Friday, March 3, 2017

Soros’s Smear Scripts - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

Welcome to the vast, mega-financed leftist astroturf campaign against President Trump.

A radical group linked to rogue billionaire George Soros has been providing scripts containing anti-Trump talking points for constituents to read aloud during congressional town hall meetings.

One of the scripts distributed by the Revolutionary Love Project encourages town hall participants meeting with their member of Congress to accuse the Trump administration of – wait for it – “xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia.” Constituents are urged to use those precise words to “forcefully condemn” President Trump’s immigration and border security initiatives, Aaron Klein reports at Breitbart News.

Information about the scripts came as leaked audio from anti-Trump activists associated with the group Indivisible surfaced. Their target was a town hall hosted by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). They planned to deploy an “inside team” to occupy as many seats as possible and an “outside team” to “give [the media] the coverage they want.” Activists were urged to “dress like conservatives” and avoid “any signifier that you’re a liberal” so they could dominate the meeting.

“Game plan number one is to fill as many seats as we can, right? If it’s all of us in there and the poor people of Breaux Bridge are sitting behind us, well then tough luck for them,” James Proctor of Indivisible reportedly said.

“If we can arrange it so he doesn’t hear one sympathetic question–great. That only magnifies our impact,” he added.

This is a standard, old-time organizing technique used by followers of Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky.

It has another name in politics: astroturfing.

Meanwhile, the Revolutionary Love Project states on its website that its supporters “resist all policies, actions, and rhetoric that put people in harm's way,” and “fight for justice through the ethic of love -- love for others, our opponents, and ourselves.” This language is reminiscent of communist revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara’s famous statement that “the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.”

Among the leftists who have signed the group’s “declaration” promising “to rise up in Revolutionary Love” are Van Jones, the Rev. Dr. William Barber, Melissa Harris-Perry, Jane Fonda, former Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter (D), Black Lives Matter co-founder Opal Tometi, Linda Sarsour, and Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum.

The script, which is titled, “#NoBanNoWallNoRaids Talking Points for Congressional Townhalls,” may be viewed here.

As Klein notes,
The anti-Trump script for activists is meant to aid a project driven by the George Soros-funded group declaring the week of February 18-26 – the first congressional recess of the 115th Congress – to be “Resistance Recess.”
The project called on activists to show up at “elected officials’ events, town halls, and other public appearances to make it clear to those who represent us in Congress, as well as to the media, that tolerance of the Trump Administration’s hurtful policies is intolerable, that indifference or idleness is not acceptable, that complacency is politically toxic.”
A mass email sent by the Revolutionary Love Project asked supporters to repeat the script’s talking points to “voice your concern” during town hall meetings.

Klein provides an excerpt of the script:
Stage 1: Who You Are. My name is ______ and I’m a resident of _______. Add a description of your connection to the community.
Stage 2: Your Concerns. I am particularly concerned about the Administration’s efforts to target and criminalize immigrants, refugees and people entering our country from Muslim-majority countries. I want you as a representative of our district to understand the impact of Trump’s executive orders and to take action.
At the end of the script, Avideh Moussavian of the National Immigration Law Center and Deepa Iyer of the Center for Social Inclusion are listed as contacts. According to the Foundation Search database both groups are funded by Soros’s philanthropic organs.

The National Immigration Law Center has taken in $4.6 million from Soros since 2004, while the Center for Social Inclusion has received $475,000 since 2012.

The Center for Social Inclusion teaches Democrat members of Congress how to lie about and smear their adversaries.

Then-trainer Maya Wiley, who worked for Soros’s philanthropies and as counsel to New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, instructed lawmakers in using “the issue of race to defend government programs.” Rhetoric used by conservatives and free-market enthusiasts is consciously or unconsciously racially coded, she taught, and needed to be overcome with anger.

“It’s emotional connection, not rational connection that we need,” she said. For example, Wiley offered that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calling Barack Obama a “food stamp president,” cannot be “a race-neutral statement, even if Newt Gingrich did not intend racism.” In other words, all criticism of the leftist 44th president by definition has to be rooted in racism.

Moussavian acknowledged to Breitbart that his group “contributed” to the script “in response to overwhelming concern and fear stemming from the January 27th executive order that sought to ban the entry of refugees and Muslims and in response to mounting questions from community members about how to express these concerns to policy makers.”

In reality Executive Order 13769, which has been enjoined by the courts, temporarily banned visitors from seven terrorism-plagued Muslim countries while shoddy security screening processes could be reconsidered, and did not exclude Muslims as such from the United States. The president is expected to issue a new, more narrowly tailored executive order, or perhaps multiple executive orders, in coming days.

The National Immigration Law Center is a party to one of the lawsuits filed to block EO 13769.

Asawin Suebsaeng wrote a month ago in the Daily Beast that professional community organizers began putting together the Trump-resistance operation on Nov. 9, the day after the election.
From the moment Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the general election, they’ve been anticipating and mapping out their battle plans for Trump’s orders on deportations, bans, and detention.
So when you heard about a large crowd at an airport in the past few days yelling catchy slogans like “F--K TRUMP, F--K PENCE, THIS COUNTRY’S BUILT ON IMMIGRANTS,” it was no “spontaneous” outpouring of support. It was the result of a lot of unseen work and man hours.
Groups like Make the Road New York, which has received $1 million from Soros since 2001, generated a 15,000-strong anti-Trump protest in Manhattan the Sunday after the election, he reports. Their message to the president-elect was, “We will not let you tear our families apart.”

