Friday, November 11, 2016

America's Gag Reflex - Scott McKay

by Scott McKay

At the end of the day, the Democrats simply asked more of the American people in 2016 than was possible.

Here we are not attempting to minimize Donald Trump’s achievement Tuesday night in topping 300 electoral votes and capturing the White House amid a shocked pundit class. What Trump managed was, unquestionably, the greatest upset in American political history, and arguably, the greatest electoral upset in the history of the modern world.

It may be impossible to minimize such an achievement. Thus let us agree that what follows is an explanation, or perhaps a description of the road which opened for Trump to ride to victory.

Interestingly, despite the idiotic blatherings of CNN’s resident urban communist Van Jones, Trump’s election didn’t represent a “whitelash,” or some spasm of racial animus on the part of white voters. Trump actually underperformed with whites compared to Mitt Romney in 2012.

And just as interestingly, Trump got less overall votes than Romney. Or John McCain in 2008.

To put fully paid to the narrative Jones and other pundits on the Left are spinning, that Trump’s victory was a triumph of American racism and bigotry, an ugly slur which has encouraged thousands of this country’s worst residents to take to the streets in childish and un-American protests of democracy, it turns out that where Trump did make improvements over Romney’s performance was with black and Hispanic voters.

You read that correctly. Trump improved Romney’s 27 percent share of the Hispanic vote to 29, and Romney’s six percent to eight in the black community.

Now — it might be said that the white voters Trump attracted were not the same as those supporting Romney. Trump’s vote, particularly in Appalachia and the Rust Belt, came much more from downscale white voters without college degrees than Romney’s did; assuming, given the numbers above, that it was hate that drove his victory seems more a reflection of bigotry against non-college educated whites than any sort of cogent analysis.

And it’s the Left’s bigotry, and moreover its obnoxious arrogance and never-ending cultural and political aggression, that explains Trump’s victory.

Hillary Clinton lost this race more than Trump won it. Which is not a disparagement of Trump’s upset; if nothing else, his late surge came from an excellent display of political discipline in largely refraining from any controversial words or deeds once Clinton’s legal troubles began multiplying 10 days out from Election Day — that restraint allowed her to lose the race and made him President of the United States.

Because what happened on Election Night was that the national gag reflex manifested itself. And the Democrats’ attempts at forcing down a charmless Alinskyite grifter under multiple FBI investigations ran afoul of that reflex. She found herself the victim of a massive laryngeal spasm on the part of the electorate.

So did the Democratic Party, which found itself winning only six House seats and a net of just two Senate seats when it crowed lustily over the possibility of capturing both houses outright. Democrats will have only 16 governorships in January, and control only 12 state legislatures. On Election Night as the smoke cleared it became obvious that America is sick and tired of the party in the White House.

And why shouldn’t it be? Nominating Clinton was an exercise in arrogance and corruption never before seen in American politics. It was a political aggression well in line with a long string of other affronts both political and cultural; for example, a sitting president encouraging illegal aliens to vote, attempts to install transvestites in girls’ bathrooms in American schools, efforts to punish religious people who don’t want to participate in gay weddings, Black Lives Matter, Lena Dunham, the IRS scandal, Bob Creamer, the Obamacare premium spike, Colin Kaepernick.

Americans have been lectured, scolded, robbed, demoralized, and gaslighted relentlessly for the past eight years. And to top it all, the Democrats demanded that if they wouldn’t swallow a “feminist icon” whose only employment came courtesy of her professional relationship with her husband, who we are meant to believe put the nation’s state secrets forfeit to foreign powers as an innocent mistake and who is obviously guilty of running a pay-for-play influence-peddling scam disguised as a charity alongside what is advertised as “public service,” then that would constitute sexism. Internet memes circulated by Democrats demanded that Clinton be elected in order to rectify the wrong of no previous female presidents, and her victory party featured a giant “glass ceiling” that she would figuratively shatter once elected.

Sorry, said the country, but too far is too far. If that means making the guy from The Apprentice president, so be it. America emitted an unpleasant noise, expectorated, and delivered the Democrats to the floor covered in sputum.

Here’s a favorite quote circulating on social media. It’s the response of the normals to the Left, and the lesson given to the Democrats following the Clintons’ banishment from the political scene…
Years ago I was handed a president that I didn’t want nor did I like. He brought on policies and debt that I didn’t want nor did our country need. Four years ago, more of the same. Any time I spoke out against this, I was labeled a racist. Meanwhile the other side celebrated and cheered and shoved their mockery in my face, and their socialist policies down my throat. I was forced to sit quietly and take it.
Today I have gained a president, that while he wasn’t initially my first choice, having heard his plans for our country, I believe in him, and have chosen to support him wholeheartedly (especially given the opposition).
However today I’m not allowed to celebrate the victory because I’m being called, yet again, a racist. Meanwhile the other side is literally crying, whining, bitching and moaning.
There is something deeply wrong with this country, but I do not feel it is with me or my fellow “racist deplorables.”
Just so. Trump may carry with him lots of problems, but among them do not include relentless abuses of power seeking to force unwanted change on a beleaguered population. The country has had enough and has demanded a break from the Left.

Lord willing, that break will be long and prosperous.

Scott McKay


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Elite Media Meltdown - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

The most egregious reactions from the mainstream press on the Trump victory.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton struck positive notes of healing and reconciliation in their public remarks following President-elect Donald Trump’s stunning victory. However, the elite liberal media establishment, which had largely served as a propaganda arm of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, continues to lash out at the president-elect as if the campaign were still in full swing.

