Friday, July 27, 2018

The Greatest Hysteria in American History - Dennis Prager

by Dennis Prager

Leftists cheapen the Holocaust as a new way to justify their Trump derangement syndrome.

You and I are living through the greatest mass hysteria in American history. For many Americans, the McCarthy era held that dubious distinction, but what is happening now is incomparably worse.

For one thing, any hysteria that existed then was directed against the greatest evil in the world at the time: communism. Then-Sen. Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee notwithstanding, there really were Americans in important positions who supported communist regimes enslaving their populations and committing mass murder. McCarthy was on to something.  

In contrast, the country is choking on hysteria over the extremely unlikely possibility — for which there is still no evidence — that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, and the absurdity that President Trump works for Russian President Vladimir Putin.​

For another, the mainstream media did not support McCarthy. Most in the media were highly critical of McCarthy. Today, the mainstream media are not the voices of caution. They are the creators of the hysteria. There have been conspiracy theories throughout American history (e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill President John F. Kennedy alone; the moon landing never happened). But this is the first time the media have created and promoted a conspiracy. Not surprisingly, they have dropped any pretense of objective reporting in the process.

And while some Americans were unfairly labeled communists during the McCarthy era, countless Democratic politicians and leaders in news and entertainment have called members of the Trump administration and the tens of millions of Americans who support the president fascists, white supremacists, haters, xenophobes and even Nazis.​

MSNBC contributor Jill Wine-Banks said of the Trump-Putin Helsinki press conference: "It's just as serious to me as the Cuban Missile Crisis in terms of an attack, or the 9/11 attack. ... (Trump's) performance today will live in infamy as much as the Pearl Harbor attack or Kristallnacht."​

Former communist, Obama operative and CIA Director John Brennan tweeted: "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes & misdemeanors.' It was nothing short of treasonous."

The constant invoking of the Holocaust, the Nazis and now Kristallnacht (the unofficial beginning of the Holocaust, a night in 1938 when German Jews were beaten to death, synagogues were burned and Jewish shops were destroyed) only minimizes the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust. A young American who, having gone to a typical university, probably knows nothing about the Nazis and the Holocaust will now think Nazism and the Holocaust were 20th-century expressions of Trump and American conservatism.

All this hysteria is built on next to nothing. At its core, it is an attempt to undo the 2016 election. The mainstream media refuse to accept that Hillary Clinton lost. They said she would win — handily. They predicted a landslide. How could they have possibly gotten it so wrong? Their answer is they didn't; Trump and Putin stole it.

If truth mattered to the media, their ongoing narrative would be: "Democrats and the left still do not accept Trump victory."

If truth mattered to the media, every American would know Trump has been harder on Russia than former President Barack Obama was. Every American would be reminded that Obama reassured Putin's right-hand man, then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, that he wouldn't be too tough on Russia. Thinking his mic was off, he whispered into Medvedev's ear: "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."

If truth mattered to the media, every American would be reminded that Obama sent Army meals to Ukraine and Trump has sent anti-tank missiles and other arms to repel the Russians.

If truth mattered to the media, every American would be reminded that Obama watched Syria burn and Russia come to dominate that country, while Trump has bombed Syrian military installations, including one where Russians were killed.

If truth mattered to the media, every American would be reminded that it is Trump who has weakened Russia's ally Iran, while Obama immeasurably strengthened it.

Instead the media scream "treason," "impeachment" and the like 24/7; Hollywood stars curse the president; others curse his daughter or the first lady (one of the most regal in American history) and show President Trump in various death poses. Meanwhile, leftist mobs shout at administration officials and Republican members of Congress while they eat in restaurants, shop in stores and sleep in their homes. 

If you vote Democrat this November, you are voting for hysteria, lies, socialism and even the cheapening of the Holocaust.

But more than anything, a vote for Democrats in November is a vote for hysteria — the greatest and darkest in American history.

Photo: Mick Licht

Dennis Prager


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Pompeo vs. the rabble of the Senate - Patricia McCarthy

by Patricia McCarthy

The formidable Mike Pompeo testified Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Democrats were all nags. The Republicans were all cowards. Pompeo however was a bright light.