After Trump signed the executive order the Left dishonestly calls a “Muslim ban,” Make the Road’s director of civic engagement and research, Daniel Altschuler, went to work arranging demonstrations at a New York airport.

“This is [a] man who actually won on a campaign of hate and xenophobia and sexism … We knew we had to respond rapidly,” Altschuler said. “Folks on our organizing team and communications team were poised to respond rapidly because of what we do … We went out to the airport immediately on Saturday. I was en route to the airport around 11:30 a.m.… We were on the phone with other groups, saying, ‘Bring your people to JFK, bring your friends to JFK.’”

Suebsaeng lists other groups involved in protesting Trump, like the New York Immigration Coalition, which has received $550,000 in Soros grants since 1999, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice, which received $1.2 million in Soros grants since 2012.

New York Communities for Change has also been involved in resisting the Trump administration, including the actions at JFK Airport.

There was “a domino effect of rapid mobilization,” said Renata Pumarol, NYCC’s communications director. “And going forward, we have our plans in place to resist Trump … and pressuring corporate Dems to resist every appointment, every aspect of Trump’s agenda.”

NYCC is, of course, a direct successor group to the now-defunct and disgraced Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which Soros funded. Until fairly recently, NYCC had office space in ACORN’s old headquarters in Brooklyn.

President Trump called out his predecessor for meddling this week. Accusing Obama of being “behind” the town hall protests and maybe the leaks coming out of the White House, too. A New York Times article from yesterday stated that in the dying days of the Obama administration officials “spread information” about the alleged Russian tampering in the election and supposed ties between that country and Trump associates “across the government.”

Obama’s huge, well-funded agitation outfit, Organizing for Action, has been on the front lines attacking Trump in order to defend the Obama administration’s awful legacy. Both Organizing for Action and Soros-funded MoveOn have been leading the way in packing town hall meetings with unruly protesters.

Obama has rented a $5.3 million, 8,200-square-foot, walled mansion in Washington’s Embassy Row that he is using to command his community organizing cadres in the war against President Trump. Obama’s alter ego, Valerie Jarrett, has reportedly moved into the house to help out. Jarrett also resided in the White House when Obama was president.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder said this week that the former president will soon return to the national spotlight. “It's coming. He's coming,” the nearly-impeached former cabinet member said. “And he's ready to roll.”

Indeed he is.

Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Why Israel’s Border Fence Worked - Gideon Israel

by Gideon Israel

The security barrier was key, but there's more to the story.

Reprinted from

From the outset of his campaign, President Trump declared that if elected he would construct a wall along the southern border of the United States to stop illegal immigration. While his intention to build a wall has elicited support, it has also generated criticism pertaining to its effectiveness and justification. Those who support construction of the wall and its effectiveness cite Israel’s example as proof. On the surface, the drastic decrease in illegal immigration to Israel after the security fence’s construction supports this assertion. However, a closer look at the situation shows that there were other factors in reducing illegal immigration which were equally important.
Illegal immigration to Israel from Africa became a major problem beginning in 2007. Until then, approximately 2,700 illegal immigrants had entered Israel through the Egyptian border in the previous decades. Between the years 2007-2012, approximately 61,000 illegal immigrants entered Israel through the Egyptian border, the overwhelming majority coming from Eritrea and Sudan. The border fence was completed in December 2012 and the numbers of illegal immigrants dropped from 10,431 in 2012 to less than 150 in 2013. Furthermore, illegal immigrants entering between 2013-2016 were consistently lower than 150, only with a slight rise in 2015 to 232.
The correlation between these statistics and construction of the border fence indicate that the fence has successfully done the job. However, experts on the subject comment that the other Israeli actions were just as important.

