Saturday, June 4, 2016

VIDEO: The Benghazi Cover Up -


How Obama, Hillary and their media allies won an election by lying to the American people.

FrontPage Editor's note: The following video was produced by journalist Lee Stranahan and exposes the coordinated campaign between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the media to conceal the truth about the Benghazi terrorist attack until after the 2012 presidential election. The video sequence is featured in Stranahan's film "The Caliphate."


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

Video: Human Rights Activist Bassem Eid: Palestinians would love to be annexed - Arutz Sheva TV

by Arutz Sheva TV

While the world pushes for "Palestinian" statehood, this well-known, Palestinian human rights activist makes the case for Israeli annexation

Arutz Sheva TV


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

A confession of liberal intolerance - Nicholas Kristof

by Nicholas Kristof 

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan

When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren’t at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards — and we all lose.

We progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.

Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

OK, that’s a little harsh. But consider George Yancey, a sociologist who is black and evangelical.

“Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black,” he told me. “But inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.”

I’ve been thinking about this because on Facebook recently I wondered aloud whether universities stigmatize conservatives and undermine intellectual diversity. The scornful reaction from my fellow liberals proved the point.

“Much of the ‘conservative’ worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false,” said Carmi.

“The truth has a liberal slant,” wrote Michelle.

“Why stop there?” asked Steven. “How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?”
To me, the conversation illuminated primarily liberal arrogance — the implication that conservatives don’t have anything significant to add to the discussion. My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.

The stakes involve not just fairness to conservatives or evangelical Christians, not just whether progressives will be true to their own values, not just the benefits that come from diversity (and diversity of thought is arguably among the most important kinds), but also the quality of education itself. When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren’t at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards — and we all lose.

Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.

Conservatives can be spotted in the sciences and in economics, but they are virtually an endangered species in fields like anthropology, sociology, history and literature. One study found that only 2 percent of English professors are Republicans (although a large share are independents).

In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.

The scarcity of conservatives seems driven in part by discrimination. One peer-reviewed study found that one-third of social psychologists admitted that if choosing between two equally qualified job candidates, they would be inclined to discriminate against the more conservative candidate.

Yancey, the black sociologist, who now teaches at the University of North Texas, conducted a survey in which up to 30 percent of academics said that they would be less likely to support a job seeker if they knew that the person was a Republican.

The discrimination becomes worse if the applicant is an evangelical Christian. According to Yancey’s study, 59 percent of anthropologists and 53 percent of English professors would be less likely to hire someone they found out was an evangelical.

“Of course there are biases against evangelicals on campuses,” notes Jonathan L. Walton, the Plummer Professor ofChristian Morals at Harvard. Walton, a black evangelical, adds that the condescension toward evangelicals echoes the patronizing attitude toward racial minorities: “The same arguments I hear people make about evangelicals sound so familiar to the ways people often describe folk of color, i.e. politically unsophisticated, lacking education, angry, bitter, emotional, poor.”

A study published in the American Journal of Political Science underscored how powerful political bias can be. In an experiment, Democrats and Republicans were asked to choose a scholarship winner from among (fictitious) finalists, with the experiment tweaked so that applicants sometimes included the president of the Democratic or Republican club, while varying the credentials and race of each. 

Four-fifths of Democrats and Republicans alike chose a student of their own party to win a scholarship, and discrimination against people of the other party was much greater than discrimination based on race.

“I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950,” a conservative professor is quoted as saying in “Passing on the Right,” a new book about right-wing faculty members by Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn Sr. That’s a metaphor that conservative scholars often use, with talk of remaining in the closet early in one’s career and then “comingout” after receiving tenure.

This bias on campuses creates liberal privilege. A friend is studying for the Law School Admission Test, and the test preparation company she is using offers test-takers a tip: Reading comprehension questions will typically have a liberal slant and a liberal answer.

Some liberals think that right-wingers self-select away from academic paths in part because they are money-grubbers who prefer more lucrative professions. But that doesn’t explain why there are conservative math professors but not many right-wing anthropologists.

It’s also liberal poppycock that there aren’t smart conservatives or evangelicals. Richard Posner is a more-or-less conservative who is the most cited legal scholar of all time. With her experience and intellect, Condoleezza Rice would enhance any political science department. Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian and famed geneticist who has led the Human Genome Project and the National Institutes of Health. And if you’re saying that conservatives may be tolerable, but evangelical Christians aren’t — well, are you really saying you would have discriminated against the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.?