The formidable Mike Pompeo testified Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Pompeo gave a powerful and informative opening statement, but from then on the hearing devolved into a three-hour circus to behold. Apparently not one of the Democrats sitting there heard that opening statement. Instead, each and every Democrat, when he or she got their chance to question Pompeo, made complete and utter fools of themselves. 

Clearly Pompeo has a lot of IQ points on all of them. They asked their questions as accusations, especially regarding Trump's sit-down with Putin in Helsinki. When they did not like the beginning of an answer, they rudely interrupted to make certain he was unable to finish his reply.

It drives them crazy that they have not been provided a transcript for exactly what was said between the two leaders. They never cared, however, when Obama had private meetings with other leaders or when he quite literally sold America out to them off or on a hot mic. 

Despite the many facts to the contrary, each Democrat senator accused Trump of being soft on Russia when in truth it was Obama who was pathetically soft on Russia. (It was Clinton who colluded with Russia to take Trump down and out.) Obama knew of Russian attempts at cyber meddling in our elections but told investigators to stand down. He knew their feeble Facebook attempts could not, would not affect the outcome. 

Each Democrat accused Trump of "confusing the public and our allies." They now quote and believe the thoroughly propagandistic Russian press which implied Trump caved to Putin. Pompeo got a chuckle out of that one. 

Pompeo patiently answered each Democrat's repetitive questions/accusations; he answered the same questions the same way over and over again. Repeatedly, the Democrats on the committee refused to hear. They loathe President Trump for winning and their contempt for him oozes out of their mouths with every derogatory word. 

The amusing aspect to their performances is the obvious fact that they think they are so smart, smarter than Pompeo and smarter than Trump. What is true is that the lot of them on the committee are rather dimwitted by comparison to this President and this Secretary of State. If peo[p]le doubted this, they do not any longer if they watched the hearing yesterday. 

Senators Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley and Booker embarrassed themselves. They refused to acknowledge Trump's toughness on Russia, no matter how many times Pompeo listed all such actions taken, two-hundred and sixteen of them. They interrupted Pompeo constantly. 

New Jersey’s Menendez was particularly uncivil, as though he is some paragon of ethical behavior. Like mean-girl cliques in middle school, Menendez & com[p]any cannot abide that they do not know every word spoken between Trump and Putin in Helsinki. Menendez badgered Pompeo relentlessly without letting him speak. He rejected any answer that did not conform to his pre-conceived, imaginary notion of what occurred there. 

New Jersey’s Senator Booker was particularly unintelligible. It is doubtful anyone understood what he went on and on about. Who knew that the word "adoptions" is code for "sanctions"? The others just rudely asked the same questions over and over and over again.

Their demands to hear from the interpreter and to see her notes were just silly. Since when are they entitled to absolute knowledge of private meetings of the president? Each of them ignored or belittled Trump's success with North Korea. "Where's the evidence?" one bleated. How about no missiles have been launched by the Norks. Not one since the Singapore summit was set. 

The Republicans were at least polite and respectful, even complimentary to the Secretary of State, but none of them raised a challenge to their insolent Democrat counterparts. Not one. They are too polite, too afraid to defend Trump and Pompeo, despite all they have accomplished. This was a wishy-washy bunch of Republicans. The Dems were angry and insulting. The pubs were barely there. 

No matter in the end; Pompeo was masterful. He actually knows things and can explain them. By the end, it is fair to say that nearly every senator in the room acquitted himself or herself poorly. There is not one star among them, not one real leader. 

The Democrats were all nags. The Republicans were all cowards. Pompeo however was a bright light. Never, over the eight years of the Obama administration, was there even one cabinet member as brilliant or impressive as Pompeo. Trump chose this man wisely.

Who were they?

Patricia McCarthy


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Anti-Semitism On Full Display At UN - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

Departing UN Human Rights Commissioner takes one last shot at Israel.

Natan Sharansky has written about what he called the "new anti-Semitism," which “is aimed at the Jewish state.” He described his ‘3D’ test “to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.” The 3D’s stand for “demonization,” “double standards,” and “delegitimization.”

Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, the outgoing head of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, displayed once again how he has satisfied all 3D’s that define today’s brand of anti-Semitism. In a video address to the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People on Monday, he condemned only Israel for the ongoing violence in Gaza. He blamed the “grossly inadequate living conditions” only on Israel’s 11-year Gaza partial blockade. Zeid gave the terrorist organization Hamas a free pass. For good measure, Zeid also denounced the Israeli Knesset’s recent approval of a law that declared Israel the nation-state of the Jewish people. He said the law “anchors inherent discrimination against non-Jewish communities, most notably the Arab citizens of Israel and residents of occupied East Jerusalem.” 