Source: Israeli government 

A major problem

The problem of illegal immigration is not only an economic issue but it has also had a devastating effect on some Israeli communities.
Arik Greenstein, deputy editor for MIDA, has written extensively about the negative impact that illegal immigrants have had on south Tel Aviv residents. The influx of illegal immigrants has changed the fabric of what was once a tight knit, warm community. Many residents have moved due to fear and lawlessness. In addition, fear of rape, assault, theft and other crimes have made mundane activities, such as teens walking around after dark, or adults going for a morning jog, nonexistent. Some residents, unable to move due to old age or cost, have become prisoners in their own homes. In these old apartment buildings where residents have lived for decades, illegal immigrants have opened up whorehouses and pirate alcohol factories resulting in constant noise and disruption with no recourse for the buildings’ residents. Additionally, residents have seen their electric and water bills skyrocket, at times, due to makeshift pipes that illegal immigrants have connected to the outside of residents’ homes, thereby stealing electricity and water.
In a 2015 survey conducted for the Israeli police, only 38% of South Tel Aviv residents felt secure when outside their homes after nightfall, only 43% felt safe to even leave their homes at night, and the overall feeling of personal security in the area was 53%. The number of criminal acts reported to the police involving foreigners in Israel has risen since 2006 from 1,779 to approximately 2,600-3,500 cases each year between the years 2011-2015.  Foreigners in Israel include not only illegal immigrants, but also foreign workers, tourists and Palestinians.
At the height of the illegal immigration in 2009, Assistant Commissioner [currently Commissioner] of Israel’s Prison Service, Ofra Klinger, published a comprehensive report on the issue, illustrating that the motivation for immigration from Africa was economic.  She showed that immigration usually occurred when weather conditions allowed for extensive walking through the Sinai desert, and that more than 80% of those who immigrated were men above the age of 18, who migrated without their family. This latter fact supports the claim that those migrating were not refugees fleeing for their lives, but rather individuals seeking work in Israel, who hoped to eventually bring their family to Israel after earning enough money.  Klinger also claimed that building a fence would not be enough, and that the State of Israel had to create conditions which would make illegal immigration less attractive. These included ceasing to grant work permits to foreign workers, thus making it more difficult for illegal immigrants to receive healthcare and permanent status.
Klinger’s claim was supported by Yochi Gnessin, the senior state lawyer working on illegal immigrant issues. She explained:
Until 2007, the State of Israel did not grant work permits for illegal immigrants. In 2007, without consent of the government and in defiance of its decision, 2,200 work permits were granted to illegal immigrants to work in Eilat hotels, and after that another few hundred were granted, again in defiance of the government. Subsequently, the amount of illegal migrants increased threefold. The stats are clear, when Israel grants work permits to illegal migrants, it increases the flow.
Furthermore, Gnessin mentioned that it has been a combination of legislation, amendments and a border fence which has successfully curbed illegal immigration.

Solving the Problem

The border fence spanning along the Egyptian border is approximately 153 miles long. The northern part of the fence begins in the area of Israel’s border with Gaza, and reaches Eilat in the south.  This part of the fence was finished in December 2012 at a cost of roughly $370 million. The last 10 miles of the fence, situated in a mountainous area in Eilat, was completed a year later in December 2013 at an additional cost of roughly $52 million. The height of the fence in most areas is 16.5 feet, but in a specific area, ranging about 10 miles, the fence was raised to a height of 26 feet after some groups of illegal immigrants succeeded in crossing above the fence in 2015. This adjustment to the fence was finished in January 2017.
In addition to the fence, new legislation and amendments to existing legislation have been implemented to curb illegal immigration and provide incentives to illegal immigrants residing in Israel to leave. One law, passed in 2013, prevents illegal immigrants from transferring remittances out of the country, however, this is difficult to enforce. A new and innovative law, initiated by a local NGO, the ‘Israeli Immigration Policy Center’ (IIPC), and passed by the Knesset, requires employers of illegal immigrants to deposit 20 percent of their salary in a government fund, which illegal immigrants can only retrieve upon departing from Israel.   Before these laws were passed, illegal immigrants would often send money to their family members in Africa who used that money to pay agents to assist them in reaching and illegally entering Israel.  Another measure offers illegal immigrants $3,500 cash and a [one-way] plane ticket to leave Israel to their homeland or to another country.
Amendments to the current ‘Anti Infiltration Law’ include allowing the government to hold illegal immigrants in administrative detention for up to three months in a closed detention center and up to twelve months in an open detention center, where they are required to sign in daily.  However, in these detainment centers, the Israeli government still supplies basic services such as room and board, education, social workers/psychologists and basic health services.  Israel does not cover illegal immigrants under the national health insurance law, nor does the Welfare Ministry grant them most services given to Israeli citizens. These policies and amendments are geared to discourage illegal immigrants from attempting to enter Israel, and to prevent conditions that will facilitate illegal immigrants currently in Israel from settling in Israel.
Yonatan Jakubowicz, public relations director at the IIPC, points out that a closer look at the statistics shows that implementation of the ‘Anti Infiltration Law’, beginning at the end of May 2012, played a significant role in reducing the number of illegal immigrants infiltrating the country. “Out of the 10,431 entries in 2012, 9,036 entered through the end of June, whereas in the second half of the year only 1,400, a near 85% drop. This decrease in the second half of 2012 occurred even though the fence had not yet been completed along the main infiltration routes, which was only completed in December, 2012.” Since 2013, 14,500 illegal immigrants have left Israel on their own volition, but there still remain 41,000, not including children that have been born to Eritrean parents while in Israel.
Thus, as seen, Israel has applied a three prong approach to curbing illegal immigration from Africa. The border fence was constructed to make entering Israel as difficult as possible, and allow authorities to catch those attempting to infiltrate. Second, Israel has implemented legislation geared towards discouraging potential illegal immigrants from paying large sums of money and risking their lives to reach Israel. Third, for illegal immigrants currently in Israel, the government has implemented laws which make it difficult for them to become permanent residents and access services granted to citizens, as well as not allowing them to transfer their savings out of the country and the government withholding access to part of their salary unless they leave.