Jonathan Haidt, a centrist social psychologist at New York University, cites data suggesting that the share of conservatives in academia has plunged, and he has started a website, Heterodox Academy, to champion ideological diversity on campuses.

“Universities are unlike other institutions in that they absolutely require that people challenge each other so that the truth can emerge from limited, biased, flawed individuals,” he says. “If they lose intellectual diversity, or if they develop norms of ‘safety’ that trump challenge, they die. And this is what has been happening since the 1990s.”

Should universities offer affirmative action for conservatives and evangelicals? I don’t think so, partly because surveys find that conservative scholars themselves oppose the idea. But it’s important to have a frank discussion on campuses about ideological diversity. To me, this seems a liberal blind spot.

Universities should be a hubbub of the full range of political perspectives from A to Z, not just from V to Z. So maybe we progressives could take a brief break from attacking the other side and more broadly incorporate values that we supposedlycherish — like diversity — in our
own dominions.

Nicholas Kristof is a columnist for the New York Times.


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

Like manna from heaven - for Israel's detractors - Dr. Martin Sherman

by Dr. Martin Sherman

Any allusion that Israel is somehow comparable to Nazi Germany is not criticism. It is a blood libel.

Israel has been infected by the seeds of fascism …There are no serious leaders left in the world who believe the Israeli government
 - Former PM, Ehud Barak, Channel 10, May 20

Today we have a country afflicted with ultra-nationalistic extremism, infected with the seeds of fascism and chauvinism
-Head of opposition, Yitzhak Herzog, Knesset, May 23

Israel has truly become today the last bastion of fascism, colonialism and racial discrimination in the world

- Nabil al-Arabi Secretary-General of the Arab League, Cairo May 28

“I fought with all my might against the phenomena of extremism, violence and racism in Israeli society that are threatening our national resilience and are seeping into the Israel Defense Forces; in fact already harming it… But to my great regret, extremist and dangerous forces have taken over Israel and the Likud party
- Former defense minister Moshe “Bogie” Yaalon, Resignation speech, May 20

Today Israel is suffering a process of ongoing radicalization and increasing extremism, which has brought criticism from senior Israelis against their government. They all say that Israel behaves in a fascist and racist manner. They say so. Like the deputy chief of staff of the IDF said ‘Our behavior is reminiscent of the behavior of the Nazis prior to WW II’
 - Mahmoud Abbas, Head of the Palestinian Authority, Cairo, May 28

May was a very good month for the myriad of eager Israel-bashers across the globe.

Beyond wildest Judeophobic dreams

With no effort on their part, the recent rash of stupid, ill-considered—and gravely misleading—public proclamations provided them with more to bash Israel with than they could have wished in their wildest Judeophobic dreams.

What more could they have hoped for?  Some of the most senior figures in the Israeli establishment have now publically corroborated precisely what they have been trying to convey in their toxic tirades against the Jewish state for years. Now they have it on the best of authority—straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak:

The Jewish state is a fascist, racist entity—indeed, one of an evil kind in today’s world.

Who could argue with them now?   Israel is descending inexorably in to the lowest depth of human depravity comparable to the darkest times humanity has known in modern history.

Indeed, they need not even make these horrific accusations themselves—and expose themselves to charges of anti-Semitism. All they need do is quote the vitriolic condemnation of Israel by its own political and military leadership. And if they embellish or distort them slightly—who would notice, or even care enough to wrangle over details. After all, when the principle has been made so indelibly clear, who has time for splitting fascist hairs?

Abominable analogy

The point of departure for this deplorable and distortive portrayal of Israel can be traced to the abominable analogy made by the IDF’s deputy chief of staff,  Maj-Gen. Yair Golan at a Holocaust commemoration ceremony on May 4. Golan suggested—or, at least, could plausibly have been interpreted by Israel’s fiercest detractors as suggesting—that Israel is undergoing  a process reminiscent of those that heralded the advent of fascism and the rise of Nazism in Europe in the 1930s. He proclaimed:  “If there's something that frightens me about Holocaust remembrance it's the identification of the horrific processes that occurred in Europe in general, and particularly in Germany, back then…and detecting signs of them here among us today in 2016."

It matters not whether that such a parallel was his intention or not.  Once the anti-Israel cohorts could spin it that way, it took on a life of its own.

But Golan went on further, painting—or giving Israel bashers the opportunity of painting--a grossly distorted picture of the emerging trends in Israeli society. He pontificated: "There is nothing easier than hating the “other”, nothing easier than fear-mongering and instilling panic. There is nothing easier than to adopt callous, thick-skinned bestiality and holier than thou self-righteousness.”

