, the Palestinian Arabs have insisted that "settlement activity" is the obstacle to peace and the creation of a two-state solution.

Preferring instead a directly negotiated agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, both Israel and the US have opposed any UNSC efforts to dictate the terms of a two-state solution.

US State Department spokesman Mark Toner emphasized the US's longstanding position to oppose biased and one-sided UN resolutions against Israel.

“With regard to the UN Security Council and any action at the UN, our position hasn’t changed. We’re always concerned, frankly, about one-sided resolutions or other actions that could be taken within the UN, and we’re always going to oppose those kinds of resolutions that we believe delegitimize Israel and undermine its security,” said Toner.

Toner explained, “We’re going to carefully consider our future engagement, if and when we reach that point, and determine how to most effectively pursue and advance the objective that we all at least claim to share, which is that of achieving a negotiated two-state solution."

PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly stated that "all of Israel is the occupation," even cities like Tel Aviv and Haifa, which are within the "Green Line."

Though the US has historically blocked Palestinian-led attempts by the UN to issue condemnations or resolutions against Israel, particularly with regard to the settlements, there is speculation that US President Barack Obama might utilize his lame duck last two months in office to pressure Israel and aid the "Palestinian" cause.

The Palestinian Authority has consistently refused to conduct direct talks with Israel until a list of pre-conditions are met, though Israel has repeatedly called on the Palestinians to hold such talks without pre-conditions.

Even though PA chairman Abbas constantly talks about peace and a two-state solution, he continues to incite hate and encourage terror attacks, in addition to paying salaries to imprisoned terrorists and their families and naming schools and streets after them.


Chana Roberts

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/218745

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama’s Hostile Eulogy - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

Obama was not merely wrong when he accused Peres’s detractors of support for slavery -- he was maliciously wrong.

Originally Published by the Jerusalem Post. 

US President Barack Obama’s eulogy of Shimon Peres at Mount Herzl last Friday was a thinly disguised assault on Israel. And he barely bothered to hide it.


Throughout his remarks, Obama wielded Peres’s record like a baseball bat. He used it to club the Israeli public and its elected leaders over and over again.

Peres, Obama intimated, was a prophet. But the suspicious, tribal people of Israel were too stiff necked to follow him.


In what was perhaps the low point of a low performance, Obama used Peres’s words to slander his domestic critics as racist oppressors.


“Shimon,” he began harmlessly enough, “believed that Israel’s exceptionalism was rooted not only in fidelity to the Jewish people, but to the moral and ethical vision, the precepts of his Jewish faith.”


You could say that about every Israeli leader since the dawn of modern Zionism.


But then Obama went for the jugular.


In a startling non sequitur he continued, “‘The Jewish people weren’t born to rule another people,’ he [Peres] would say. ‘From the very first day we were against slaves and masters.’” We don’t know the context in which Peres made that statement. But what is clear enough is that Obama used his words to accuse the majority of Israelis who do not share Peres’s vision for peace – including Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who was sitting in the front row listening to him – of supporting slavery.


This libelous assault on Israel was probably the most unhinged remark ever directed at the Jewish state by an American president. What does the fact that Obama said this at Peres’s funeral tell us about Obama? What does it tell us about Peres? Obama was not merely wrong when he accused Peres’s detractors of support for slavery, he was maliciously wrong.


Due to Peres’s Oslo Accords, since 1995, all the Palestinian population centers in Judea and Samaria have been governed by the PLO. Israel hasn’t been in charge of any aspect of their daily civic existence.


And they have only suffered as a result. Between 1967 and 1996, when the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria were governed by the military government, the Palestinians were free. They only became “enslaved” when the PLO took over.


Under Israeli rule, the Palestinians enjoyed far more expansive civil rights than they have since we left. The PLO transformed their lives into chaos by implementing the law of the jungle, enforced by mob-style militias. Their property rights were trampled. Their civil rights have been gutted.


The fact that PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies delayed their municipal elections indefinitely the day after Peres’s funeral is yet another testament to the absence of freedom in the PLOas opposed to Israeli-ruled areas.


But really, Obama couldn’t care less. He didn’t come here to tell the truth about Peres. He came here to use Peres as a means to bludgeon the government the people elected.


Obama began his attack as he often begins his political assaults on his opponents. He created a straw man.


Peres’s critics on the Right, he said, “argued that he refused to see the true wickedness of the world, and called him naïve.”


In other words, as far as Obama is concerned, Israelis are prisoners of their dark view of the world. Unlike Peres the optimist, his countrymen are tribal pessimists.


Peres, whose vision for peace rested on giving the outskirts of Tel Aviv and half of Jerusalem to terrorists, wasn’t naïve. He “knew better than the cynic.”


He was better than that. He was better than us.


This brings us then to the paradox of Peres’s life’s work. Over last quarter-century of his life, we, the people of Israel wanted to feel empowered by Peres’s superstar status. We wanted to get excited when Hollywood stars and A-list politicians came to his birthday bashes at the President’s Residence and the Peres Center.