The New York Times’ lead editorial on November 9th, entitled “The Trump Revolt,” regurgitated the charges the Times’ editors and columnists have leveled at Trump so frequently during the last year. Trump “has shown himself to be temperamentally unfit to lead a diverse nation of 320 million people,” the post-election editorial proclaimed. “We know he lies without compunction,” intoned the Times’ editors, who seem to have forgotten the description by the Times’ late columnist William Safire of Hillary Clinton as a “congenital liar.”   Using typical left-wing race-baiting tactics, the editors wrote that Trump “has recruited as his allies a dark combination of racists, white supremacists and anti-Semites,” citing a celebratory tweet by David Duke, whom Trump and his campaign have repeatedly disavowed.

To top it off, the Times’ editors darkly warned that the change Trump’s supporters had voted for risks placing the United States “on a precipice.”

One of the New York Times’ lead op-ed writers, Thomas Friedman, wailed that “at the moment I am in anguish, frightened for my country and for our unity. And for the first time, I feel homeless in America.”

The leftist Huffington Post’s senior politics editor, Sam Stein, wrote that Americans “chose to jump into the abyss” by electing Trump. Mirroring the Times’ race-baiting, Stein wrote that Trump “is a nativist, and one who has brought in his wake a scary thread of anti-Semitism and racism that has marred the entire 16-month presidential campaign.”

Slate featured articles with such outrageous headlines as “White Women Sold Out the Sisterhood and the World by Voting for Trump” and “White Won.” The latter article’s sub-heading was “We are still the country that produced George Wallace. We are still the country that killed Emmett Till.” One headline Slate did probably get right was “Donald Trump Will Erase the Obama Era.” Obama had made the election a referendum on his own legacy and the voters gave him their verdict.

David Corn wrote in Mother Jones that “America is broken.” Trying to be too clever by half, Corn added that “Hate did trump.”

ABC’s Martha Raddatz, who had moderated one of the presidential debates, had to hold back tears acknowledging Trump winning the presidency, insinuating soldiers’ lives could be in danger.

CNN’s Van Jones called the election of Donald Trump a “nightmare,” which represented a “white lash against a changing country…a white lash against a black president in part.”

Finally, MSNBC’s commentators were apoplectic. Chris Matthews certainly did not have the Obama-induced thrill up his leg when he complained, “This is a shot against meritocracy, I think.” Rachel Maddow told her audience, as Trump’s victory was becoming a reality, “you’re not having a terrible, terrible dream. Also you’re not dead and you haven’t gone to hell.”

The left-leaning media establishment lives in a bubble. It cannot accept the fact that many Americans are sick and tired of being told how they should think, how they should speak and how they should act. They are sick and tired of political correctness. They are sick and tired of being branded Islamophobes just because they have genuine concerns about the safety of themselves and their families if many thousands of “refugees” from countries beset by jihad-inspired violence are allowed to settle in this country without careful vetting. They are sick and tired of being branded racists because they want real security to be put into place at our southern border and an end to “sanctuary cities” where illegal immigrants with criminal records can return time and again from deportation to inflict more harm on innocent American citizens. They watched the news of Kate Steinle being shot to death by an illegal immigrant who had been deported multiple times from the United States. They could not understand why no action was taken by the Obama administration to prevent such tragedies from happening again, and why the Democrats in the Senate killed Kate’s Law. And many Americans are sick and tired of the crony capitalism and double standards practiced by the elite establishment at ordinary Americans’ expense.

Pollster Pat Caddell, who lived through an analogous game-changing election in 1980 when Ronald Reagan soundly beat Caddell’s client Jimmy Carter, saw the change coming this time around. Caddell understood that a major structural re-alignment of the electorate was taking place that defied traditional party and ideological labels. Caddell concluded, based on an exhaustive study of public opinion, that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe (1) “America is in actual decline,” (2) their “children will be worse off than they themselves are today,” and (3) there are “different rules for well-connected and people with money.” 
Caddell found that likely voters questioned the fairness of the system. 87 percent of those polled agreed with the statement, “The country is run by an alliance of incumbent politicians, media pundits, lobbyists and other powerful money interests for their own gain at the expense of the American people.” 67 percent agreed with the statement, “The real struggle for America is not between Democrats and Republicans but between mainstream American and the ruling political elites.”

Caddell wrote that the mainstream media “refuse to recognize much less acknowledge” the widening gap between ordinary Americans and “the actions and leadership of their establishment institutions.” President-elect Donald Trump was able to successfully tap into many Americans’ frustrations in this regard. The mainstream press, however, continues to exist in its own elitist bubble, blaming the messenger rather than absorbing the true message the voters have delivered.

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

President Trump: Now What? - Robert Spencer

by Robert Spencer

Steps he should take as President to roll back the global jihad.

A key element of Donald Trump’s popularity as a presidential candidate was his willingness to stake out policy positions that made establishment politicians cower in fear. His success as President will depend upon his willingness to do the same thing. Among his most important tasks will be to take the hard steps necessary to establish a sane and realistic stance for the United States toward the global jihad threat. To do that, he should implement measures such as these:

[1] Suspend (as promised) immigration from nations that are hotbeds of jihad terror activity.

While excoriated as “racist,” this proposal is a simple matter of national security. No one who opposed Trump’s proposal ever offered an alternative way to keep jihadis out of the country. (Of course, the problem of those who learn jihad inside the U.S. is also acute, and must be addressed). Some glibly opined that Trump should ban “Islamists,” not Muslims as a whole, yet never suggested a reliable way to distinguish “Islamists” from ordinary Muslims. Indeed, the Islamic State has instructed its operatives to appear secular -- to avoid ostentatious displays of Islamic piety that might arouse suspicions of “radicalization.” Can America really afford the national security risk of importing whole Muslim communities from Iraq and Somalia, as is happening now, without even making any serious attempt to screen out potential jihadists?