Irrelevant and unrepresentative rebuke

This apparent rebuke raises two issues.  Firstly, if Golan chose to articulate it, he clearly must believe that the objectionable features he mentions, comprise a significant trend in Israeli society. Otherwise why bring it up—especially in a Holocaust commemoration speech? But if they are not, it is a rebuke that is totally irrelevant.

Secondly, if Golan feels that these features do represent significant propensities, he is hopelessly out of touch with the dominant characteristics of Israeli society—and his implied rebuke is wildly unrepresentative.

Perhaps he missed the wide coverage of Israeli humanitarian missions to disaster areas, such a Haiti and Nepal among a host of other afflicted countries to which Israel extends aid.  Hardly indicative of “callous thick-skinned bestiality”!

Other things might have slipped his mind, like the extensive medical treatment provided to casualties of the gruesome civil war in Syria.  Or the hospital services given to the family members of Israel’s sworn enemy, Hamas—including those of its leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh. Indeed, Haniyeh’s  own mother-in-law, grand-daughter and daughter were all admitted to Israeli medical facilities in 2013-14, the latter “just weeks after a 50-day war [Protective Edge] between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist movement” (The Telegraph, October 20, 2014).

OMG – just how much “hate for the ‘other’” can a country harbor!

“Providing weapons to Hamas propaganda…”

Perhaps one of the better gauges of  just how damaging Golan’s remarks—and those of others that followed them—were to Israel, is an interview with journalist, Ben-Dror  Yemini, on Tel Aviv Radio (May 4). For the record, Yemini is a left-leaning publicist and self-confessed supporter of Herzog’s left of center Zionist Union in the last election.

At the outset of the interview, Yemini described Golan’s abhorrent allusion as an “appalling mistake” especially for anyone who has any idea of ongoing developments regarding Israel in the world.  He went on to remind listeners that Israel was fighting “on two fronts, and today the PR front is no less important than the military front

He lamented: “To compare Israel to Nazi Germany reflects a kind of insanity that, regrettably, is beginning  to dominate us…If the deputy leader of the British Labor party…who we accuse of anti-Semiticsm …had  said that, he would have been thrown out of the party.

With evident bitterness, Yemini claimed: We are providing weapons for Hamas’s propaganda…I have been engaged in a world-wide effort to repudiate the false accusations against Israel, and suddenly someone like [Golan] comes along and ruins years of work. 

Greatly agitated, Yemini continued: “Anyone who compares Israel to the Nazis is not someone who usually wants to criticize Israel. It is someone who does not want Israel at all!...Moreover it is all a lie! But when he [Golan] says it, it gives them a boost. The whole social network is abuzz. All the anti-Israel and ant-Semitic sites have made him a hero”.

“As damaging as a terror attack…”

With a touch of drama, Yemini informed the interviewer: “I was in Auschwitz, at a conference on the Nuremberg Trials, when I heard Golan’s remarks. I was there! Right there! I spoke with some of the participants, who were not right-wing people. The general perception was this [Golan’s speech] was equivalent to a terror attack. No less!...

Still greatly troubled, Yemini penned an article five days later entitled “A PR terror attack” (YNet, May 9). In it, he strongly refuted any slide toward largescale fascism or racism in Israel, which despite the grave threats to its existence, still compares favorably, in terms of the liberalism and tolerance, to other European democracies. By way of comparison he cites Sweden, often a vehement critic of Israel, where“dozens of refugee centers were burnt” and “polls show up to 15% backing for a party representing neo-Nazi supporters.”

True, like any other society, Israel has its blemishes. There are instances of hooliganism, social intolerance and even ethnic bias.  But there are no politicized movements of any significance, and certainly none with any electoral prospects, that promote doctrines of racial superiority or promulgate the principles of fascism.

Accordingly to suggest that Israel is in anyway afflicted with the seeds of fascism is not criticism. It is indeed  as Yemini states, a blood libel.

Hollow ring to cries of dismay

Any allusion by any Israeli of prominence that any such phenomena exist, betrays not only a poor grasp of the socio-cultural realities in the country, but also raises grave questions as to his/her motivations and/or quality of judgement.

Of course the chorus for dismayed voices warning of the impending advent of fascism/racism/extremism was amplified in the wake of the Golan address by the replacement of Moshe Yaalon as defense minister by Avigdor Liberman.