But every time we tried to see Peres’s success as our success, some visiting VIP would smile before the cameras and kick us in the shins.


The higher Peres’s star rose in the stratosphere of celebrity stardom, the worse Israel’s global position became. The international A-listers who showed up at all of Peres’s parties always seemed to view him as their guy, not our guy. He was one of them – and above the likes of us.


How did this happen? How did the last surviving member of Israel’s founding generation become a prop for Israel’s chorus of international critics? The most extraordinary aspect of Peres’s long life is that he packed two full – and contradictory – careers into one lifespan.


Peres’s first career began with Israel’s founding.


It ended with the Likud’s victory in the 1977 Knesset election.


Over the course of that career, Peres used his formidable diplomatic skills to build and strengthen Israel’s defenses. He cultivated and expanded complex strategic relationships with the French and the British. Those ties led the two major powers to fight at Israel’s side in the 1956 Suez Campaign. They led to France’s decision to help Israel build its nuclear program and its arms industry.


In the 1970s as defense minister, Peres was able to rely on his warm ties to foreign leaders to shield the country as he established the Jewish communities in Samaria and Hebron. They empowered him to oversee the hostage rescue mission at Entebbe.


But following the Likud’s rise to power, Peres changed gears. Ever since 1981, when he almost managed to scuttle the air force’s bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, Peres used his diplomatic talents and ties to foreign leaders to advance his own agenda, regardless of whether that agenda was aligned or contradicted Israel’s national agenda, as set out by its elected leaders.


Time and time again, on the backs of the public that failed to elect him and of the politicians the public elected instead of him, Peres cultivated and used the relationships he enjoyed with foreign leaders to press his own policies. Each attempt to derail the policies of the government expanded Peres’s chorus of supporters abroad.


Peres’s second career reached its high water mark in 1994 when along with Rabin and Yasser Arafat he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the Oslo process. The world embraced and celebrated Peres for his peace deal that brought neither peace nor security to his people.


And the public rejected him for it. Between 1977 and 1996, Peres stood for election five times. He lost all five races along with a primary battle against Yitzhak Rabin for leadership of the Labor Party.


Contrary to Obama’s assertion, Peres’s critics on the Right didn’t oppose his Oslo process because they saw “the true wickedness of the world.” They opposed the Oslo process because they saw the reality on the ground.


Ahead of the 1996 election, where Peres ran against then-opposition leader Netanyahu, the Palestinians launched an onslaught of bus bombings that killed 60 people in eight days. After the second bus bombing in Jerusalem, a television crew stuck a microphone in front of a teenage boy who had just seen the bus blow up.


Standing amid the wreckage, he let out a primal wail and called out, “Peres, what is wrong with you? We are Jews! They are murdering us!” The next week, then-US president Bill Clinton arrived in Jerusalem to campaign for Peres, whom he extolled as a brilliant statesman. But to no avail.


Netanyahu won.


It was reality, not cynicism, which dictated the outcome.


Peres’s second career left its deepest mark on the Foreign Ministry. As foreign minister during the heady days of Oslo, Peres told Israel’s diplomats to stop talking about PLO incitement and anti-Semitism.


The best hasbara, he said, was peace. Israel needed no other policy.


Beyond the obviously destructive implications of tethering Israel’s diplomatic standing to the fortunes of a peace process with a terrorist group, Peres’s directives forced our diplomats into passivity.


Why bother defending Israel when the status of the peace process alone would determine our standing? Why bother using the diplomatic tools of carrots and sticks when whatever hostility Israel suffered from would be magically erased the minute Israel concluded a peace deal with the PLO? A few weeks ago, it was reported that Netanyahu rebuked the diplomatic corps. It isn’t sufficient for you to simply send in reports about what is happening in your host countries, he reportedly said. I want you to actually do something to affect the situation for the better.


In other words, Netanyahu ordered Israel’s diplomats to abandon the legacy of Peres’s second career and embrace the legacy of his first career. He effectively said: Use whatever tools you have – just as Peres used the little leverage Israel had in its first 15 years of independence – to advance Israel’s position.


That is your job. I can read about current events in the newspapers.


This brings us back to Obama and Peres’s other foreign admirers who descended on the country Friday morning in their private jets and limousines.


A few hours after the funeral ended, the White House published a correction to the original text it had released of Obama’s eulogy. The correction related to the dateline. The original version had the dateline as “Jerusalem, Israel.”


The revised, corrected version had a line going through the word Israel. As far as the Obama White House is concerned, Jerusalem – along with Mount Herzl, the Knesset, and all the rest – is not in Israel.


It was a petty, puerile thing to do. And it revealed a breathtaking animosity for Israel.


Any moderately sane observer knows that Israel won’t transfer sovereignty over its national war cemetery to a foreign power in exchange for peace.


The “correction” wasn’t about advancing the cause of peace. It was about venting hostility toward the members of a primitive tribe who prefer their darkness to the optimistic vision of their spurned prophet.