Gideon Israel is co-head of the Jerusalem Washington Center and can be contacted at


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Islamic Society of North America’s Destructive Agenda - John Perazzo

by John Perazzo

… and its ties to a number of leading Democrats.

FrontPage Editor's note: Below is the fourth installment in a series of articles highlighting the network of major hate groups in America that are supported and funded by the Left. Click the following for the previous profiles on the Souther Poverty Law CenterStudents for Justice in Palestine and the New Black Panther Party

A number of major Democrats have cultivated highly significant ties to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). For example: Congressman Keith Ellison (Minnesota), who narrowly lost in his bid to become DNC chairman a few days ago, has spoken at ISNA’s massive national conferences on a number of occasions. Congressman Andre Carson (Indiana) has received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from ISNA-affiliated donors, as have Keith Ellison, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. And ISNA president Mohamed Magid was a key figure in Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security, where he was authorized to train and advise personnel affiliated with the FBI and other federal agencies.

Yet most Americans are entirely unaware of just how subversive and anti-American the Islamic Society of North America is.

ISNA was established in July 1981 by U.S-based members of the Muslim Brotherhood who also had been leaders of the Muslim Students Association (MSA). Muslim Brothers would dominate ISNA's leadership throughout the Society's early years, when it was highly dependent upon Saudi funding. ISNA's founding mission was “to advance the cause of Islam and serve Muslims in North America so as to enable them to adopt Islam as a complete way of life.” Today ISNA is the largest Muslim organization on the continent. Its annual conferences routinely draw 30,000 to 40,000 attendees.

When ISNA was incorporated on July 14, 1981, its headquarters were located at the same address as those of the MSA. Eventually, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF)—the U.S.-based financing wing of Hamas—would share the address as well.

One of ISNA's key founders in 1981 was Sami Al-Arian, who subsequently became the North American leader of the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad.  He was indicted by the Justice Department in 2003, was held under house arrest for several years, and finally was deported in 2015.

Another ISNA co-founder was Muzammil Siddiqi, who went on to serve two terms (1997-2001) as ISNA president and continues to sit on the organization's governing board. Siddiqi has praised Islamic suicide bombers as “those who die on the part of justice” and consequently reside “with the Lord” in a place of “the highest honor.” Moreover, he has defined jihad as “the path” and “the way [for Muslims] to receive the honor.”

Yet another prominent founding member of ISNA was Mahboob Khan, who in 1983 helped establish the California-based Muslim Community Association, which at least twice hosted and raised money for Ayman al-Zawahiri, who would later go on to become al Qaeda's second-in-command.

In November 1987, ISNA established its own Political Awareness Committee headed by Abdurahman Alamoudi, a Muslim Brotherhood operative who in 2004 would be convicted on terrorism-related charges and sentenced to 23 years in prison.

Declassified FBI memos indicate that ISNA was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front as early as 1987, and a 1988 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood document bluntly identified ISNA as part of the “apparatus of the Brotherhood.” Further, ISNA was explicitly named in a May 1991 memorandum as an ally that shared the Brotherhood's goal of destroying America and turning it into a Muslim nation by means of a “grand Jihad.”

ISNA leadership rejects all practices and social mores that fail to comport with the Wahhabist vision of Islam propagated by Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood. For instance, Muzzamil Siddiqi calls homosexuality “a moral disorder,” “a moral disease,” “a sin,” and a “corruption” that merits the death penalty.

ISNA plays a major role in providing Wahhabi theological indoctrination materials to a large percentage of the mosques in North America. As such, it is able to influence the nature of the sermons given in those mosques, the selection of reading materials that are available in mosque libraries and  bookstores, and the policies governing the exclusion of dissenters from any given congregation. Kaukab Siddique, a Lincoln University professor who has called for the destruction of Israel, avers that “ISNA controls most mosques in America and thus also controls who will speak at every Friday prayer, and which literature will be distributed there.”

ISNA’s central tenet is Jew hatred. On May 24, 1998, ISNA was one of 11 organizations that sponsored a Brooklyn College event where the Egyptian cleric Wagdy Ghoniem spoke about the “infidelity,” “stealth,” and “deceit” of the Jews, and referred to Jews as “descendants of the apes.”  Three years later, when the U.S. government designated the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) as a terrorist organization, ISNA, which had raised money for the group, complained that HLF was being unfairly “targeted” by “pro-Israel organizations and individuals.”  In December 2003, U.S. Senators Charles Grassley and Max Baucus of the Senate Committee on Finance listed ISNA as one of 25 American Muslim organizations that “finance terrorism and perpetuate violence.”

During its 2006 national convention, guest speaker Kamran Memon rationalized al Qaeda's terrorist activities as understandable reactions to provocative American policies overseas: “Some Muslims in the Muslim world decided that they were just not going to take it anymore. They were angry at our ongoing support from their enemies, so they began to attack American targets to pressure our government to change its foreign policy.”

At ISNA's  convention a year later in Illinois, Parvez Ahmed of the Council on American-Islamic Relations defended the jihadist activities and agendas of Hamas and Hezbollah as “legitimate.”  And at ISNA's 2008 convention, a guest speaker lauded the “amazing work” that Hamas was doing to promote education and health care in the West Bank.

Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, assesses ISNA as follows: “ISNA … officials refuse to condemn both [Hamas and Hezbollah], will not label either as terrorist organizations, but instead refer to Hamas favorably as the 'democratically-elected Palestinian government.' ISNA studiously ignores the Hamas Charter—a virulently anti-Semitic tract which states that 'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it'—and the fact that violent jihad is a core principal of Hamas and Hezbollah.”

The truly incredible fact that ISNA’s president occupied a seat on Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security speaks volumes of the utter contempt in which Obama holds the United States and Israel alike.

John Perazzo is the managing editor of


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The media’s descent into partisan madness - Matthew M. Hausman

by Matthew M. Hausman, J.D.

The media failed in its constitutional mission by not covering Obama’s administration critically, and continues to fail as it behaves like an opposition party against Trump.

The press has been having a field day with Donald Trump since before his inauguration, magnifying every misstep, exploiting every controversy, and packaging its indignation as straight news in the apparent belief that its job is to delegitimize his presidency.  Granted, Mr. Trump’s unfiltered use of twitter, penchant for audacious statements, and tendency to discredit rather than dialogue have provided his critics with plenty of ammunition; but the one constant seems to be the media’s refusal to forgive any miscues or consider reasonable interpretations for any of his statements or policies.  Its relentless treatment of Trump contrasts with the fawning sycophancy it displayed during the administration of his predecessor, who was spared from any probing scrutiny or objective criticism. 

Even before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, mainstream reporters strained to brand his incoming administration as bigoted and racist.  They attempted, for example, to characterize his Chief White House Strategist, Steve Bannon, as an anti-Semite – despite Bannon’s public record of support for Israel and opposition to anti-Jewish boycotts.  Though some progressive Jewish organizations initially echoed these sentiments, they retracted their comments after prominent liberals like Alan Dershowitz stated there was nothing in Bannon’s background to suggest he bore any animosity towards Jews or Israel

If mainstream journalists and commentators were honestly troubled by the scourge of anti-Semitism after Trump’s election, one must wonder why they expressed no concern during Mr. Obama’s eight years in office.  Why did they ignore Obama’s longstanding relationships with Israel bashers and progressive anti-Semites?  Where was their outrage over the Jew-hatred on display in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (“BDS”) and Israel Apartheid Week movements?  Or the left’s use of repugnant stereotypes to demonize Israel and her supporters?  Or the anti-Jewish rhetoric and intimidation that have become commonplace on North American college campuses?  

The media’s faux indignation over allegations of anti-Semitism was matched only by its fatuous efforts to characterize Trump as a fascist by rewriting history.  More than a few liberal pundits have likened Trump and his supporters to Nazis, claiming that just like Hitler, Trump was elected by a radical and extreme electorate.  Such comparisons show profound ignorance, however, in that (a) Hitler was never elected to office (he was appointed chancellor after losing the only election he ever ran), and (b) many of Trump’s views are not so different from the mainstream, as indicated by a number public opinion polls. 

Ironically, it was American progressives who viewed fascism favorably in the 1930s because of their shared affinity for secular statism and social engineering. 

The press represents itself as the innocent victim of a Trump vendetta and counts on his outrageousness to validate the narrative of its victimhood.  Though he might be combative, it does not mean his distrust of the media is unwarranted – particularly given its role in fomenting hysteria against him and blurring the line between editorial and fact.  The coverage regarding his first executive order imposing a temporary travel ban was indicative of reporters who engage in political activism instead of objective reportage.   

On January 27, 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13769, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (since blocked in court), which would have imposed a ninety-day ban on travel from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, seven high-terror nations as identified by the Obama administration.  Hysterical media critics dubbed it a “Muslim ban” and proclaimed it unlawful, though the President has both constitutional and statutory authority to promulgate such orders, and extraterritorial foreign nationals have no rights under the U.S. Constitution.

The executive order could not have effectuated a Muslim ban as media reports claimed, however, because it applied to only seven out of fifty-seven Muslim nations.  The litmus test for its application was not religion or ethnicity, but origination from any of the seven nations identified.  Nevertheless, opponents claimed the ban’s intent was to target Islam, with some scaremongers characterizing it as the first step toward confining Muslims to internment camps.  Such claims were outrageous, particularly considering the Obama administration imposed a six-month travel ban with the approval of Congressional Democrats in 2011.  Where were the protests then?

Though the rollout of Executive Order 13769 was flawed and its scope too broad (it would have included resident aliens with green cards), its purpose was to prevent terrorism and protect the homeland – priorities that are clearly within the president’s purview.  However, Trump’s naysayers engaged in disinformation when they said he had no authority to sign the order or that no other president had ever done so. 

Taking a page from Obama’s playbook, some opponents of the travel ban attempted to obfuscate the connection between terrorism and radical Islam and minimized the impact of terrorist attacks on American soil.  Although Press Secretary Sean Spicer was excoriated for claiming that terrorism in the U.S. has been underreported, he had a valid point considering the media’s history of calling it workplace violence, domestic assault, or generic extremism.    