[2] Tell the truth about Islamic jihad and supremacism

Ever since 2011, it has been official Obama administration policy to deny any connection between Islam and terrorism. This came as a result of an October 19, 2011 letter from Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates to John Brennan, who was then the Assistant to the President on National Security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism, and is now head of the CIA. The letter was signed not just by Khera, but by the leaders of virtually all the significant Islamic groups in the United States: 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Relief USA; and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

The letter denounced what it characterized as U.S. government agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” Despite the factual accuracy of the material about which they were complaining, the Muslim groups demanded that the task force “purge all federal government training materials of biased materials”; “implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training”; and moreto ensure that all that law enforcement officials would learn about Islam and jihad would be what the signatories wanted them to learn.

Brennan immediately complied. Numerous books and presentations that gave a perfectly accurate view of Islam and jihad were. Today this entrenched policy of the U.S. government ensures that all too many jihadists simply cannot be identified as risks, since the administration is bound as a matter of policy to ignore what in saner times would be taken as warning signs. Trump must reverse that. He has spoken about the threat from “radical Islamic terrorism” on the campaign trail; he must follow through as President and remove the prohibitions on allowing agents to study and understand the motivating ideology behind the jihad threat.

[3] Remove all those linked with the Muslim Brotherhood from any position of responsibility, and end all government agencies’ interaction with groups linked with Hamas. 

This shouldn’t even have to be said, but there has been evidence of Muslim Brotherhood operatives having influence in the U.S. government back to 2012, when Representative Michele Bachmann called for an investigation of that infiltration. It’s high time that investigation was actually conducted.

[4] Enforce existing laws.

Section 2385 of the federal criminal code states that “whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.”

It may be that the proviso in this statute that the overthrow of the government must be planned as taking place by “force and violence” may prevent this law from being applied against Muslim Brotherhood groups that are intent on subverting America from within. Legal minds should study that issue. But surely – somehow -- working toward “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within,” as the Muslim Brotherhood has stated its own strategic goal for America, ought to be a prosecutable offense.

[5] Reclassify Muslim organizations

The U.S. government should call upon Islamic advocacy groups in this country to renounce, any intention now or in the future to replace the Constitution of the United States with Islamic Sharia. This renunciation should be backed up with transparent action to teach in mosques and Islamic schools against this intention, and against the elements of Sharia that contradict American freedoms. Those that refuse to do this, or are found to be teaching these aspects of Sharia, should be immediately closed and prosecuted.

[6] Reconfigure our international alliances.

Such that no state that oppresses women or non-Muslims in accord with Sharia provisions gets a penny of American aid, or is considered a U.S. ally.

The swamp needs draining indeed. These measures, if adopted, would go a long way toward putting the U.S. back on dry land.

Robert Spencer


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

My election night in Hispanic TV - Silvio Canto, Jr.

by Silvio Canto, Jr.

It's time for Democrats to stop calling everyone a racist and listen to what is happening in the inner city. The Democrats have failed the black community big time.

On election night, I was the GOP analyst in the coverage for Telemundo Dallas.

I was not a Trump supporter in the primaries. However, he did something rather amazing on election day. It was truly awesome. He deserves full credit and now total support of the GOP.

Hillary Clinton was a horrible and corrupt candidate. The Democrats sold their soul to the Clintons and this is what they got. How did they nominate a woman who used a private server to carry out secret diplomatic business? Are you kidding me? 

Hispanic Democrat leaders thought that they'd would win by simply calling Trump a monster. Instead, Hispanics actually wanted to hear about ObamaCare, the lousy Obama economy and the public schools that most elected Hispanic legislators do not send their kids to. In other words, calling Trump a monster had a limited value because ObamaCare premium notices were more important. 

Blacks did not really show up, as some warned us days ago. It's time for Democrats to stop calling everyone a racist and listen to what is happening in the inner city. The Democrats have failed the black community big time.

Obama was also defeated last night because his coalition did not show up. His legacy got blown up on election day. He was on the ballot, and an Obama third term did not happen. ObamaCare's numbers do not add up and Democrats running for reelection in 2018 will do everything possible to disconnect from it. The Iran nuclear deal is an open question. The economy just never got "stimulated" as they promised in 2009.

We face huge problems and we are divided. Trump will be tested early and time will tell whether or not he can meet them.

My sense is that a lot of Americans last night said some of these things:

1) Stop calling me a racist because I disagree with Obama;
2) stop calling me a homophobe because I believe that marriage is a state issue; and,
3) stop saying that white policemen target black young men.
It was a very bad night for Democrats. The party has actually been devastated by eight years of Obama. 

There are no leaders in the horizon. It's the Democrats who will now have a civil war.

Silvio Canto, Jr.  P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Iran's Threats Louder after Obama Appeasement - Majid Rafizadeh

by Majid Rafizadeh

These anti-American demonstrations are not rhetoric, but are the cornerstone of Iran's revolutionary principles and foreign policies, which manifest themselves in Iran's support for terrorist proxies, support for Assad's regime, and the scuttling of US and Israeli foreign policies in the region.

  • Chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" were heard across Iranian cities as thousands of Iranians marked the anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the taking of 52 American hostages for 444 days by militant students.
  • The State Department's reaction is classic: ignoring these developments and continuing with appeasement policies.
  • Many other Iranian officials who were engaged in attacks against the US currently serve in high positions. Hossein Salami, who enjoys one of these high-level positions, is the deputy commander in chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. He stated at the rally: "America should know that if they do not honor their agreement in the nuclear deal, we will resume uranium enrichment..."
After eight years of President Barack Obama's policies of appeasement, Iran's threats, such as "Death to America," and "Death to Israel," have grown even louder.