Obama did get one thing right in his speech. In his round about, condescending way, Obama noted that due to their rejection of Peres’s vision of peace through appeasement, some Israelis have forgotten the important role Peres played in his first career in building the architecture of national defense on which Israel has successfully defended itself throughout the years.


And he is right, that with Peres’s passing, we should remember the tremendous good he did for the country in his first career, when he was working for us.


We should embrace that Peres legacy and cherish it always.

Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit carolineglick.com.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264431/obamas-hostile-eulogy-caroline-glick

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Interview with Majid Oukacha - Grégoire Canlorbe

by Grégoire Canlorbe

My goal is to warn the French people. The day when France will be a Muslim country, it will be almost impossible to back out

• What I care about more than anything else is freedom of thought. It is criminalized by the Koran.
• My goal is to warn the French people. The day when France will be a Muslim country, it will be almost impossible to back out.... Wherever there is Islam, there are only conflicts of cultures, women who feel guilty for being attractive and who are infantilized and abused; and above all, a continual extinction of creativity and imagination.
• A majority of French Muslims may well declare themselves peaceful, but Islam is the cultural common denominator of all the Frenchmen who have told me that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists murdered during the massacre of January 7, 2015, "had it coming to them."
• I prefer the individualism of intellectual ideals and moral values ​​of modern Western civilization to the Islamic "big-brotherian" system that criminalizes liberties.
• No matter what the Muslims of France—torn between the Western cultural codes and the Koran—say, the majority of Muslims feel closer to an Islamist Muslim who wants to stick to the letter of the laws of the Koran than they do to a non-Muslim who ignores the Koran.
• France, and other countries in the West, are increasingly the victim of a cruel twist of irony in which their own founding values and principles are turned​ against them.
• The French politicians who currently govern us have no interest in recognizing or solving these rifts.
• I have no desire to make political compromises with Islamist politicians who worship a pro-slavery and misogynist book that criminalizes freedom of belief.

Majid Oukacha is a young French essayist who was born and grew up in a France which he recognizes less every year. "A former Muslim but an eternal patriot," as he sometimes likes to describe himself, he is the author of Il était une foi, l'islam... (literally "Once upon a time Islam...", the French title of a book soon to be released in English under a different title), a systematic critique, without value judgments, of the most inconsistent and imprecise Koranic laws.

Majid Oukacha (Image source: Video screenshot from "The Fred Connection")

Grégoire Canlorbe: Could you start by reminding us of the circumstances and motives of your abandoning Islam — and of your decision to take up your pen to unravel your former religion for the public at large?

Majid Oukacha: Like all Frenchmen who were born and grew up in France in the late twentieth century, I am fortunate to belong to a peaceful nation that allowed me to enjoy rights and freedoms for which I never personally had to fight. My parents, French citizens of Algerian origin and Muslim persuasion, provided me with a religious education, which destined me to remain a devout Muslim. They also gave me a civic, social and ethical education based on respect for France and its values, as embodied in its motto, "liberty, equality, fraternity."

I started going to the mosque at the age of eight. The first imam who taught me, and who came from a foreign country, had a perfect French accent, a big, cheerful smile, and he was careful never to give orders to his students outside the walls of the mosque. The courses I took quickly led me to see that what I thought was a blessing — to be born into a faith able to save me from Hell, which, according to the Koran, spares only Muslims — would also become a permanent burden.

When one is a Muslim, every trivial action of daily life is codified, from how to drink a glass of water upon waking to how to go to bed. I submitted to Allah to avoid the torments of His wrath in the afterlife; I obeyed codified rituals that sometimes seemed a waste of time or a nonsense. My non-Muslim friends were accustomed to hearing me tell them I had to interrupt a game of football or cards to go to the mosque. There, I essentially learned to do the salat, the Muslim five-times-a-day prayers, as well as the bottomless pit of behavioral codes established as virtues by the romanticized figure of the prophet Muhammad.

In the middle of the uniform flock — blindly imitating a distant spectrum imposing its obligations and prohibitions — I was not afraid to ask "hard" questions.

• "Why in Koranic law about the need to cut off the hand of thief (Surah 5, verse 38), does Allah not say which hand is to be cut off (the right one or the left one)? Why does He specify no minimum value for the theft from which the hand of a thief can be cut off? Stealing an apple for the first time in one's life, does it really deserve to have a hand severed? And why does Allah not say the minimum age of a thief who must have a hand cut off? Should a 12-year-old who has never stolen before really be held as responsible as a 40-year-old repeat offender?"
  
• "Why should one walk seven circles around the Black Stone during the Hajj and not six or eight? What will happen if I walk around it eight times?"
  