Over the past few years, journalists have described the Orlando massacre as an anti-gay hate crime and the San Bernardino and Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence.  They labeled beheadings and murders of Coptic Christians, apostate Muslims, and Jews in Oklahoma, New Jersey, Texas and Massachusetts as criminal assaults, workplace violence, or violent extremism; and they continue to describe honor killings of Muslim women as domestic crimes.  Though Obama’s policy of apologetics is fading in the rearview, the media continues to call terrorism anything but what it is. 

Establishment reporters are upset over Mr. Trump’s treatment of the White House media corps and his refusal to follow traditional press conference protocol, and they claim he threatens free speech with his confrontational demeanor and preoccupation with fake news.  However, Trump is not the first president to have a contentious relationship with the media; Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln were as combative with the press in their time as Trump is today. 

And a president’s challenge to media credibility is not the same as government restraint of speech.  Regardless of how Trump questions the media’s excesses or impugns its veracity, he is not restricting reporters from writing what they want.  Consequently, he is trampling nobody’s First Amendment rights.  

Those who claim otherwise sounded no alarm when Obama marginalized conservative outlets, especially Fox News, or when his Justice Department threatened reporters with prosecution.  The use of government offices during his administration to monitor and intimidate the press really did implicate the First Amendment. 

None of this should be surprising given the evolution of journalism since the 1960s, when reporters began to inject personal sensibilities into the news and infuse their reporting with a political point of view.  The truth is that journalism was never completely objective because writers have always had opinions.  Still, reporters traditionally strove to suspend their own subjectivity.  With the advent of the “New Journalism,” however, it became acceptable to displace objectivity with literary artifice.  Though this trend was soon jettisoned as an acceptable journalistic standard, it left behind a legacy of editorial tolerance for writers whose reporting reflected their political views – particularly when they promoted liberal politicians, advocated progressive policies, or disparaged Israel. 

Through the First Amendment, America’s founding fathers envisioned a free citizen press that would be independent of government.  They did not anticipate a factional media that would actively promote some administrations and undermine others.  The media’s embarrassingly soft coverage of the Obama White House and adversarial treatment of Trump’s administration show the polar extremes of its partisan dysfunction. 

There’s nothing wrong with criticizing the president and reporting his gaffes, or with publishing opinion and commentary on the editorial page.  Straight news, however, should be reported without venom or spleen.  The media failed in its constitutional mission by not covering Obama’s administration critically, and continues to fail as it behaves like an opposition party against Trump. 

Reporters should never seek to placate their subjects, but neither should they present tendentious advocacy as hard news or neutral analysis.  When public opinion surveys show that many people find Mr. Trump’s tweets more credible sources of information than traditional news outlets, the media should realize it has a problem and correct its behavior accordingly – for the proper functioning of society if not for the sake of its own integrity.  

Matthew M. Hausman, J.D. is a trial attorney and writer who lives and works in Connecticut. A former journalist, Mr. Hausman continues to write on a variety of topics, including science, health and medicine, Jewish issues and foreign affairs, and has been a legal affairs columnist for a number of publications.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Canadian Imams Call for Death of Jews - IPT News

by IPT News

These incidents are the latest in a series of radical statements from Canadian imams.

Some weak excuses are being offered after two Canadian imams attracted media attention for giving incendiary, anti-Semitic sermons.

Ryerson University in Toronto announced it fired Ayman Elkasrawy from his teaching assistant position in the wake of reports he prayed for Allah to "purify" Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque "from the filth of the Jews."

He also prayed that anyone who "displaced" Muslims be destroyed: "Count their number; slay them one by one and spare not one of them, O Allah! Purify Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews!"

The Muslim Association of Canada suspended Elkasrawy, describing him as a "junior employee" whose sermon was "unauthorized." Toronto police are investigating Elkasrawy's remarks to determine whether his remarks constitute hate speech.

Elkasrawy apologized in a Feb. 20 Twitter post, saying he misspoke. "I firmly believe that all human beings, Muslim, Jews and people of all and no faith, deserve to live a life free of any threat to their safety."

In Montreal, calls for an investigation into similar comments by a Sheikh Wael Al-Ghitawi are growing after the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) posted videos showing him denying Jewish roots in Israel.

"Jews do not have any historical right to Palestine," Al-Ghitawi said in the 2014 sermon. He falsely asserted that "for long periods of time, there was not a single Jew in Jerusalem and Palestine."

Jews "slayed the prophets, shed their blood and cursed the Lord," Al-Ghitawi said. He also called Jews the offspring of "Turkish mongols" who were "punished by Allah."

The comments need to be investigated, said Rabbi Reuben Poupko, co-chair of the Quebec branch of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

Al-Ghitawi preaches at the Al-Andalous Islamic Centre, which already faced scrutiny for another 2014 sermon by a guest preacher who called for the death of Jews "one by one" and called for Allah to "destroy the accursed Jews."

The center tried to rationalize the comments, noting they came during the 2014 Gaza war between Israel and Hamas. It issued a statement claiming the imam used "clumsy and unacceptable phrasing," Canada's National Post reported.