This week, the Iranian government orchestrated one the largest anti-American and anti-Israeli demonstrations, since 1979, echoing Iran Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's recent messages.

The government provided facilities for the protesters. Chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" were heard across Iranian cities as thousands of Iranians marked the anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the taking of 52 American hostages for 444 days by militant students.

According to the Tehran-based bureau of the Los Angeles Times,
"The demonstrators brought by buses to the former embassy complex included young and old, university students, military staff and employees of state-run companies who voiced opposition to the nuclear deal Iran signed with the United States and world powers... Many echoed Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.... Almost 1 in every 10 demonstrators at the former embassy -- now widely dubbed a "den of espionage" -- carried placards with Khamenei's words: 'We do not trust America.'"
Iranians protest outside the former US embassy in Tehran, on the anniversary of its storming by student protesters in 1979. (Image source: AFP video screenshot)

The chants were accompanied by burning American and Israeli flags, and Stars of David. This all is occurring in a country that is presided over by the so-called "moderate" president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani and his foreign minister, Javad Zarif; both continue to argue that Iran is a constructive state actor, does not hold hostility against any country, and that Tehran is looking to improve ties with the West and the international community -- so long as Iran's objectives are met.

The State Department's reaction is classic: ignoring these developments and continuing with appeasement policies. State Department spokesman Mark Toner stated that the White House is not going to change its policies towards Iran:
"Like any country, there's heated political rhetoric that comes out, and I'm just not going to respond to every instance of that in this case. No one likes to see this kind of hyper-charged rhetoric on the part of any government anywhere, and anti-American sentiments expressed. But again, we're not going to base our whole relationship going forward ... on these kind of heated political remarks."
However, these large-scale anti-American demonstrations are not rhetoric, but are the cornerstone of Iran's revolutionary principles and foreign policies, which manifest themselves in Iran's support for terrorist proxies, support for Assad's regime, and the scuttling of US and Israeli foreign policies in the region.

In fact, alleging crimes against the US plays very well within the political establishment of Iran. For example, one of the hostage takers who occupied the US embassy, Masoumeh Ebtekar, has climbed the political ladder remarkably. She was first the editor-in-chief of Keyhan International, an Iranian state-owned newspaper, and close advisor to the Supreme Leader. Later she was appointed as the head of the Environment Protection Organization of Iran during the "reformist" administration of President Mohammad Khatami. Afterwards the "moderate" President Rouhani appointed her as the Vice President of Iran, the first woman to serve such position.

The Agence France-Presse (AFP) news agency scored an interview with her during the "Death to America" rally. She boasted about taking US hostages and US documents from the embassy: "Revealing these documents was very similar to what WikiLeaks is doing these days. It was the WikiLeaks of that time." According to the AFP,
"She now regrets the diplomatic isolation that followed the embassy siege, but she is still proud of their work in releasing documents found in the CIA's files -- some painstakingly reassembled after embassy staff frantically shredded as many as possible when the students stormed the building."
Many other Iranian officials who were engaged in attacks against the US currently serve in high positions.

Hossein Salami, who enjoys one of these high-level positions, is the deputy commander in chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). He stated at the rally, in reference to the role of the IRGC in the bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon, "In 1983, the flames of Islamic revolution flared among Lebanese youth for the first time, and in a courageous act, a young Muslim buried 260 United States Marines under the rebels east of Mediterranean Sea."

Last week, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reasserted his stance against the US more firmly, saying, "The US system is far away from values of humanity, death to America means death to a system which has nothing to do with humanitarian values." Khamenei also dismissed diplomacy with the United States, arguing that these negotiations "will not resolve our problems... We should resolve the problems ourselves and with reliance on our capabilities and the young forces inside the country."

Iran's anti-American policies are buttressed and supported by Iran's powerful military institutions, domestic militia groups such as the Basij, Iran's proxies such as Hezbollah, and the hundreds of thousands of people who join these kinds of "Death to America" demonstrations. Iranian leaders evidently enjoy powerful loyalist employees and supporters.

As a passionate protestor told the Euronews, "We are here to chant slogans, and our slogans are a strong punch in the face of America. America can never touch our country, and as our leader said, America can't do a damn thing."

In addition, Hossain Salami, the acting commander of the IRGC, pointed out at the rally that: "America should know that if they do not honor their agreement in the nuclear deal, we will resume uranium enrichment and send the agreement ... to the museum."

Accordingly, "crowds chanted support for the Syrian government and other Shiite Muslim-led regimes in the Middle East, saying, "We will never give it up."

For eight years, Washington pursued total appeasement policies with Iran. The four rounds of crippling UN Security Council sanctions, which took decades to put in place, were lifted immediately. Iran's ballistic missile ambitions and test firings of missiles, in violation of the UN resolutions, were ignored. The expanding militaristic role of the Revolutionary Guard was taken lightly.

None of these appeasement policies changed the political calculations of Iranian leaders towards the US and Israel. In fact, based on these developments, Iranian leaders became more emboldened and empowered, to the extent that they repeatedly harass naval ships of the world's superpower without fearing any repercussions. Iran uses its proxies to attack US ships.

"Death to America" and Iran's anti-American policies will not change if the US continues to appease Iranian leaders. For Iran, appeasement policies do not mean diplomatic initiatives; concessions mean only weakness.

  • Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, political scientists and Harvard University scholar is president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He can be reached at


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Canada: Parliament Condemns Free Speech - Judith Bergman

by Judith Bergman

In what parallel universe can the efforts of the OIC to stifle free speech possibly be considered advancement of freedom of speech and religion?

  • "Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning." — Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. Majzoub is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS "does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam" now to be considered an "Islamophobe"?
  • The question, naturally, is whether Canada's motion will be replicated in other parliaments in the West. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is particularly active in Europe, having opened a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union in 2013.
  • As the OIC steps up its media campaign and efforts in Europe, European parliaments are likely to experience initiatives like the petition in Canada. The European Union, for one, looks as if it would be to happy facilitate such a motion.
On October 26, Canada's parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion, which was the result of a petition initiated by Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. The petition garnered almost 70,000 signatures.

According to the text of the petition,
"Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada; and these violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world. We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia".
The Parliament of Canada, in Ottawa. (Image source: Saffron Blaze/Wikimedia Commons)

While a motion will have no legal effect unless it is passed as a bill, the symbolic effect of the Canadian parliament unanimously condemning "all forms of Islamophobia," without making the slightest attempt at defining what is meant by "Islamophobia," can only be described, at best, as alarming.

What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS "does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam" now to be considered an "Islamophobe"?

No one knows, and it is doubtful whether the members of the Canadian parliament know what it means themselves. It would seem, however, that the initiator of the petition, Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Samer Majzoub, knows. This is what he had to say in an interview with the Canadian Muslim Forum after the motion passed:
"Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning ... We need to continue working politically and socially and with the press. They used to doubt the existence of Islamophobia, but now we do not have to worry about that; all blocs and political figures, represented by Canada's supreme legislative authority, have spoken of that existence. In the offing, we need to get policy makers to do something, especially when it comes to the Liberals, who have shown distinct openness regarding Muslims and all ethnicities... All of us must work hard to maintain our peaceful, social and humanitarian struggle so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive policies."
Whereas the Canadian parliamentarians seem entirely unaware of what Muslim organizations have in store for them in terms of "comprehensive policies", it is clear that to the parliamentarians, the motion constitutes "virtue-signaling" at its worst. Whereas the parliamentarians might now feel good about themselves, does their vote mean that those Canadians who dare to criticize Islam and disagree vehemently with the premises of the motion are likely to be considered (even more) beyond the pale of civilized society? Does it mean that only one view is correct and that any view that differs from it will now be, by default, incorrect -- if not criminal?

It will almost certainly deter people from speaking up, for fear that they will be labeled "racists" or "Islamophobes" by arbitrarily creating a threatening atmosphere of political correctness, where those who do not adhere to the groupthink are shamed and ostracized. Such strangulation of opinion also cannot be beneficial to any country's national security. How can anyone warn the authorities about virtually anything if they have to worry first that their warning might be considered "Islamophobic"?

There were, of course, no parallel motions in Canada's parliament to condemn "Christianophobia" or "Judeophobia," the latter being much more prevalent than "Islamophobia." In fact, according to statistics, Jewish Canadians are more than 10 times as likely to be the victim of a hate crime than Muslim Canadians.

It was exactly this kind of toxic, politically correct atmosphere in the United States that enabled Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, to gun down 13 people and to wound 29 others in the Fort Hood massacre in 2009. His former classmate, Lt. Col. Val Finnell, told Fox news at the time that, despite Hasan's suspicious behavior, such as giving a presentation justifying suicide bombings, nothing was done about Hasan to see if he might be a security risk. Instead, he was treated with kid gloves. "The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody's religious belief, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit", said Lt. Col. Finnell.

In December 2015, a man who had been working in the area where the San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook lived told CBS Los Angeles that,
"he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people. "We sat around lunch thinking, 'What were they doing around the neighborhood?'" he said.
The fear of being labeled an "Islamophobe" is real and has had lethal consequences. It is this fear that the Canadian parliament has now elevated into a parliamentary motion, signaling that this sentiment is shared by the highest echelons in the country, those who make the laws.

A democratic parliament presumably should not be cowing its citizens into silence. The term "bullying" comes to mind. Parliamentary bullying and reckless disregard of the freedom of speech should have no place in a society that cares about the values of freedom and national security. Canada has already seen, to its disgrace, attacks on free speech against Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, among others. Is this the country Canada wishes to become?

The motion is reminiscent of the US House Resolution 569, "Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States," which was introduced in the House of Representatives on December 17, 2015. This Resolution is more detailed than the short condemnation of Islamophobia from the Canadian parliament, but the essence of both appears to be the same: Criticism of Islam or of Muslims is wrong and should be condemned, if not outright criminalized.

In condemning "all forms of Islamophobia", Canada's parliament has in effect done everything the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) -- consisting of 56 Muslim states plus "Palestine" -- could wish for. Fighting "Islamophobia" is at the very top of the agenda of this organization, which is headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The OIC is aggressively promoting the so-called Istanbul Process, which aims to forbid all criticism of Islam and make this ban a part of international law.