• "The Prophet Muhammad explains in his Sunnah that a woman, a black dog or a donkey passing in front of a praying Muslim can cancel his prayer; but, as usual in the Sunnah, Muhammad merely advances a judgment without explaining why it should be that way. To someone who does not believe in Islam, such a statement sounds like a superstition. Why not give the intellectual journey linked to it, instead of just a dogmatic sentence? If it is Allah Himself who gave him this knowledge, why didn't the Hadith that mentions this prophetic story become a verse of the Koran? The Koran is supposed to represent the messages of Allah which the prophet Muhammad passes on to his contemporaries to inform them about what their creator expects of them. If a woman passes one kilometer from someone who is praying, is the prayer canceled then? What is the maximum distance from which a prayer is cancelled altogether?"
  

The logical "domino effect" of these questions is only a small part of the many thoughts that can, and should, keep one's mind alert — far from the corset of indoctrination that is closed to doubt. I never heard satisfying answers to the limits of this juridical Islam to which I had always pledged allegiance, so I decided to seek them directly from Allah himself. Just before entering university, I tried to understand Islam with an unbiased look, rather than to learn it as an unquestioning believer.

I had decided to read the entire Koran, from the first to the last sentence, and to register impressions, doubts, and questions in a notebook. Reading the Koran that way not only forced me to have to admit that almost all Islamic laws and dogmas had no scientific or rational basis, but it also highlighted that Islam, under its founder, was a misogynistic religion, preaching slavery, and an enemy of freedom of thought. I had fallen. My trust in what was both obvious and intangible had deceived me all this time. It is the libertarian and egalitarian values ​​of secular and humanist France — which I have learned to love and respect — which gave me the strength to refuse to give in to the fear of blackmail in the form of eternal Hellfire.

Leaving Islam confirmed my longtime fear that one day I would witness the French people lose all these freedoms and this lifestyle that make France a beloved and envied country throughout the world. All revolutions do not necessarily begin or end in a bloodbath. In a democracy, the majority has the power to make or break a revolution, away from anarchy and war. The day an Islamic majority in France will vote for a president and parliamentarians able to define for all of us what separates right from wrong, good from evil and fair from unfair, what choices then will remain for us?

You cannot flee from problems indefinitely. You have to fight them at one time or another. I need to convince the maximum of my contemporaries that Islam is a threat to our individual rights and freedoms, and I choose to fight using words, because communication (through writing, speech) is the weapon that gives me my strength. I am, as far as I know, the only author who has made a comprehensive critical study of the principal legal and doctrinal aspects of Islam, by addressing the technical inaccuracies of the laws but without ever stating any moral or value judgment. I have no taboos so I dealt with explosive topics: slavery, pedophilia, criminalization of freedom of conscience... I think this is the most effective method to demonstrate to the widest possible audience the obscurantism and danger of Islam: a universal legislation that cannot coexist with difference.

Grégoire Canlorbe: This objective look at the technical limitations of Koranic laws seems rare. Is it possible to do the same work with religious books from Christianity or Judaism?

Majid Oukacha: For Muslims, every sentence in the Koran is meant to be a tale whose author is Allah Himself, the creator of the world, and who is an omnipotent, omniscient and perfect God. This God proclaims many draconian universal laws that are not limited by place or time.

This base makes analyzing the Koran far simpler than analyzing some of the sacred texts of Judaism or Christianity. The Talmud cites original narratives and interpretations thought by humans. It is up to today's Jews to decide whether to adhere to these passages or to question them. We can say the same of the New Testament, which is dear to Christians.

Today, the countries where one lives best, if one is a woman or a free thinker, are precisely the countries with Christian and Jewish roots: France, the United States of America, Israel, Australia, England... These countries defend the individual freedoms of the weakest and the most varied people more than any Muslim country in the world has ever done. If a Muslim wants to criticize a misogynistic passage from the Bible or the Torah for example, good for him!

I judge a tree by its fruit. To me, the critique of Christianity or Judaism will never be anything other than an intellectual hobby. The critique of Islam, however, is a political responsibility because this "tree of knowledge" seems to produce chaos wherever it takes root. In France, wherever Christianity and Judaism are the dominant cultural force, women can walk around more peacefully than elsewhere and free-thinkers like me can disbelieve freely. Have you ever heard of a former Christian or Jew in the 21st century who must live hidden away because he criticized his former religion?

Grégoire Canlorbe: You insist on reminding everyone that the demographic Islamization of the French people is rampant, and that the ability of Muslims one day to constitute the majority of voters exposes France to the risk of Islamization. Yet the majority of Muslims living there today seem to practice their religion in a moderate, tolerant and peaceful way.

Majid Oukacha: If you take French Muslims one by one and interview them in the eye of a camera, the overwhelming majority of them will honor the slogans that promote human rights. They will talk about freedom, equality and peace. A majority of French Muslims may well declare themselves peaceful, but Islam remains the cultural common denominator of all the Frenchmen who have told me that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists murdered during the massacre of January 7, 2015, "had it coming to them."

Another topic: verse 34 of Surah 4 of the Koran allows men to beat their wives — from whom they actually fear disobedience. Generally, when I talk with a Muslim who tells me that, according to the Koran, women are beings not inferior to men, I ask the following question: "Does Verse 34 of Surah 4 of the Koran forbid or allow to hit a disobedient wife?" As far as I can remember, no Muslim has ever answered me that this verse forbids Muslims to hit a disobedient wife. What I get are attempts to minimize or hide the significance of this act.