These incidents are the latest in a series of radical statements from Canadian imams. Last year, MEMRI exposed a sermon by an imam in Edmonton, Alberta, who urged Muslims to "look forward" as "Rome will be conquered." Shaban Sherif Mady also glorified the restoration of the "rightly-guided" Islamic Caliphate – mirroring similar calls by the Islamic State's leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

IPT News


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Future of the European Union? - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

The document does not contemplate a scenario in which the European Union faces collapse, or in which major member states decide to follow the British example and exit the bloc.

  • The European Commission, in a rare instance of candor, admits that European federalism risks "alienating parts of society which feel that the EU lacks legitimacy or has taken too much power away from national authorities."
  • The Commission does not consider the possibility that in 2025 it may not even exist.

The European Commission has published a document outlining five scenarios for how the European Union could evolve within the next ten years.

The so-called White Paper on the Future of Europe, which will be presented at the Rome Summit on March 25, 2017 to mark the 60th anniversary of the European Union, is intended to be "the starting point for a wider public debate on the future of our continent."

Each of the five scenarios is based on the premise that "the 27 Member States move forward together as a Union." The document does not consider the possibility that the EU could collapse or break apart, or even that the powers of the EU be significantly curtailed. The document states:
"Too often, the discussion on Europe's future has been boiled down to a binary choice between more or less Europe. That approach is misleading and simplistic. The possibilities covered here range from the status quo, to a change of scope and priorities, to a partial or collective leap forward."
Nevertheless, for the European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the European Union, publicly to even consider alternatives to full-blown European federalism is a testament to the growing power and influence of anti-EU political movements in Europe.

A "family photo" of the European Commission, headed by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, in 2014. (Image source: European Parliament)

Indeed, a document such as this would have been unthinkable before Brexit — an abbreviation for "British exit," which refers to the June 23, 2016, referendum by which British citizens voted to exit the European Union — and the rise of anti-EU populist parties in Austria, Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands, among others. The document admits:
"Europe's challenges show no sign of abating. Our economy is recovering from the global financial crisis but this is still not felt evenly enough. Parts of our neighborhood are destabilized, resulting in the largest refugee crisis since the Second World War. Terrorist attacks have struck at the heart of our cities. New global powers are emerging as old ones face new realities. And last year, one of our Member States voted to leave the Union."
The five scenarios for the EU by 2025 are: 1) carrying on; 2) nothing but the single market; 3) those who want more do more; 4) doing less more efficiently; and, 5) doing much more together.

Scenario 1: Carrying On.

This scenario envisions the status quo, with the EU plodding ahead with "incremental progress" from crisis to crisis. The document explains:
"Priorities are regularly updated, problems are tackled as they arise and new legislation is rolled out accordingly. The speed of decision-making depends on overcoming differences of views in order to deliver on collective long-term priorities."

Scenario 2: Nothing but the Single Market.

This scenario envisions a European Union re-focused on the single market, which refers to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people within the bloc:
"In a scenario where the EU27 cannot agree to do more in many policy areas, it increasingly focuses on deepening certain key aspects of the single market. There is no shared resolve to work more together in areas such as migration, security or defense. The functioning of the single market becomes the main 'raison d'ĂȘtre' of the EU27."

Scenario 3: Those Who Want to do More.

This scenario envisions a so-called multi-speed Europe in which some member states proceed with integration in certain areas while other member states do not:
"In a scenario where the EU27 proceeds as today but where certain Member States want to do more in common, one or several 'coalitions of the willing' emerge to work together in specific policy areas. These may cover policies such as defense, internal security, taxation or social matters."

Scenario 4: Doing Less More Efficiently.

This scenario envisions the EU placing greater emphasis on some policy areas, while reducing its focus on others:
"The EU27 decides to focus its attention and limited resources on a reduced number of areas.... As a result, the EU27 is able to act much quicker and more decisively in its chosen priority areas.... Elsewhere, the EU27 stops acting or does less.... The EU's weight in the world changes in line with its recalibrated responsibilities."

Scenario 5: Doing Much More Together

This scenario is the European Commission's preferred option: European federalism:

"In a scenario where there is consensus that neither the EU27 as it is, nor European countries on their own, are well-equipped enough to face the challenges of the day, Member States decide to share more power, resources and decision-making across the board.
"As a result, cooperation between all Member States goes further than ever before in all domains.... Decisions are agreed faster at European level and are rapidly enforced.
"On the international scene, Europe speaks and acts as one in trade and is represented by one seat in most international fora. The European Parliament has the final say on international trade agreements. Defence and security are prioritized. In full complementarity with NATO, a European Defence Union is created. Cooperation in security matters is routine."
The document also offers a glimpse into what European federalism may look like in practice:
"Citizens travelling abroad receive consular protection and assistance from EU embassies, which in some parts of the world have replaced national ones. Non-EU citizens wishing to travel to Europe can process visa applications through the same network."
The European Commission, in a rare instance of candor, admits that European federalism risks "alienating parts of society which feel that the EU lacks legitimacy or has taken too much power away from national authorities."

The document does not, however, contemplate a scenario in which the European Union faces collapse, or in which major member states decide to follow the British example and exit the bloc.