Admittedly, I have serious reservations as to what to expect from Liberman, and as to the rationale for appointing him to such a crucial post in the wake of what was a devastating electoral failure at the polls last year (with his faction diminished by over half and reduced even further by his most prominent MK—Orly Levy—quitting the party). However, that said, the distraught cries by many of his detractors as to the danger he poses to Israeli democracy, have a decidedly hollow ring to them.

Indeed, many of his current critics have, in fact,  served with him in governments in the past, without expressing undue alarm as to the grave threat he posed to Israeli democracy—even when his electoral success was far greater. Indeed, Liberman has served, including as deputy prime minister, in every government since 2001, when Arik Sharon wrested power from Ehud Barak.

It is thus difficult to avoid the impression that the current deluge of opprobrium for him is motivated more by political and personal chagrin than any real genuine concern for the future of democratic governance in Israel.

Tolerating terror as anti-fascist litmus test 

Take for example Ehud Barak, who served as deputy prime minister together with Liberman, both in Ehud Olmert’s government (2006-9) and in Netanyahu’s (2009-13), with nary a concern expressed for Israeli democracy.

In his Channel 10 diatribe (see opening except), Barak sought to illustrate his point  regarding the “seeds of fascism” taking hold in Israeli society by referring to legislation promoted by members of the current coalition .  Among these allegedly “egregious” undemocratic initiatives was the law to lift the parliamentary immunity of Knesset members who support terrorism (Haaretz, May 20).

This of course leads one to wonder whether, according to Barak, the litmus test of democratic governance is giving elected legislators in the national parliament license to support terror organizations, dedicated to the destruction of the society that that parliament represents, secure in the knowledge that they will be  immune  from any punitive action.

Apparently in Barak’s eyes, for a country to avoid being afflicted by the “seeds of fascism”, it must give priority to the rights of legislators to support terror over the rights of intended victims of that terror to life.

This is, of course, an “interesting” perspective and one that might explain why in the past Barak proclaimed that, if he had been a Palestinian ,he too would have engaged in terror.

Isaiah 49:17

The howls of dismay at the approaching demise of Israeli democracy are utterly unfounded and uncalled for.

When they come from highly-placed Israelis, who put short-term personal and political interest before the long term national one, they inflict incalculable, perhaps irrevocable harm on the country, inevitably compelling us to recall the words of Isaiah 49:17

“Thy destroyers and thy demolishers shall emerge from within thee. “

So it would seem.

Dr. Martin Sherman ( is founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.


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

Dhimmi Nation - A.J. Caschetta

by A.J. Caschetta

Obama's overtures may not be consciously designed to recapitulate a dhimmi's accommodation to his master, but Ali Khamenei treats them as such, offering only contempt in return for the president's obsequious deference.

Unedited version of an article that originally appeared under the title "Is Obama's Iran Deal a 'Dhimmi' Contract?"

IRGC Commander Ali Fadavi's recent threat to "drown American vessels" in the Persian Gulf is only the latest indication that America's relationship with Iran resembles a dhimma contract more than a traditional foreign policy.

Since the seventh century, everyone defeated by Islamic conquest was given three choices: conversion, death, or a dhimma contract, which Bat Ye'or calls the "treaty of submission for people conquered by jihad." By accepting the third choice, they became dhimmis – members of a "protected" class whose failure to submit to Allah was replaced by a compulsory submission to Muslims. Isolated and disarmed, insulted at every turn, and coerced into acknowledging their inferiority with regular self-abasement, dhimmis were expected to show humility and gratitude for their protectors.

The president's approach to the Muslim world in general has been replete with gratitude, flattery, and apologies – especially for violence perpetrated by Christians a thousand years ago. He refuses to utter the words "Islamist terrorism" and wildly exaggerates Islam's role in "saving" Western culture. At the UN he demanded that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." He even put one filmmaker in jail for doing so.

Obama's approach to the Muslim world has been replete with gratitude, flattery, and apologies.
But above all, throughout his presidency Obama has reached out to Iran, publicly and in secret letters. His overtures may not be consciously designed to recapitulate a dhimmi's accommodation to his master, but Ali Khamenei treats them as such, offering only contempt in return for the president's obsequious deference.

Khamenei leads cheers of "Death to America," and Obama makes excuses for it. Obama insists that Iran's path forward is at the UN with the P5+1 partners, but Khamenei counters that "those who say the future is in negotiations, not in missiles, are...ignorant." Each unanswered Iranian provocation reinforces the image of a dhimmi paying tribute and enduring his proscribed submission with gestures of obeisance.