The principal reason why Zeid’s inflammatory comments constitute rank anti-Semitism is not because they criticize Israeli government policies and actions. Such criticisms, if based on objective facts, are legitimate, as Mr. Sharansky has acknowledged. Zeid is anti-Semitic because he demonizes and spreads lies about Israel and delegitimizes its Jewish identity, while applying a hypocritical double standard in his denunciations.

Israel unilaterally withdrew its military from Gaza and dismantled its settlements there in 2005. The Palestinians then became the masters of their own fate. Israel worked cooperatively with the Palestinian Authority after its withdrawal to keep border crossings between Gaza and Israel as open and secure as possible. Once the Hamas terrorists came into power, however, and forcibly threw their Fatah rivals out of Gaza, they set about converting what could have been an economically self-sufficient, independently governed prototype of a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace with Israel, into a haven for terrorism. 

Hamas exploited its control of Gaza to covertly import rockets and other offensive weaponry, supplied in part by Iran. They used the weapons to launch terror attacks against civilian targets in Israel. Hamas diverted materials meant for the construction of housing, schools and hospitals to build terror tunnels and other military facilities. Hamas used Palestinian civilians, including children, as human shields.

“From 2006-2016, there have been 10,412 rocket attacks, at an average of 947 per year,” according to the Jerusalem Post. More rockets were fired at Israel in 2017 than during the previous two years, the Jerusalem Post also reported. During 2018, so far, the Palestinian terrorists have launched hundreds of rockets and incendiary and explosive devices into Israel, causing civilian casualties, property damage and widespread fires. As for the Palestinians killed and wounded during the so-called “right of return” protests earlier this year along the Gaza-Israeli border, a senior Hamas official, Salah Bardawil, has admitted that 50 out of the 60 who died on the day of the deadliest confrontation were members of Hamas.

Zeid gave no credence at all to Israel’s legitimate right of self-defense, or to the explanation that border restrictions were necessary to stem the flow of offensive weapons into the hands of the Palestinian terrorists who used them in escalating attacks against Israeli civilians. He chose to ignore Hamas’s continuing pattern of violence. He dismissed what he called Israel’s own “accountability mechanisms,” because, he claimed, “there are serious concerns that these are not in compliance with the international standards of independence, impartiality, and effectiveness.”  

Zeid blamed what he described as the “grossly inadequate living conditions” in Gaza on Israel’s 11-year partial blockade. He provided no context for the self-defense border crossing restrictions, nor acknowledged Israel's frequent easing to allow humanitarian, construction, energy and commercial materials into Gaza. Zeid also neglected to mention that Israel reopened the Kerem Shalom Crossing into Gaza last May, after Hamas-led Palestinian rioters set fire to parts of the crossing facility on three separate occasions. He also failed to mention the lack of unity between Hamas and Fatah and rampant corruption, which have resulted in disruptions in the supply of electricity and other essential services as well as cuts in salaries for government employees in Gaza.   

Even the UN’s Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Nickolay Mladenov, has acknowledged that Hamas’s control of Gaza and Palestinian internal disunity have contributed to the Palestinians’ woes, along with Israel’s border closings. He “appealed to Palestinian factions not to provoke incidents at the [Gaza]fence, to immediately stop the firing of rockets and mortars and to stop the incendiary kites and balloons,” while also appealing to Israel to reopen the crossing, stop the shelling and to exercise restraint.  He acknowledged that “Israelis across the fence have lived with a constant threat of rocket attacks for the last decade.” Most importantly, Mr. Mladenov has called for there to be one Palestinian legal system uniting Gaza and the West Bank where “all weapons are under the control of the legitimate national authorities.” He was referring to the Palestinian Authority, not Hamas. In short, at least one high level UN envoy tried to show some balance. But not the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein. Zeid has condemned only Israel. 