In France and the Netherlands — two of the EU's original six founding members — anti-EU presidential candidates are leading in the polls. Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders have both promised to call referenda on continued EU membership. If one or both of those countries were to leave the EU, this at a time when Italy and Greece are at a fiscal breaking point, a collapse of the bloc seems increasingly possible.

The European Commission says its White Paper marks "the beginning of a process for the EU27 to decide together on the future of their Union." The Commission does not, however, consider the possibility that in 2025 it may not even exist.
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Obamacare Financing Flimflam - Jack Hellner

by Jack Hellner

This isn’t the first time that the Obama Administration screwed the private sector to benefit itself and its special interest groups.

The fact that the Obama administration illegally used funds not appropriated by Congress to prop up Obama Care should be a big story but somehow the diligent media has been able to make sure the public doesn’t see it. Essentially the Obama Administration stole money from low income housing funds at Fannie and Freddie to prop up Obama Care after a Judge told them to stop diverting funds illegally at HHS.

From the following article:
Federal court litigation provides evidence the Obama administration illegally diverted taxpayer funds that had not been appropriated by Congress in an unconstitutional scheme to keep Obamacare from imploding.
In 2016, a U.S. District judge caught the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services Department acting unconstitutionally and therefore put an end to the illegal diversion of taxpayer funds, but the Obama administration didn’t stop there.
The Obama administration instead turned to the nation’s two government-sponsored mortgage giants – the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as “Fannie Mae,” and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as “Freddie Mac” – to invent a new diversion of funds in a desperate attempt to keep Obamacare from collapsing.
Now we know why the Obama Administration unilaterally changed rules on Fannie Mae funds in 2012. They basically screwed private sector bondholders and shareholders to create a slush fund for left wing groups allied with the administration. These funds do not go through Congress. They are treated as off balance sheet entities where the amount that comes to the government is treated as a net reduction in expenses instead of an increase in revenue. In other words it allows Congress and the President to pretend they are controlling spending.

From the following article at National Review:
The two hemorrhaged money for a couple years after the bailout, but as the economy and the housing market improved, Fannie and Freddie returned to profitability. It soon appeared that their booming profits might allow the government to recoup its investment and extricate itself from the mortgage business altogether. However, the government showed no interest in such a path. In 2012, the U.S. Treasury quietly changed its contract with the two GSEs and changed the financial position of the other shareholders. Instead of being content with the 10 percent dividend it assigned itself, along with the bulk of any profits from a future stock sale, Treasury takes the entire net worth of Fannie and Freddie each quarter. At the end of 2013, this amounted to a total of $185.2 billion since the peremptory imposition of this policy. That’s roughly $2 billion shy of making up for taxpayers’ entire investment.
This isn’t the first time that the Obama Administration screwed the private sector to benefit itself and its special interest groups.

In the GM bankruptcy the Obama Administration gave preferential treatment to unions over more secured bondholders and other unsecured creditors. They clearly violated bankruptcy law. From the start the Obama administration believed they were above the law.

A large number of fines that Justice and other agencies collect end up getting redistributed to special interest groups. Excess funds that go to the government after paying the aggrieved parties should go back to reduce the deficit but they don’t.

The number of slush funds and lack of transparency is appalling. Here is a good report from a House oversight committee. I know we can all remember the media covering this report. Nov 30, 2016
... Agencies Retention or Redistribution of Fines for Special Funds . ... Settlement and Approved Consumer Groups: . .... Agencies do not use a standardized method of accounting for those funds collected and retained. .... The DOJ's use of funds collected as fines and penalties has drawn interest from other.
Throughout Obama’s eight years his administration showed great disdain for the private sector, taxpayers, and the rule of law, yet not once did the media and Democrats call for an independent prosecutor or investigator to look into anything. They violated the law on Fannie and Freddie, GM, intentionally bankrupted for-profit colleges, tried to destroy private prison companies, intentionally bankrupted coal companies and rewarded political cronies like Solyndra -- and the media saw no scandals. As most of the country was stagnant Washington DC did well and that is all Democrats and the media seem to care about. There were many scandals during Obama’s eight years but Democrats, Justice and the federal agencies involved all stymied the investigations. The media participated in blocking the investigations by repeating the Democrat talking points that they were partisan witch-hunts. After all it was their chosen one who was President. The media now pretends that Obama’s eight years were scandal free.

But now, one month into Trump’s term without any indication at all that laws have been broken Democrats and the media are shouting to the hills for an investigation. Someone who knows Trump may have talked to someone from Russia. What a scandal.

The actual situation is Democrats, the media and people like McCain, Graham and Collins can’t afford to have a President like Trump who wants to do what the founding fathers would have cheered. Reduce the power and the purse of the government and give it back to the people where it belongs. They would have preferred Hillary who would have continued to expand the power and money that went to the government.

The media truly can’t stand a White House that will invite media outlets from around the United States including very small outlets. The powerful media outlets believe that only they should be able to tell the people what to think and control what they see. The founding fathers would have cheered the internet where literally thousands can hold the powerful to account instead of just a few.

The bias is truly hard to spot.

We should also remember that Obama and Democrats intentionally took funds from Medicare to fund Obama Care. Then they pretended that this diverted money helped Medicare.

Jack Hellner


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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