Since 2009 Iran has attempted an assassination in Washington, D.C., shipped arms to Palestinian terrorists in Gaza and Houthi rebels in Yemen, and attempted to hack a dam in New York and the electrical grid in California. The administration has responded with self-effacing conciliation. Even the film of captured American sailors humiliated by the IRGC didn't rouse the president from his supine repose. John Kerry actually thanked "the Iranian authorities for their cooperation."

And what of Iran's violations of sanctions, growing more flagrant with each passing year without consequences? Traditionally, the weaker side in such a conflict might deny it had conducted missile tests or pretend that its ICBM program is actually a space program. An emboldened, confident Iran, however, acts as though it has the upper hand and America is its dhimmi.

Dhimmis were forced to pay an annual tax called the jizya, originating in the Koran's commandment: "Fight those who believe not in Allah...until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (9:29).
Among the humiliations dhimmis were forced to endure at the hands of Muslims was an annual tax called the jizya, originating in the Koran's commandment: "Fight those who believe not in Allah...until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (9:29). As they made their payment, dhimmis were often required to prostrate themselves and accept slaps to the head and neck, symbolic of the fate they avoided with the treaty. In 1799 British historian William Eton referred to the jizya as a "capitation tax" permitting dhimmis to "wear their heads" for another year. The $100-150 billion Iran receives in under the US-brokered Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is surely the largest jizya payment in history.

Last July as the White House celebrated the JCPOA, Khamenei tweeted an image of Obama holding a gun to his own head. Six months later the IRGC fired missiles dangerously close to the USS Harry S. Truman.

In spite of Iran's defiant and aggressive behavior, the president continues to grant concessions, pushing for Iran's access to the US monetary system and even buying Iranian nuclear waste. In turn, Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz and kill Americans found there.

Shortly after the American Revolution, the Barbary Pirates of Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli began seizing US merchant vessels and demanding ransom. They explained that the Koran gave them the "right and duty to make war" on non-Muslims. But George Washington didn't pay tribute to the sheikhs. Instead he ordered the creation of the US Navy to fight what he called the "nests of banditti." In 1815 James Madison used that Navy to defeat the Barbary sheikhs at sea and on "the shores of Tripoli."

Two hundred years later, the Obama administration is taking the opposite approach with the banditti in Tehran, bending over backwards to accommodate the mullahs and lying to the American people about it. In his relationship with Iran's supreme leader, President Obama has assumed the role of a meek and humbled dhimmi paying tribute to a Muslim protector while respectfully enduring his insults. Washington and Madison would be embarrassed.

A.J. Caschetta is a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum and a senior lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology.


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

European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation.

  • Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the European Union's definition of "hate speech" and "incitement to violence" is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the EU itself.
  • Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU's code of online conduct -- which requires "offensive" material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours -- as "Orwellian."
  • "By deciding that 'xenophobic' comment in reaction to the crisis is also 'racist,' Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people... into 'racist' views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as 'racist.'" — Douglas Murray.
The European Union (EU), in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, has unveiled a "code of conduct" to combat the spread of "illegal hate speech" online in Europe.

Proponents of the initiative argue that in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, a crackdown on "hate speech" is necessary to counter jihadist propaganda online.

Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the EU's definition of "hate speech" and "incitement to violence" is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU's code of online conduct — which requires "offensive" material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours, and replaced with "counter-narratives" — as "Orwellian."

The "code of conduct" was announced on May 31 in a statement by the European Commission, the unelected administrative arm of the European Union. A summary of the initiative follows:
"By signing this code of conduct, the IT companies commit to continuing their efforts to tackle illegal hate speech online. This will include the continued development of internal procedures and staff training to guarantee that they review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.
"The IT companies will also endeavor to strengthen their ongoing partnerships with civil society organisations who will help flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct. The IT companies and the European Commission also aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives [emphasis added], new ideas and initiatives, and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking."
Excerpts of the "code of conduct" include:
"The IT Companies share the European Commission's and EU Member States' commitment to tackle illegal hate speech online. Illegal hate speech, as defined by the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law and national laws transposing it, means all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin....
"The IT Companies support the European Commission and EU Member States in the effort to respond to the challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally. The spread of illegal hate speech online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets, it also negatively impacts those who speak out for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our open societies and has a chilling effect on the democratic discourse on online platforms.
"While the effective application of provisions criminalizing hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously acted upon by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated.
"The IT Companies, taking the lead on countering the spread of illegal hate speech online, have agreed with the European Commission on a code of conduct setting the following public commitments:
  • "The IT Companies to have in place clear and effective processes to review notifications regarding illegal hate speech on their services so they can remove or disable access to such content. The IT companies to have in place Rules or Community Guidelines clarifying that they prohibit the promotion of incitement to violence and hateful conduct.
  • "The IT Companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.
  • "The IT Companies and the European Commission, recognising the value of independent counter speech against hateful rhetoric and prejudice, aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives, new ideas and initiatives and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking."
The agreement also requires Internet companies to establish a network of "trusted reporters" in all 28 EU member states to flag online content that "promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct."

The EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, Vĕra Jourová, has defended the initiative:
"The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech. Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalize young people and racists use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected. I welcome the commitment of worldwide IT companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary."
Others disagree. The National Secular Society (NSS) of the UK warned that the EU's plans "rest on a vague definition of 'hate speech' and risk threatening online discussions which criticize religion." It added:
"The agreement comes amid repeated accusations from ex-Muslims that social media organizations are censoring them online. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain has now begun collecting examples from its followers of Facebook censoring 'atheist, secular and ex-Muslim content' after false 'mass reporting' by 'cyber Jihadists.' They have asked their supporters to report details and evidence of any instances of pages and groups being 'banned [or] suspended from Facebook for criticizing Islam and Islamism.'"
NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones said:
"Far from tackling online 'cyber jihad,' the agreement risks having the exact opposite effect and entrapping any critical discussion of religion under vague 'hate speech' rules. Poorly-trained Facebook or Twitter staff, perhaps with their own ideological bias, could easily see heated criticism of Islam and think it is 'hate speech,' particularly if pages or users are targeted and mass reported by Islamists."
In an interview with Breitbart London, the CEO of Index on Censorship, Jodie Ginsburg, said:
"Hate speech laws are already too broad and ambiguous in much of Europe. This agreement fails to properly define what 'illegal hate speech' is and does not provide sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression.
"It devolves power once again to unelected corporations to determine what amounts to hate speech and police it — a move that is guaranteed to stifle free speech in the mistaken belief this will make us all safer. It won't. It will simply drive unpalatable ideas and opinions underground where they are harder to police — or to challenge.
"There have been precedents of content removal for unpopular or offensive viewpoints and this agreement risks amplifying the phenomenon of deleting controversial — yet legal — content via misuse or abuse of the notification processes."
A coalition of free speech organizations, European Digital Rights and Access Now, announced their decision not to take part in future discussions with the European Commission, saying that "we do not have confidence in the ill-considered 'code of conduct' that was agreed." A statement warned:
"In short, the 'code of conduct' downgrades the law to a second-class status, behind the 'leading role' of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms of service. This process, established outside an accountable democratic framework, exploits unclear liability rules for online companies. It also creates serious risks for freedom of expression, as legal — but controversial — content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable take-down mechanism.
"This means that this 'agreement' between only a handful of companies and the European Commission is likely in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (under which restrictions on fundamental rights should be provided for by law), and will, in practical terms, overturn case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the defense of legal speech."
Janice Atkinson, an independent MEP for the South East England region, summed it up this way: "It's Orwellian. Anyone who has read 1984 sees its very re-enactment live."

Even before signing on to the EU's code of conduct, social media sites have been cracking down on free speech, often at the behest of foreign governments.

In September 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard on a live microphone confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on what he was doing to prevent criticism of her open-door immigration policies.

In January 2016, Facebook launched an "Online Civil Courage Initiative" aimed at Facebook users in Germany and geared toward "fighting hate speech and extremism on the Internet."

Writing for Gatestone Institute, British commentator Douglas Murray noted that Facebook's assault on "racist" speech "appears to include anything critical of the EU's current catastrophic immigration policy." He wrote:
"By deciding that 'xenophobic' comment in reaction to the crisis is also 'racist,' Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel's policies) into 'racist' views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as 'racist.' This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.
Facebook has also set its sights on Gatestone Institute affiliated writers. In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation. Abu Toameh wrote:
"It's still a matter of censorship. They decide what's acceptable. Now we have to be careful about what we post and what we share. Does this mean we can't criticize Arab governments anymore?"
In June 2016, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone's Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called "Sweden's Migrant Rape Epidemic." In an editorial, Gatestone wrote:
"After enormous grassroots pressure from Gatestone's readers, the Swedish media started reporting on Facebook's heavy-handed censorship. It backfired, and Facebook went into damage-control mode. They put Ingrid's account back up — without any explanation or apology. Ironically, their censorship only gave Ingrid's video more attention.
"Facebook and the EU have backed down — for now. But they're deadly serious about stopping ideas they don't like. They'll be back."
This week, the EU, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, unveiled a "code of conduct" to combat the spread of "illegal hate speech" online in Europe. The next day, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone's Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called "Sweden's Migrant Rape Epidemic."