Ironically, the Saudi Arabian flag flew on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on November 2, as Canadian public officials met with a so-called "human rights" commission from Saudi Arabia. This commission publicly supported Saudi Arabia's mass executions in January 2016, in which 47 people were executed by the authorities, saying that they "enforce justice, fulfill ... legitimate and legal requirements, and protect the society and its security and stability". That, apparently, is not problematic in the eyes of Canadian parliamentarians.
As recently as October 24, the General Secretariat of the OIC held a meeting "to review the media strategy for countering Islamophobia". The meeting was scheduled to:
"discuss the OIC media strategy and ways to counter Islamophobia in light of the recent developments and hate campaigns in different parts of the world, especially with the increasing number of Muslim refugees in Western countries and the mounting hate discourse in a manner that causes serious concern. The meeting aims to come up with clear and practical mechanisms for a counter-Islamophobia media campaign that highlights the true noble image of Islamic and contributes to halting the ongoing deliberate defamatory campaigns waged in different Western fora".
The question, naturally, is whether Canada's motion will be replicated in other parliaments in the West. The OIC is particularly active in Europe, having opened a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union in 2013. The OIC also recently formed the so-called Contact ‎Group for Muslims in Europe, whose formation was announced at the OIC Istanbul Summit in April 2016, and includes Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, Somalia, Malaysia and Jordan.

The establishment of the OIC Contact Group for Muslims in Europe
"aims at ensuring the effective cooperation between the relevant parties, in order to lay out strategies to eliminate hate speech, physical assault, practices of intolerance, prejudice, racial discrimination and Islamophobia, and to support intercultural dialogue and social inclusion.‎ Further, the Group ‎can be a platform through which Muslims from various nationalities can exchange experiences, define best practices, with a view to increase Muslim participation in the political and social life in Europe". [emphasis added]
The EU apparently sees the OIC as a friendly and benevolent organization with shared values. According to the EU's European External Action service (its diplomatic service, which assists the EU's foreign affairs chief):
"The OIC has undergone important changes during the last decade: it made advances in support of freedom of speech and freedom of religion/belief. It enlarged its cooperation to economic, cultural, development and humanitarian fields."
Seriously? In what parallel universe can the efforts of the OIC to stifle free speech possibly be considered advancement of freedom of speech and religion?

As the OIC steps up its media campaign and its efforts in Europe, European parliaments are likely to experience initiatives like the petition in Canada. The European Union, for one, looks as if it would be happy to facilitate such a motion.
Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Identity Politics in America: a Post-Mortem - Michelle Malkin

by Michelle Malkin

What eight years of President Obama's "post-racial" reign have wrought.

Here is what eight years of President Obama's "post-racial" reign have wrought.

The weekend before Election Day, Hillary Clinton grinned from ear to ear at a Cleveland rally while reciting a verse from Jay-Z's remix of Young Jeezy's "My President is Black." As the rapper and his Black Lives Matter-promoting wife, Beyonce, beamed on stage nearby, pandersuit-clad Clinton twanged with a stilted accent:

"Remember, Jay memorably said: 'Rosa Parks sat so Martin Luther could walk, and Martin Luther walked so Barack Obama could run, and Barack Obama ran so all the children could fly.'"

This would be comical if not for the noxious cynicism of it all. Clinton may not remember (if she was ever aware in the first place), but the original version of "My President is Black" is a brazen middle finger to nonblack America. Just a few lines after the verse Hillary quoted, the song taunts:

Hello Miss America, hey pretty lady
Red, white, and blue flag, wave for me baby
Never thought I'd say this s—-, baby I'm good
You can keep your p—-, I don't want no more Bush
No more war, no more Iraq
No more white lies, the President is black

So the poster granny for liberal white privilege, groveling for black votes, kissed the rings of celebrity Obama BFFs Jay-Z and Beyonce by parroting an inflammatory anthem laced with profanities and radical racialized gloating.

Could there have been a more perfect beclownment to cap Clinton's phony-baloney "Stronger Together" campaign?

After denigrating millions of Trump supporters as "deplorable" and "irredeemable" earlier this year, Clinton then unctuously confessed on election eve: "I regret deeply how angry the tone of the campaign became."

Note the classic textbook employment of the passive voice to evade personal responsibility.

The good news is that after being blasted as haters by Clinton's hate-filled minions, after being slapped down as racial "cowards" by Clintonite holdover Eric Holder, after being lambasted as "xenophobes" and "nativists" by immigration expansionists in both parties, after enduring a string of faked hate crimes blamed on conservatives, after ceaseless accusations of "Islamophobia" in the wake of jihad attacks on American soil, after baseless accusations of "homophobia" for protesting the government's gay wedding cake coercion, and after mourning a growing list of police officers ambushed and targeted by violent thugs seeking racial vengeance, an undeniable movement of citizens in the 2016 election cycle decided to push back.

When all is said and done, one of the most important cultural accomplishments of Donald Trump's bid will be the platform he created for Americans of all colors, ethnicities, political affiliations, and socioeconomic backgrounds to defy soul-draining identity politics.

Beltway chin-pullers expediently focused on Trump's white and conservative supporters who are rightly sick and tired of social justice double standards. But they ignored the increasingly vocal constituency of hyphen-free, label-rejecting American People Against Political Correctness who don't fit old narratives and boxes.

And the same "Never Trump" pundits and establishment political strategists who gabbed endlessly about the need for "minority outreach" after 2012 were flummoxed by the blacks, gays, Latinos, women and Democrats who rallied behind the GOP candidate.

The most important speech of the 2016 election cycle wasn't delivered by one of the presidential candidates. It came from iconoclastic Silicon Valley entrepreneur/investor and Trump supporter Peter Thiel who best explained the historically significant backlash against the intolerant tolerance mob and phony diversity-mongers.

"Louder voices have sent a message that they do not intend to tolerate the views of one half of the country," he observed at the National Press Club last week. He recounted how the gay magazine The Advocate, which had once praised him as a "gay innovator," declared he was "not a gay man" anymore because of his libertarian, limited-government politics.

"The lie behind the buzzword of diversity could not be made more clear," Thiel noted. "If you don't conform, then you don't count as diverse, no matter what your personal background."