Just days after his latest pronouncements condemning Israel, Zeid took a very different approach to acts of violence in Cameroon, a nation governed under repressive one-man rule. Zeid belatedly issued a tepid criticism of “persistent reports of human rights violations and abuses in the English-speaking Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon, as well as in the Extreme North.” He mentioned “reports” of the government’s “excessive use of force, burning down of houses, arbitrary detentions and torture,” but treated as proven fact reports of “abuses by armed elements” against government forces. Despite his claiming to be “utterly appalled” by a video “reportedly” showing members of the armed forces executing a woman, a child and a baby accused of being members of Boko Haram, Zeid urged the Government itself to “launch independent investigations into the reports of human rights violations by State security forces as well as abuses by armed elements.”

In other words, Zeid was open to accepting the findings of an investigation conducted by a repressive regime governed under one-man rule. Zeid balanced his criticism of Cameroonian government responses to attacks from armed groups with criticism of the actions of armed groups themselves opposing the government. However, Zeid refused to trust Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East, to conduct a meaningful investigation. He ignored the terrorist group Hamas’s role in precipitating the violence near the Gaza-Israeli border that led to the deaths of multiple Palestinians, many of whom Hamas admitted were its own members. Zeid’s anti-Semitic double standard in denouncing only Israel, in contrast to the way he characterized the Cameroonian violence, speaks for itself.

Finally, Zeid’s denunciation of the recently passed law declaring Israel the nation-state of the Jewish people is a blatant attempt to delegitimize Israel’s core mission to provide security and self-determination for the Jewish people in a homeland of their own. For too many centuries the Jewish people have been persecuted, castigated and discriminated against as “the other” in so many other nations of the world, culminating in the Holocaust. Recognizing the raison d'être for the modern state of Israel in the historic homeland of the Jewish people does not negate the rights of non-Jews living in Israel. Arabic is still accorded special status as a language. Non-Jewish citizens living in the state of Israel can continue to vote, serve in the Knesset, appeal to Israeli courts, own property and worship as they please. Let’s contrast this with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, where Zeid himself is from. It is ruled by the Hashemite dynasty, which claims to be descended from Islam’s prophet, Mohammed. According to Jordan’s Constitution, Islam is the state religion. The government accords primacy to Sharia Islamic law. Conversion from Islam is prohibited. Jordan’s Nationality Law, as amended, explicitly discriminated against Jews by denying them eligibility for citizenship. It stipulated that Jordan nationals include “[A]ny person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954.” (Emphasis added) Moreover, according to Human Rights Watch, Jordan has discriminated against Palestinians by withdrawing nationality status from thousands of its erstwhile citizens of Palestinian origin arbitrarily and in violation of its own Nationality Law. 

In short, Zeid’s own country has a constitution enshrining Islam as the official state religion, a Nationality Law that explicitly barred Jews from becoming Jordanian nationals, and a system that has taken away rights of citizenship from Palestinians. Yet Zeid has chosen to condemn Israel for a law that does not approach the non-democratic restrictions built into Jordan’s legal system and practices. He is applying a double standard. He is also de-legitimizing the right of Israel to proclaim the Jewish people’s right of self-determination in a secure homeland of their own.

Thankfully, Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein’s opportunity to use his platform as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to spew his anti-Semitic venom against the Jewish state of Israel is coming to an end. UN Secretary General António Guterres is in the process of selecting Zeid’s replacement. Is it too much to hope that another anti-Semite will not take Zeid’s place? Most likely, given the UN's past dismal record in dealing with human rights issues, especially as they relate to Israel.

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

Israel’s two fronts explode: IDF officer hurt in Gaza. Russia praises IDF strike on ISIS letting Syria, Hizballah reach Kinneret - debkaFile

by debkaFile

It's a tense time on both the northern and southern borders of Israel

The surreal effect of the latest happenings on Israel’s Gaza and northern fronts is caused by at least six cooks stirring two volatile broths, of which the IDF is the least pro-active. Because the IDF was not alert to a new threat after Sgt. Aviv Levy was killed by a sniper last Friday, a second officer, a 21-year old field commander of the same Givati Brigade , was injured on Wednesday, July 25, in the same Kissufim sector, by a Hamas sniper bullet, The soldiers were drawn by a gang of unruly children at the border force and when they approached to send them home, the sniper lurking in the background targeted the officer. The IDF reacted with an assorted array of jets, drones, tanks and artillery against 7 Hamas positions. Also activated were communications with Gen. Abbas Kemal, director of Egyptian intelligence, in a bid to hold off the inevitable Hamas rocket assault. The familiar ritual then evolved: Hamas launched 9 rockets and mortar rounds against the next-door Israeli communities and Hof Ashkelon, one was intercepted by Iron Dome – and the latest of umpteen similar rounds was over, the point being that the initiative for the next round remained squarely in the hands of the Palestinian terrorist group,