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.


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

How Bernie Sanders's Socialism Funds Massive Income Inequality - Michael Bargo, Jr.

by Michael Bargo, Jr.

Apparently, ever since President Obama opened the spigot on national debt, the entire nation is on a binge to over-pay public servants. 

The next time Bernie Sanders does a sit-down interview with a major news anchor, he should be asked one simple question: why don’t you ever mention the huge one-percenter salaries and pensions given to government bureaucrats who administer socialist programs? 

After all, Bernie Sanders loves to rant against big corporations and Wall Street billionaires.  His solution is to grow government, create more bureaucracy, hire more bureaucrats, and secretly give more bonuses to socialist bureaucrats.  Today there are huge bonuses given to those who administer the hard-earned dollars of America’s middle class and poor workers.  While many are familiar with the $90,000 bonus given to the former TSA security chief, even after his TSA agents failed to detect 95% of the weapons and bombs brought through airports to test detection procedures last year, there are many people, mostly in education, who receive salaries so large they are difficult to believe.

And because they are large, those who sing from the liberal socialist songbook that the rich are only those who run corporations or profit on Wall Street, the liberally biased media absolutely refuse to report on this transfer of wealth to the socialist class, particularly during an election year.

Examples abound.  When the city of Stockton, Calif. filed for bankruptcy, the judge in charge of the bankruptcy, who was accused of persecuting government union employees, found that the fire engines of Stockton had been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that every time a fire engine went out on a call, it had to be accompanied by a wrecker.  This was, apparently, because fire department administrators had taken money out of the maintenance fund and given it to themselves as “other pay.”  In 2012, Ronald L. Hittle, the fire chief, received regular pay of $132,000 but received “other pay” of $118,000 bringing his total for 2012 to $323,000.  Stockton’s community development director, whose job description reminds one of President Obama’s career as a community organizer, had regular pay of $133,437 and “other pay” of $291,879, bringing his 2012 total pay to $458,156. 

Apparently, ever since President Obama opened the spigot on national debt, the entire nation is on a binge to over-pay public servants.  And since the public administrators, who control the budgets, have no accountability, they have given themselves big pay increases to the detriment of public safety, health, and education.  And these three things are supposed to be the very reason we have government: to preserve public safety, health, and education. 

Obamacare has led to some startling economic injustice.  Thomas Wander of California’s public Beta Healthcare Group Risk Management Authority earned $2.7 million in 2014.  Khalil M. Tabsch, an outstanding physician at the UCLA Medical Center, received a publicly funded salary of $2.34 million in 2014.  There are 41 university employees who earned between one million and his $2.34 million.  While no one doubts the credentials and competence of these health care professionals, their level of income, which they may get in retirement, is unaffordable to taxpayers.

In higher education, the abuse is more common.  In Illinois, the top beneficiary is Leslie Heffez, an oral surgeon who retired from the U. of Illinois at Chicago (where Donald Trump had to cancel one of his rallies), receiving an annual pension of $547,000.  If he lives to age 81, he’ll get $18 million from taxpayers.  Today, 50% of the cost of tuition at Illinois public universities goes to pensions.  This means half of the student loan debt goes only to support ex-university employees who no longer work and saved little for their retirement.  While this is the highest pension, the average is $71,600, and each retiree will receive $2 million in retirement.  In Illinois, from 2006 to 2015, the state added 8 billion new dollars to higher education, and every cent went only to pensions.

Socialism can be very expensive for the middle class and the poor. 

And while Bernie Sanders shakes his finger and looks so concerned about helping the poor and getting money from Wall Street, he is fronting for the dirtiest secret in American politics: that liberal progressive socialist democrats aren’t about helping the people.  Rather, they are all about getting wealthy from their scam, their big lie, that they are all about the people.  The truth is, as soon as they get into power, they pass laws to keep themselves in power.  They give contracts to their rich Wall Street friends (Chelsea Clinton worked for a hedge fund), then use your money in every conceivable way to make sure nobody can compete with them. 