Trump's eclectic coalition was bound by that common thread: disaffected individuals tired of being told they don't count and discounted because their views do not properly "match" their gender, chromosomes, skin color or ethnicity. That is exactly why the more they and their nominee were demonized, the stronger their support grew.

"No matter what happens in this election," Thiel concluded last week, "what Trump represents isn't crazy and it's not going away." 

He's right. I too often take for granted my own personal awakening about the entrenched tribalism of identity politics at a crazy liberal arts college in the early 1990s. The liberation from collectivist ideology is profound and lasting. Witnessing so many outspoken newcomers arrive at this enlightenment, however circuitous the route, has been the most encouraging and underappreciated phenomenon of the 2016 campaign.

Michelle Malkin


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

J Street mourns, pledges - and boasts - Hillel Fendel

by Hillel Fendel

Sad but combative letter highlights how far removed JStreet is from American and Israeli electorates.

The radical leftist pro-two-state solution organization J Street has released a mournful but combative letter to its mailing list in response to Donald Trump's election. It expresses "grief, anger and despair," and promises to work against much of his platform.

The organization states briefly that it "respect[s] American democracy and the choice the people have made," yet immediately pledges to work to overcome crucial planks of the positions chosen by the American electorate.

Specifically, J Street indicated it would intensify its efforts to fight for the nuclear agreement with Iran, which it claims "has made the US and Israel safer and helped avoid a potential war." This claim is likely true if one considers only the coming decade, whereas its terms actually make war even more likely after that period.

J Street also warned that America's "50-year commitment to the two-state solution will likely be called into question" in the early days of the Trump Administration. The source for this "50-year commitment" is not provided, but in fact, the U.S. first clearly supported two states only in 2002, when Pres. George W. Bush first called for this approach. He carefully conditioned it, however, on several things, beginning with the election of new Palestinian Arab leaders – "leaders not compromised by terror" – and on their building of "a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty."

Neither of these has occurred.

Bush continued, "If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts… When the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East."

The J Street letter states that Jewish voters "overwhelmingly agreed" that Trump is the wrong choice, and that "the vast majority of the Jewish community voted… to stand up against his agenda… We will fight any policy grounded in bigotry and discrimination against Muslims."  That is true only of non-Orthodox and non-affiliated Jewry, which, unfortunately, make up the majority of the Jewish community.

The apathy – or worse – of much the American Jewish non-Orthodox public towards Israel has been apparent for years, and its causes have been analyzed at length. The Israeli Jewish public, on the other hand, has its own approach to its national and historic needs and its security interests. The majority of its voters consistently choose nationalist and security-minded governments to lead them, and reject a conciliatory approach towards Islamic expansionism. 

J Street claims it is the "political home for American Jews and other pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans." Opponents of J Street, who are also pro-Israel and pro-peace, feel it is pro-Palestinian, and therefore, ultimately, pro-war. 

Noteworthy are the following J Street boasts: A record "99 Members of the incoming Congress (over half the Democratic Caucus) and 19 Senators are J Street-endorsed… We supported 124 candidates with a record $3.6 million, raising more through our PAC than nearly all other pro-Israel PACs combined... Not one Member of Congress who we endorsed and who supported the Iran deal lost their seat to a deal opponent. Instead, two of the most persistent opponents of the successful diplomacy that defanged Iran’s nuclear program were defeated." Nothing to be proud of, considering the direction Iran has taken since the deal.

Hillel Fendel, former Senior News Editor for Israel National News, is a resident of Beit El and author of One Thing I Ask on the siddur (Jewish prayer book).


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Trump, Israel and the Middle East - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

A predictive analysis of what Trump's election will mean for the Middle East and the Jews, in Israel and the USA.

Any attempt to assess Donald Trump's Middle East policy faces real difficulties as it is reasonable to assume that he lacks the requisite knowledge, deep understanding and most certainly the experience for dealing with the Middle East, its history, religions, ideologies, trends, the powers that move it, wars that tear it apart, Israel and its issues, and Russian involvement in the terrible catastrophe that is Syria, whose waves are flooding Europe's shores and crossing the Atlantic Ocean.

In addition, the fact is that all through last year's campaign, Trump did not give a clear indication of a comprehensive Middle East policy, with the exception of three pronouncements: his plans to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, his plans to open the Iran Agreement and his insistence on stopping Islamic migration to the US, including Syrian refugees. These pronouncements may have simply been aimed at attracting voters, mainly Jews, but they may also express his real intentions.

That is why I am going to base my predictions for America's Middle East policy for the next few years on the impressions I received during the past year, particularly from listening closely to Trump's speeches at public events that were broadcast by the media.

First of all, the main factor behind Trump's opinions is not information or facts but his gut feelings. This is a typical trait among successful businessmen who feel that they know everything and no one knows better than they, as they say to themselves: "I am a billionaire and my adviser lives on a salary. If he were smarter than I am, he would be the billionaire and I would be earning that salary."

In Trump's campaign speeches he played on his listener's emotions, saying things like "I will make America great again!" and "I will bring back hope to the hearts of Americans!!" "I will stop Islamic migration to the USA!!" - this last declaration taking advantage of the growing anti-Islamic feeling in the USA, partly due to the terror attacks perpetrated by radical Muslims in the US on 9/11, at Ford Hood, Times Square, the Boston Marathon, San Bernardino, Orlando and more. and partly due to what is happening in Europe (unvetted migration, violence in the streets, terror in Paris, Brussels and more) and to the terrible photoraphs that are sent 24/7 from the Middle East.