Hamas’ strategists had meanwhile calculated that snipers constituted an inexpensive weapon in terms of cost to pocket and life, much like balloon bombs and kites; only three of its operatives were killed this time round, and Israeli strikes were still targeting empty Hamas compounds. The Palestinian terrorists found that they can keep large parts of the southern Israeli population under siege long-term by these primitive tactics at little cost to themselves, while also picking off at leisure IDF officers by luring them to the border fence.

The equation on the northern front is complicated by the number of cooks and wildly fluctuating equations. The IDF’s air defense system evidently needs more work, as was illustrated by its non-response to the landing of two ground-to-ground Grad rockets in the Sea of Galilee on Wednesday, July 25, at peak holiday season. They were fired from the Syrian-Israeli-Jordanian border intersection 8 km away. Sirens were triggered over the lake and the Golan only after one of the rockets exploded in the water near the eastern shore. By a miracle, no one was hurt. IDF air defense missile systems missed them two days after two missiles of Israel’s innovative David’s Sling failed to connect with Syrian SS-21 surface missiles flying from eastern Syria towards the Golan.  Still, the next day, Patriot batteries were effective in shooting down a Syrian Sukhoi-24 two kilometers inside Israel, after downing a Syrian drone.

The Grads which dropped into the Kinneret were fired by the Khalid Ibn Walid branch of ISIS, which is being hammered by Syrian and pro-Iranian allied forces in a pocket they have held for years near the Yarmuk inside the border intersection just across from Israel.

This ruse was staged to lure the IDF into pinning the blame on, and attacking, the Syrian army, and so drawing off the counter-ISIS assault. The ruse did not work. The IDF identified ISIS as the source of the rocket fire and struck back, after refraining for years to attacking them. For this, the IDF drew praise from an unexpected source. The Russian defense ministry said that a strike on Israeli territory on Wednesday was made from Daesh [ISIS] positions and that the response from Israel had hit terrorists’ missile launchers in Quneitra. The ministry expressed gratitude to the Israeli Defense Forces for the counterattack. “Russian armed forces’ command in Syria used the existing communication channels to thank the IDF leadership for killing terrorists and stopping a massive provocation,” the ministry said in a statement.

However, DEBKAfile’s military sources point to the surreal consequence for Israel of the IDF’s counter-ISIS operation. It enabled Syrian, Hizballah and other pro-Iranian forces to capture the terrorist enclave and reach a point close to the Sea of Galilee. What’s wrong with that equation?



Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

LA City Attorney Mulls Prosecution of UCLA Anti-Israel Disruptors - Edwin Black

by Edwin Black

Will the city rectify the university's failure?

It began as yet another frustrating example of a university refusing to take swift action in a case of aggressive disruption of a pro-Israel event. The belligerent shutdown of a Students Supporting Israel panel discussion occurred at the University of California-Los Angeles on May 17, 2018. That incident has skyrocketed to become the most important potential prosecution of anti-Israel campus disruption in the nation since the Irvine 11. A top Los Angeles City attorney is now actively reviewing the file of evidence and police complaints for possible prosecution under state laws that criminalize the disruption of public meetings, as well as other related statutes. 

In the now well-known case, on May 17, Students Supporting Israel gathered in a UCLA function room for a panel discussion titled Indigenous Peoples Unite. Disruptors--suddenly and loudly--stormed into the room mid-session. One person tore down the students’ flag, demonstratively pulled away a desk placard, and cursed threateningly close to the face of a panelist. With bullhorns, whistles, staged dancing, and slogan shouting, the event was shut down. The disruption and nose-to-nose intimidation of the students attending the SSI event was documented in a video, beginning at minute 41

Although the UCLA administration publicly promised a referral to prosecutors, no such action was taken against the various protestors — both students and non-students, because UCLA campus police were awaiting formal complaints by the intimidated students. Only after such a formal police report is filed do police investigate and determine if a referral to prosecutors is called for. Then, prosecutors weigh the evidence and decide if prosecution is warranted. All students contacted by this reporter stated they did not know they were entitled to make a police report. 