I cannot even count the number of Muslims who have told me that Muslim husbands should beat their disobedient wives softly or hit them with a small wooden stick such as a miswak (a teeth-cleaning twig). French law forbids hitting a "disobedient" wife — period. Hitting a "disobedient" wife "gently" is still hitting and humiliating her.

No matter what the Muslims of France — torn between the Western cultural codes and the Koran — say, the majority of Muslims feel closer to an Islamist Muslim who wants to stick to the letter of the laws of the Koran than they do to a non-Muslim who ignores the Koran. There are speeches, and there are facts. When a Muslim country is ruled by an Islamist, no popular revolution overthrows him in favor of a head of state who supports human rights. The Islamist Mohamed Morsi was the victim of a military coup-d'état, not of a popular overthrow. When popular revolutions happen in the Muslim world, they dismiss Westernized dictators, such as Libya's Muammar Gaddafi or Tunisia's Ben Ali.

Peace is not verified by claims; it is verified by deeds. The worst places to live in the world when one is an atheist or a woman are precisely the countries where Islam is the dominant cultural force. Muslim societies turn out to be authoritarian and coercive because of the divine character that Muslims attribute to the Koran, which is basically pro-slavery, misogynistic and freedom-destroying.

Grégoire Canlorbe: When it comes to elaborating on the creeping Islamization of laws and mores in French democracy, what do you see as the symptoms of Islamic domination in the first place?

Majid Oukacha: Far from the political speeches, you just have to listen to people describe problems that did not exist in France only 50 years ago but have become increasingly recurrent. Most local officials who court the votes of Muslims in local elections have been violating the principle of the total separation of religion from state, laïcité, which in France is still the cement of the stability pact among citizens of differing cultures. Mosques are showing up everywhere, all too often thanks to the taxpayers of France. The Christmas tree that used to stand in the kindergarten of my childhood has today become an offense to the religious faith of certain people. I will let you guess who they are.

Also today, French Christians, atheists or agnostics who eat or drink in the street during Ramadan can be confronted — sometimes violently — for allegedly showing disrespect to Muslims, by daring to consume a sandwich or a drink in a public place in broad daylight. Muslims who pretend to be pacifists and republicans should first cleanse their own ranks, at least by daring to admit that some problems almost systemically come from people claiming the same religious affiliation as them. I have never heard of any Frenchman reproached for using a phone or driving during the Sabbath day.

At present, in France, when we approach the issue of Islamization with the benefit of hindsight, one can clearly observe that in neighborhoods where Islam has been the dominant cultural force for several generations, "living together in harmony" does not exist. When Islam dominates some areas of France that have not always been Islamized, the majority of non-Muslims who have financial means run away.

The French politicians who currently govern us have no interest in recognizing or solving these rifts. In a manner of "divide and conquer", pitting people against each other in elections allows these officials to keep their positions. It also diverts the attention of the French away from the failure to solve the economic crisis.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Ideologists and heads of state in the Islamic world often present Islam as the solution to the materialistic decay that is supposedly leading Western civilization to its doom. Sayyid Qutb, the spiritual guide of Osama bin Laden, wrote in 1964, in Milestones:

"Mankind today is on the brink of a precipice... The Western world realizes that Western civilization is unable to present any healthy values for the guidance of mankind... Islam is the only System which possesses these values and this way of life."

How would you respond to this charge of permissiveness, consumerism and individualism in Western societies?

Majid Oukacha: I sometimes have the impression that our leaders have less and less shame in safeguarding their moral purposes by immoral means. Under the pretext of fighting "the radicalization of Islam," for instance, many of our politicians would like French secularism to give way to a system that legally and socially recognizes a "state-controlled" version of Islam, knighted, promoted and financed by public authorities.

The only Islam which the current French state could recognize would obviously be a religion defined as peaceful and tolerant by its founder, the prophet Mohammed. Muslims are so numerous in France and they represent such an electoral weight, that in public opinion, it would be like a bomb going off to have to admit that they worship a God who thinks that if you do not believe in Islam, it is a crime that will cause you to burn in Hell forever.

France and other countries in the West are increasingly the victims of a cruel twist of irony in which their own founding values and principles are turned​ against them. I am a defender of freedom of belief and equality between all humans, regardless of gender, skin color or religion. But I do not want safeguarding these ideals to require the public school textbooks French children read to be filled with Islamophilic propaganda.

The media and political systems, which make the rain fall or the sun shine in France, have more and more trouble denying inconvenient truths. They appear to prefer reassuring lies. Yesterday, we were told that "the Muslim migratory invasion is a far-right-wing fantasy." Today, we hear that "anyway, they are there lastingly, we cannot do anything about that it because there are now too many, so we have to deal with them in order to avoid a civil war."