Politics has many faces and its issues are never black and white, good or bad. Instead, they are composed of a mixture of negative and positive elements. Politics is the "art of the possible," an unending attempt to accentuate the positive and strengthen it, while accepting the negative as part of the rules of the game and an attempt to weaken its influence. The business world, on the other hand, is a world of black and white, good or bad, profit or loss. Here the picture has much more dichotomy, its colors are clear, there is only one bottom line - and it shows either a plus or a minus end result. There are intermediate periods of  balance, but there is no situation of "both this and that."

In business, deals are finalized, while in politics, the process is long, complex,and aimed at objectives that are often not final, not enforced in the end because of political and not business world considerations. Often, businesses have different ethical rules than those of politicians, at least when those rules do not lead to financial success.

The first question regarding Trump has to do with whether he will think like a politician or a businessman. Judging by his repeated pronouncements against the American political establishment, Republican and especially Democrat, it is reasonable to assume that Trump thinks and decides things like a businessman, and that what will guide his decisions are the questions of what he feels is best for America, what strengthens her, what best serves her interests, empowers her economy, creates more jobs, who are her enemies and who are her friends. 

If that is going to be his way of thinking when he turns to the issue of formulating his Middle East policy, it will probably have the following characteristics:

1. The basis for his policy will be branding the sides in the area as "friends and allies" or "enemies." That will bring him back to the terminology used by George W. Bush, who would constantly refer to countries as "our friend and ally,"  a term Obama was careful to avoid, because that made everyone else our "enemy."  My feeling is that Trump will call Israel "our best ally" and possibly keep his promise to move the US  Embassy to Jerusalem. The ideological and mental click between Trump and Netanyahu will create a cordial and warm atmosphere between the two, which will be the basis for an exchange of opinions, a meeting of the minds and cooperation in the deepest sense of the word. Trump will thus repair the situation that sullied US-Israel relations for the past eight years, while Obama lived in the White House.

That aside, there can also be a scenario in which Trump loses his patience and tells Netanyahu something like: "My dear friend, after 50 years of 'occupation' (as some Israelis call it) please be kind enough to sit down with your Arab neighbors and reach an agreement with them, and you have six months to do this. If you don't succeed, at the end of six months I will solve the problem my own way using my own methods, so for your own sake, don't let us get to that point."

Trump could even justify this dictate by pointing out that he moved the embassy to Jerusalem. This "business" approach - recognizing Jerusalem in return for leaving Judea and Samaria will put Israel in a difficult position, especially since both houses of congress are Republican and it does not stand to reason that they would invite Netanyahu to deliver a speech that is in direct disagreement with the president's policies, as they did during Obama's term of office.

Trump will be extremely warm to Egyptian President al Sisi, because Sisi has to deal with Islamist terrorists, Trump's biggest fear. His relations with Saudi Arabia will probably be chilly because of Saudi involvement in 9/11, the money the Saudis invest in spreading Wahabee Islam in the US and other parts of the world and because of Saudi support for terrorists, particularly in Syria.

Trump may try to reach clear understandings with Putin on the Middle East, firstly because Putin is doing the right thing in Trump's opinion, in order to eradicate the Islamist terror that threatens Syria's very existence as a nation state, and also because Putin has already taken the reins in the Middle East, the region Trump sees as a foggy marsh that no normal human being would want to come near. In my opinion, Trump will wish Putin every success in ridding Syria of terrorists, without the need for US interference. If Putin requests aid from the US in his war against ISIS, Trump will be happy to cooperate with him.

Trump has said many times that the nuclear agreement with Iran is a bad one and will try to cancel it. If I were an Iranian Ayatollah, I would begin worrying about Trump's policies and probable attitude to Iran.

And what about the Jews?

Trump's attitude towards US Jewry is complex. On the one hand, he is surrounded by Jews - his daughter Ivanka underwent an Orthodox conversion, his son-in-law is Jewish, and he is also surrounded by Jewish advisers, some of whom wear kippahs without giving it a second thought. Onthe other hand, the Republican party has some voters who speak about Jews as worthy candidates for genocide.

In all fairness, it must be noted that the Democratic party has no shortage of anti-Semites. The last DNC included PLO flags waving outside the convention hall, and former president Jimmy Carter, one of the party's respected figures, published a book whose title calls Israel an apartheid state - implying that it is worthy of disappearing just as South Africa's apartheid regime did.

I am concerned about America's reaction to the fact that Trump is surrounded by Jews, because even if they play no part in the formation of his policies, there will be those who will accuse them of pro-Israel bias and of influencing Trump's policies in that direction. We have already seen people accusing the Jewish Lobby, during the days of George W. Bush, of running US foreign policy and of instigating the Iraq War (2003). There are even two academics who published a book about it. Trump's time in the White House may unleash the same anti-Jewish genies from the bottle.  

And one last point: There are approximately two months until Trump enters the White House, on the afternoon of January 20, 2017. President Obama has full presidential authority up to that date and can make decisions that create a problematic reality for Israel and Trump, such as a UN Security Council decision recognizing a Palestinian State whose capital is Jerusalem. I suspect that there are those, such as J Street, who will respond to Trumps' victory by trying their utmost to get Obama to recognize a Palestinian State whose capital is Jerusalem while he still can. Israel will need all its diplomatic skills and all its real friends in the USA and the world to prevent this from happening. 

My blessings and best wishes to Donald J. Trump from here for a successful presidency.

Written for Arutz Sheva, translated by Rochel Sylvetsky, Arutz Sheva Op-ed and Judaism editor.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. He served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. Thoroughly familiar with Arab media in real time, he is frequently interviewed on the various news programs in Israel.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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