After media revelations about UCLA’s inaction, two Jewish groups sprang into action--the Louis D. Brandeis Center, headed by constitutional attorney Alyza Lewin, and the StandWithUs Saidoff Legal Center, headed by attorney Yael Lerman. The Washington-based Brandeis Center flew its attorney, Aviva Vogelstein, to LA. Together, Lerman and Vogelstein personally escorted numerous students as well as one member of the community into the UCLA police department where they all filed formal written and verbal complaints. 

One such police complaint, obtained by this reporter, was filed by a community member in the room during the event, Laura Leve Cohen, a major donor to the UCLA’s Center for Jewish Studies, where she serves as an advisory board member. Cohen’s complaint opens with the words: “Have you ever been confronted by an angry mob and not able to leave? I hadn’t.  Until Thursday evening, May 17th, 2018 … Midway through the presentation, an angry, out-of-control mob stormed into the classroom, shouting and chanting. Simply put, we were trapped by a crowd of student protestors, surrounded on all sides, and unable to leave the room.”

After processing the collection of complaints, the UCLA police department opened Case 18-1206, assigning it to one of its seasoned detectives, Selby Arsena. Detective Arsena has racked up a many-years-long track record investigating campus violence. One of these included a 2011 stabbing case that resulted in a twelve-year prison sentence. 

In mid-July, Arsena delivered his file to Los Angeles City prosecutors at their Pacific Branch, located in a curved building also known as “the Airport Courthouse,” located near Los Angeles International Airport. Quickly, the case was assigned to the office’s assistant supervising attorney, Spencer Hart, a highly-regarded prosecutor with experience in high-profile cases. One notable Hart prosecution involved jail time for a student found guilty false imprisonment at UCLA. A source in the prosecutor’s office characterized Hart’s record of successful prosecutions as one which earned “the number two position in the office.”

Both Arsena and Hart declined to comment for this article.

Just a few days after case 18-206 landed on Hart’s desk, he was emailed a seven-page letter, submitted jointly by the Brandeis Center and the StandWithUs legal center, a copy of which was obtained by this reporter. The joint letter was a polished and detailed review of the evidence, legal precedent, and case law. 

“There is strong California precedent to prosecute and convict disruptors who violate criminal law in their attempt to silence speakers on campus,” the letter asserted. It continued, “In a similar fact pattern in 2011, a jury convicted ten student members of the Muslim Student Union of a misdemeanor for disrupting former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, in a coordinated effort at a public event at the University of California-Irvine (“UC Irvine”) … [later] upheld by a panel of three Orange County Superior Court judges. We believe that the facts in the case before you, Criminal Report #18-1206, merit similar prosecution and would result in similar convictions.”

The Brandeis-SWU letter specified the alleged potential criminal violations Brandeis and SWU had previously itemized in a letter to UCLA administrators: “§ 403 – disturbance of an assembly or meeting, § 415 – disturbing the peace; § 182 - criminal conspiracy to do the aforementioned’” and added two more based on additional research: “§ 242 – battery; § 664 – unsuccessful attempt to commit battery; and § 594 – vandalism.” The letter is jointly signed by Lewin, Vogelstein, and Lerman, the three of which have become the most active in the effort to see the matter prosecuted.

Lewin commented, “This disruption was egregious and unlawful and must be properly prosecuted.”

While Lewin, Vogelstein, and Lerman have led the effort to have police reports filed and argued for prosecution, numerous Jewish and pro-Israel organizations have voiced support for the idea. Just days after the disruption, the Zionist Organization of America’s legal department sent a letter to UCLA insisting that a violation of state criminal law was clear.

If prosecutions and convictions result from the May 17 UCLA event shut-down disruption, it is expected to help define the criminal limits of such disruptions at campuses across the nation.
Edwin Black is the award-wining New York Times bestselling author of IBM and the Holocaust as Financing the Flames.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

President Trump Puts the Mullahs on Notice - Amil Imani

by Amil Imani

After forty years of terror and intimidation, for the first time, a proud and suffering Iranian people appears to have found a real friend in the White House.