The most startling aspect of all this is that the liberal media go along with it, refuse to expose the bonuses, refuse to expose the big pensions.  Only private watchdog groups, whose work rarely appears in mainstream newspapers, tell the facts about where the money really goes.  The major media outlets won’t give the big picture.  They won’t reveal the details about the nationally based exploitation of the middle class perpetrated by liberal Democrats and their wonderful programs. 

Democrats always promise to take from the rich, but for some reason your taxes go up.  The government workers get pay increases every year; their pensions grow; and you, without agreeing to this plan, are forced to pay for them.

And Bernie Sanders is behind this racket.  He practices it; he promotes it.  The greatest scheme of exploitation is not white privilege; it’s liberal socialist privilege. 

It may be difficult for Sanders voters to understand why, in states such as Illinois, half of their college tuition goes to pay for the pension plans of university professors and administrators who earn up to $750K a year.  It’s difficult to understand why they get these pensions when the vast majority of college graduates will be forced to save for their own retirements in order to supplement their small social security.  If graduates earning $60K a year can afford to save for retirement, why can’t university administrators who earn $100K to $400K a year save for theirs? 

Mr. Sanders should be asked to explain this.  He should be asked to explain how he talks about economic justice and income inequality when his party forces the middle class to pay outrageously high pensions to socialists.

Since this is an issue of income inequality, he should certainly want to talk about it.  Sanders and Hillary should both be expected to have a conversation with college-age Americans about this system of pensions and explain why they have to save for retirement while public university employees don’t.

When it comes to big pensions that exploit the working middle class and the poor, somehow Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton remain silent.  Their corporate greed and Wall Street rhetoric disappear.  It should make voters wonder if they want this system to continue.  They certainly can’t say it’s fair.

Voters must consider this fall whether they want their country – and the public pension system supported by Democrats – to continue to erode their incomes and standard of living or make the changes needed to make a college degree affordable.

Michael Bargo, Jr.


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

New York City proclaims a man who thinks he's a woman is a 'real woman' - Rick Moran

by Rick Moran

When the inmates are running the asylum it is futile to try and bring them back to reality.

A "factsheet" issued by the New York City Commission on Human Rights makes some astonishing claims about biology and gender identity.

They claim  that it's a "myth" that biological men are not "real women."
The commission published a “myths vs. facts” document on gender identity and expression after receiving a flurry of criticism over its transgender guidance that forces businesses to accommodate 31 different gender identities.
One of the “myths” listed is that “Transgender women are not ‘real’ women, and transgender men are not ‘real’ men.”
Next to that myth, the commission asserts the correct “fact”: “Gender identity is not based on one’s sex assigned at birth.” The implication is that one’s self-determined “gender identity” — rather than one’s biological makeup — is what makes a woman a woman.
Underneath the “myth” and “fact,” the commission offers an explanation of the issue.
“If someone’s gender identity is female, then that person is a woman – regardless of what her birth sex was – and she should be treated as a woman,” the document states. “Similarly, if someone’s gender identity is male, then that person is a man, and he should be treated as a man.”
The document also states that it’s a “myth” that, “The New York City Human Rights Law allows men to enter the women’s bathroom and vice versa.” The “fact” the commission offers to disprove that “myth” is “If an individual identifies as a man, he is not permitted to use the women’s room.”
The document explains this by stating: “The NYCHRL allows individuals to use the bathroom that is consistent with their gender identity.”
The implication, again, is that one need only self-identify as a woman to be a woman.
This unilateral repeal of a biological basis for gender identity is laughable. Note the "myth" that the law allows "men" to enter a "woman's" bathroom. because the commission has redefined the basic notion of biology as a basis for gender. 
This statement is, if possible, even more bizarre:
The document also states that it’s a “myth” that: “If the clients/students/customers at an agency/school/business object to transgender people using the facility of their choice, the agency/school/business should change its policies to satisfy those objecting.”
The commission explains this “fact” by stating: “Agreeing to the unfounded fears and misconceptions around transgender inclusive policies is unlawful and perpetuates discrimination.”
How is it possible to overcome such delusional thinking? When the inmates are running the asylum it is futile to try and bring them back to reality.

How can it be "unlawful" to disagree with their definitions of gender identity when we live in a country with the First Amendment? The only thing "unlawful" in all of this - not to mention kooky and absurd - is that notion that biology is irrelevant to whether someone is a male or female.

Rick Moran


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

VIDEO: Dr. Mordechai Kedar discusses Arab-Israel peace plans - ILTV


Dr. Mordechai Kedar from Bar-Ilan University discusses the several new peace initiatives.



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