I have no desire to make political compromises with Islamist politicians who worship a pro-slavery and misogynist book that criminalizes freedom of belief. I prefer the individualism of intellectual ideals and moral values ​​of modern Western civilization to the Islamic "big-brotherian" system. I prefer the freedom to have sex before marriage; the freedom not to believe in a religion or to convert to another religion; the freedom to mock the mighty (which includes these eternal mighty from Islam such as Allah and Mohammed).

Grégoire Canlorbe: Islam seems to call into question the sort of freedoms that we feel empower our society. Islam looks like a religion that has turned its citizens into slaves of a totalitarian system, but that has succeeded by the bonding power of blood and the bonding power of killing others. In the long run, Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini did not meet, however, the same success as Mohammed in their totalitarian enterprises. How do you explain that Islam has managed to impose itself in face of the Western societies for more than a thousand years, while Fascist and Soviet regimes collapsed in less than a century?

Majid Oukacha: Nazism and the totalitarian communism in the USSR were both led by fallible men who could know military defeats, betrayals which they had not managed to predict; and, ultimately, death. Islam is a totalitarianism headed by an eternal God, who cannot be defeated or submitted. From the perspective of Muslims, the Koran was written by a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient God, who imposes as His supreme legislation laws valid at all times and in all places — until Judgment Day. The most efficient totalitarianism in the world is by far Islam: it is impossible to overcome its non-existent God. What does not exist cannot lose and cannot die.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Thank you for your time. Would you like to add anything else?

Majid Oukacha: What I care about more than anything else is freedom of thought. It is criminalized by the Koran, which sends to eternal Hell all those who have never been Muslims. A country is primarily defined by the people living there and the Islamization of France is a reality that fewer and fewer people deny. I am not naive: it is through childbirth and immigration that Islam will become the majority faith in France.

I invite the French people to judge the tree of Islam by the fruit that it produces in reality. Wherever Islam culturally dominates, there are only conflicts of cultures; women who feel guilty for being attractive and who are infantilized and abused; and above all, a continual extinction of creativity and imagination. The rare artists and scientists of the Muslim world who manage to stand out and be known worldwide all received a Western education, far from the opportunities their homeland, which standardizes humans, would have offered them.

The French, who fear the Islamization of France through politics or war, can no longer be silent. The situation is critical. We must dare to talk and act. The day France becomes a Muslim country, it will be almost impossible to back out. Those who secretly wait and hope behind a closed door, far from the course of action, should not complain when their right to remain silent becomes a duty to remain silent.
 

 

Majid Oukacha, author of Il était une foi, l'islam... wishes to thank companies such as Google and Twitter, which have made available to the greatest number of people free tools promoting the diversity of opinions and freedom of expression in a way that no French mainstream media has ever done. https://twitter.com/MajidOukacha
Grégoire Canlorbe, a journalist, currently lives in Paris. While presently collaborating with acclaimed author Howard Bloom, he has conducted many interviews for journals such as Man and the Economy, founded by Nobel Prize winning economist Ronald Coase, and think-tanks such as Mises Institute. Contact: gregoire.canlorbe@wanadoo.fr

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9059/majid-oukacha

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Trump’s dirty talk versus Hillary’s corruption - Jack Hellner

by Jack Hellner

Hillary should be declared unfit because she lies continuously, committed perjury, has taken kickbacks throughout her public life, tried to destroy women and any other people who got in her way, violated multiple security laws and other laws, and left Americans to die.

In the past week:

- Justice drops the case against a gunrunner from Hillary’s Libya fiasco whose testimony would certainly have harmed Obama and Hillary.

- Evidence surfaced that the White House participated in the cover-up of Hillary's violation of national security laws with her private server even though they said they absolutely knew nothing about the server and would not interfere with an investigation.

- We have learned more this week about how the investigation of Hillary by the Justice Department and FBI was a pure sham as they gave immunity to so many, took so much stuff off limits, and even carried out the destruction of evidence. The email investigation was pretend, just like the IRS investigation and any supposed investigation of the Clinton Foundation. It is clear that the White House, Justice Department, State Department, and IRS are working specifically to protect Obama and Hillary instead of working for the American people.

- Aleppo and Syria are deteriorating rapidly despite Obama and Kerry being extremely tough and telling Russia and Assad to stop it.

- Obama partially blamed the Civil War in Syria on a drought he says was caused by humans. That is one of the most ignorant statements ever. The war is because Assad is a tyrant, and the Mideast is essentially a desert that has had continued droughts for millennia.

- An NBC News man topped Obama's stupidity by saying the worthless Paris climate agreement would stop hurricanes.

- Obamacare is collapsing rapidly. The multiple lies to pass the law are more obvious every day. The law is greatly harming the middle class and small employers and reducing the potential for full-time jobs.

- An NSA contractor who committed the same crime as Hillary by keeping classified documents at home on several nonsecure devices is under arrest. Why isn't Hillary?