When President Trump appointed former CIA director Michael Pompeo to replace Rex W. Tillerson as secretary of state and former U.N. ambassador John Bolton as his new national security adviser, many pundits predicted that the Trump administration was serious in dealing with rogue states. Both Bolton and Pompeo had advocated that Iran and North Korea change their behavior, or regime change would be on the table.

Many people believed that these appointments were a sign that President Trump is serious in dealing with dangerous actors. Almost immediately, the Islamic Republic's lobbyists started their propaganda machine and scare tactics, as they have done so often in the past twenty years (that war was imminent and Iranians should oppose Trumps appointments). As for the Iranian people, while cautious, they are hoping that this time around, an American administration is serious and will stand on the side of the oppressed Iranian people as former President Ronald Reagan did with the Polish solidarity movement and all the former Soviet satellite countries.
Reagan's continued policy of vigorously promoting democracy and condemning communism is credited as hastening the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and along with Pope John Paul II he was a strong supporter of Wałęsa's campaign for presidency in 1990.
Forgotten People

For forty years, the U.S. State Department has called the Islamic Republic of Iran the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism," and U.S. intelligence agencies have reported that the Islamic Republic of Iran has continued to provide funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups based in the Middle East, including Hezb'allah, Hamas, and elsewhere, posing a security concern to the international community. Yet, no U.S. administration has ever tried to counter the Islamic Republic's propaganda machine and clearly were unwilling to help the Iranian people end this Islamic nightmare which was mostly imposed upon them by the incompetent Jimmy Carter and his administration.

Corruption and mismanagement, combined with the huge allocation of resources to acquire nuclear weapons, burdened the country's badly ailing economy and will likely bury the mullahs in the rubble of their own making. Regrettably, these purveyors of death aim to hurt and kill as many innocent people along the way to their own inevitable looming graves.

Over the past forty years, Europeans chose an appeasement policy and worked with the mullahs without consideration for human rights in Iran, and the U.S. basically forgot about the plight of the Iranian people until the mullahs installed a firebrand Islamist, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as president of the country.

Who Are the Mullahs?

The mullahs are proven vicious mass killers. They summarily executed tens of thousands of Iranian dissidents. They had no qualms about sending thousands of children to clear the minefields ahead of their tanks during the '80s war with Iraq and they have thousands of "martyrs" brainwashed and prepared to serve as bomb mules to be dispatched to any place in the world.

The mullahs are the principal agent of terror, believing their cause to be the cause of Allah. This is the outcome of an Islamic ideology. They are the result of adherence to the Islamic creed, precisely as codified in Qur'anic scripture. 

Similar to the Nazis, who possessed a vast and destructive power apparatus, the Islamic Republic is on the same path of the destruction of the civilized world. Why the world had looked the other way concerning the homicidal, genocidal actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the past forty years, is a very good question many Iranians would like to have answered. Had the Nazis won the war, they would have slaughtered tens, perhaps hundreds of millions more around the globe, something the Islamic Republic is still dreaming about.

It is a deadly miscalculation to engage in infighting and sit and wait out this emerging catastrophe. It is little more than an exercise in denial to believe that nothing bad will happen, and that the corrupt and inept mullahs will likely shoot themselves in the foot instead of wreaking havoc in the world. We should forthwith help the Iranian democratic opposition send the death-bearer mullahs back to their mosques. It is the free world's best and most urgent option. Iranians have no doubt that it is time to end the mullahs' reign of terror.

Election of President Trump

President Trump is unafraid to speak his mind and tell the truth. Despite the MSM's nonstop negative coverage, Donald Trump has not backed down, and neither have his supporters. His ratings are going up and he has become an inspiration to all freedom-loving people around the world, including the Iranian people. In a short time, he has achieved over 138 goals in a year that even ten presidents combined could hardly have accomplished. Also, there is hope among the Iranian people that perhaps this time around they will achieve their freedom, achieve their democracy, and join the rest of the human family with a new emancipating program for life – that of liberty and progress.

On July 22, 20018, President Trump sent Secretary Pompeo to convey this message not only to Iranian people in the U.S., but especially to those suffering under the brutal regime of the IRI. To many Iranians, it is heartening to know that after some forty-odd years, they finally have a president who cares for them.

Ironically, it was only two days ago when President Trump, in an all-caps message on Twitter, addressed to President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, wrote that the country would face "CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED" if Rouhani continued to threaten the United States.