The media, of course, don't focus on any of these things. Instead they trot out a tape of Trump talking dirty about women eleven years ago. I know that no other men would ever talk like that on a bus, in a locker room, at a bar, or at a bowling alley. The media and Hillary are absolutely shocked. According to Hillary, no one who ever talked like that or treated women like that can ever be president. (That is really rich coming from the wife of Bill.)

Of course, every night on TV, people can see Trump's language compounded. (I have heard that the Girls show starring Hillary supporter Lena Dunham is especially sweet and pure.)

Shows that use dirty language win all sorts of awards, and now the media pretends words spoken eleven years ago are a disqualifier. I think everyone should watch the Rob Lowe roast on Comedy Central to see truly repulsive stuff.

The Clintons divert massive amounts of money from Haiti for their Foundation and friends, which left the poor more vulnerable to the hurricane than they should have been. And then there were those kickbacks to the Foundation and Bill himself to sell a big chunk of our uranium reserves to the Russians.

And the media say Trump is the disqualified person.

Hillary and Kaine continually brag about her being in the Situation Room for Osama when she wasn't needed, but why weren't Hillary and Obama in the Situation Room the night of 9/11/12, when Americans were under attack in Benghazi? They had no idea how long the attack would last, yet they did absolutely nothing to save the Americans. They did have time to concoct a lie to protect their political power before the election. Why isn't the media curious as to what President Obama did that night?

Bill Clinton was accused of rape, and he mistreated and lied about many women to destroy their lives. Hillary sought to destroy any woman who dared tell the truth about Bill. Bill also used a cigar on an intern and got fellated from the same intern in the sacred Oval Office suite – and Hillary has the gall to say Trump talking dirty disqualifies him to be president.

I have heard the CBS radio news a few times since the tape came out, and they mention the tape prominently. Somehow, they have not mentioned the Wikileaks documents that came out within a few hours of the Trump Tape. It must be as accidental as all the selective editing done by the supposed fact-tellers in the media. In the leaked documents, Hillary essentially kisses up to investment bankers and others who are paying her $250,000 per speech. She also says absolutely that she is for open borders and open global trade. Hillary and Kaine are campaigning on the lie that she is for more secure borders and very strict trade agreements.

And the media say Trump is unfit to be president.

I am absolutely not defending what Trump said eleven years ago, but if bragging about conquests with women were a disqualifier, at least Kennedy and Clinton would never have been president. Hillary should be declared unfit because she lies continuously, committed perjury, has taken kickbacks throughout her public life, tried to destroy women and any other people who got in her way, violated multiple security laws and other laws, and left Americans to die. Other people have been dispensable throughout Hillary’s and Bill’s lives. Basically, everything the Clintons have done is to increase the power and wealth for themselves. They certainly have little thought for the rest of us.

I have never seen a media so in the tank. The media show every day their bias by what they report, how they report, and especially what they choose not to report. Our freedoms are in danger, and since they have no actual accomplishments to tout for their chosen candidate, they have to destroy the other. They also sought to destroy Bush, Palin, McCain, and Romney, so they have been at the personal destruction game for a long time.

Jack Hellner

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/trumps_dirty_talk_versus_hillarys_corruption.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Losing Internet Freedom - Deborah Weiss

by Deborah Weiss

Obama kisses America’s internet oversight good-bye.

At the stroke of midnight on September 30, 2016, America said good-bye to its long-time oversight of the internet, and along with it, the certainty of internet freedom.

Because the internet was started in the United States, from its inception, the system of managing domain names and numbers has always been conducted in or by the United States.  In 1998, the Department of Commerce (DoC) contracted ICANN, a California-based non-profit, to perform the function of IANA^[1] management.  It’s a critical role to ensure that internet domain names are not duplicated and that the assigned numbers are secure.  DoC maintained oversight of ICANN and also performed some related administrative tasks.

Under U.S. oversight, ICANN has been doing a stellar job of keeping the internet free and secure.  But, as internet usage expanded beyond U.S. borders, demands came for the U.S. to cede control of internet oversight.  These demands were always resisted.  Then, on March 14, 2015, the Obama Administration announced that it would relinquish internet oversight and place it into the hands of a then-unnamed global multi-stakeholder.  Free speech advocates and others expressed concern that the move might result in domain management falling into the hands of dictatorial regimes such as China or Russia.  Both the DoC and ICANN assured the public that they would not allow internet oversight to transfer to a tyrannical government or to any government entity.

The proposed plan to transfer stewardship of IANA was finally completed in March of 2016 at an ICANN conference held in Morrocco.  Under this proposal, ICANN itself will maintain authority over IANA, but will create an oversight body called the “empowerment community” to which it will have to answer.  The proposal also imbues ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) with increased say.  Though ICANN’s bylaws prohibit any particular government from making direct decisions regarding budgets, board member removal or ICANN governance, the new proposal will now make the GAC a participant in these decisions.  Additionally, the requirement to reject GAC proposals will increase from a simple majority vote to a vote of 60 percent.  These changes defeat the original purpose of the Committee, which was to ensure that no government would have too much influence over ICANN’s operations.

Currently there are 171 government members of the GAC and 53 non-governmental members that have observer status, including the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC),[2] as well as all the United Nations’ agencies that have an interest in global internet governance. (This includes UNESCO, which is largely influenced by the OIC.)  Several of these members constitute tyrannical regimes or other types of anti-freedom entities.

When the discussion of Internet oversight relinquishment originally arose, some believed that because ICANN has no control over actual internet content, suppression of free speech was a non-issue.  They were wrong.  The OIC, claiming that it’s the “sole official representative of the Muslim world” and some of its Member States have already complained about the issuance of domain names “with an Islamic identity” such as .halal or .Islam, arguing that these should be reserved exclusively for OIC Member States so as not to “offend” Islam.  Even under U.S. oversight, ICANN deferred the decision on private applications for use of these domain names, in effect capitulating to the OIC’s demands.

The DoC - ICANN contract expired on September 30, 2016.  Though the DoC had the option to renew the contract for an additional three years, it declined.  To their credit, Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and John Thune (R- SD) led the charge in the Senate to stop the transfer by demanding that a transfer block be tacked on to budget-related legislation.  However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, already concerned with budget opposition by the Democrats, refused to comply.

Then, last week, four Republican Attorneys General filed a lawsuit in a Texas District Court, attempting to block the transfer.  They haled from Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma and Nevada.  The Plaintiff States requested a declaratory judgment, a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to block the transfer, arguing that relinquishment of internet control amounted to a transfer of U.S. government property in violation of the Constitution’s Property Clause.  They asserted that the Obama Administration simply does not have the authority to make such a transfer without congressional consent.  Unfortunately, in a split court decision, the motion was denied.

Though some Democrats openly supported the transfer, such as Nita Lowey – (D –NY), Mike Honda – (D-CA), and Brain Schatz – (D-Hawaii), others, like the high profile Senator and Assistant Minority Leader Dick Durbin, confessed that they knew nothing about the issue and hadn’t even heard about it until Ted Cruz raised a stink.

For the most part, tech and social media companies such as Google, Facebook and Amazon support the transfer of internet oversight, likely because ICANN is populated with tech gurus, who will now have more authority.  Given that Facebook and Twitter already have “hate speech” policies that censor speech, it’s no wonder that they are complicit in supporting a move with potential free speech consequences. 

Ed Black, President of the Computer and Communications Industry Association insists that all those who care about “internet freedom” support the transfer.  Yet, how this “internet freedom” is interpreted, is obviously up for grabs.  ICANN’s CEO and President admitted in his testimony at a recent Senate hearing, that ICANN is not bound by America’s First Amendment.  Nor are the governments of other countries.  For example, European countries that claim to have “freedom of speech,” argue that “hate speech” is not “free speech” and accordingly have various types of hate speech laws.  Often, they do a balancing test of “freedom of speech” versus a so-called “right” to be free from “offense”.  America is the only country in the world that truly protects free speech.

Those who understand the importance of internet oversight and believe that America should remain the stewards of internet freedom are not done fighting to keep its control out of the hands of questionable entities.  Even though the DoC and ICANN have promised not to transfer oversight authority to dictatorial regimes, ICANN has already capitulated to OIC demands and ceded additional control to governments including authoritarian regimes.  Furthermore, once America relinquishes control, she will never get it back.  Transparency and accountability, though promised, can’t be guaranteed. And, down the road, yet another transfer could conceivably occur.  America would have no power to prevent it.

Champions of freedom[3] are exploring ways to take back internet oversight, but the possibilities look bleak.  One possibility is to appeal the Texas Court’s decision denying the motion made by the Republican Attorneys General.  The other is to proceed to court in a full-fledged trial.  Still another option is to pass legislation to try to take back control of the internet (since technically, it has already passed as of October 1, 2016).  In the meantime, ICANN is trying to implement the transfer as quickly as possible, seeking completion prior to the U.S. Presidential election in November of 2016, just in case the new President disagrees with Obama’s view regarding America’s role in internet oversight.

At the stroke of midnight on September 30, 2016, in furtherance of Obama’s anti-exceptional, post-American, global agenda, the certainty of the internet’s security, stability, and freedom has vanished into thin air, only to be replaced by one big global question mark.

Notes:

---

[1] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

[2] The OIC is an Islamic supremacist transnational organization, comprised of 56 UN Member States plus the Palestinian Authority.  It supports Islamic blasphemy laws and Shariah law in general. Some experts consider the OIC to be the pre-cursor to an Islamic Caliphate.  See, “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech”.

[3] These include, but are not necessarily limited to: Ted Cruz, John Thune, Charles Grassley and Congressman Bob Goodlatte.


Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to Frontpage Magazine.  She is also a contributing author to the book, “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network”, the main researcher and writer for “Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation” and the author of “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech.”  Her work can be found at www.vigilancenow.org.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264417/losing-internet-freedom-deborah-weiss

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.