Now, after forty years of terror and intimidation, for the first time, a proud and suffering Iranian people appear to have found a real friend in the White House by the name of Donald J. Trump.

Amil Imani


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Harvard's Inconvenient Truth - George Shen

by George Shen

Does Harvard discriminate against Asian-Americans? To an institution whose mission is pursuing truth and whose motto is "Veritas," the question is of paramount importance.

A lawsuit against Harvard has revealed in recent court filings troubling evidence of racial discrimination against Asian-Americans in the admissions process. More damning are the findings from Harvard's own internal investigation conducted by the Office of Institutional Research (OIR). Harvard denies any wrongdoing.

Does Harvard discriminate against Asian-Americans? To an institution whose mission is pursuing truth and whose motto is "Veritas," the question is of paramount importance.

The OIR investigation found that Asian-American applicants, who had the highest scores in both academic and extracurricular ratings, were rated consistently lowest among all racial groups in personality traits by Harvard admissions officers who had never met them. The subjective personality traits include likability, helpfulness, courage, kindness, integrity, and respectability. Although Asian-American admittance hovered around 19 percent, that number would be 43 percent if based on academic performance. With personality ratings, the "holistic" approach effectively limits the number of Asian-American admits. 

In her official response, Harvard's outgoing president Drew Faust framed the issue as "defending diversity" and declared the plaintiff would "seek to paint an unfamiliar and inaccurate image of our community and our admissions processes, including by raising allegations of discrimination against Asian-American applicants to Harvard College." She then went on: "We are bound across differences by a shared commitment to learning, to pursuing truth, and to embracing the rigor and respect of argument and evidence. We never give up on the promise of a world made better by an assumption revisited, an understanding expanded, or a truth questioned – again and again and again[.] ... I am committed to ensuring that veritas will prevail." 

After reiterating pursuing truth, Faust conveniently avoided answering why Asian-American applicants were consistently rated lower by Harvard on personality traits.

The incoming president, Lawrence Bacow, referring to "hundreds of thousands" of documents in court filings, stated, "There is not a single one which suggests that there is a policy to discriminate against anybody or to hold one group to a different standard than anybody else." But, he, too, gave no explanation for why so many Asian-Americans were deemed undesirable.

The practice of keeping undesirables out is hardly new. In The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, sociologist Jerome Karabel detailed the history of the admissions process at Harvard. A. Lawrence Lowell, Harvard's president then, stated flatly that too many Jews would destroy the school. 

Even after his initial idea of a Jewish quota of 15 percent was heavily criticized, it didn't stop Lowell and his counterparts at Yale and Princeton from institutionalizing a new definition of "merit" to include information about an applicant's "character" and how to rate it. The net effect was that by the end of Lowell's term in 1933, Jewish enrollment of freshmen went down to 15 percent.

The inconvenient truth is that the admissions system used today is to a large extent still the same system used a century ago. The difference is the justification for having such system has changed from keeping the undesirables out to enforcing diversity and defending affirmative action. 

Ironically, there is also another kind of affirmative action – Legacy – reserved for the already rich, privileged, and powerful. The Harvard Crimson reported that the incoming class of 2021 is made up of over 29 percent legacy admits. This apparently counters the notion of meritocracy. One might ask, for applicants who have enjoyed a lifetime of advantage and who should be expected to outcompete the poor, the underprivileged, and the non-legacies, why in a world they still need a leg up. 

Additionally, as the richest college in the world with an endowment over $37 billion, Harvard hardly needs more donors and alumni support to justify giving preference to the children of wealthy and well connected. In fact, it seems an easy call for Harvard to end legacy preference immediately in exchange for a more meritocratic and diverse student body.

Complex issues aside, such as whether affirmative action is still necessary, how diversity should be best achieved, what is merit and how to define it, Harvard needs to answer the basic question, coherently and in good faith: why its admissions policy has a disproportionately negative effect on Asian-Americans in its subjective scoring.

For now, it appears that Harvard suffers no cognitive issues and is comfortable with race-based affirmative action in its current form both as an ideal and as a practice, which admits black and Latino students who would not have been admitted if they were white while at the same time being comfortable with rejecting Asian-American students who would have been admitted if they were white.

From rectifying historical injustice to giving racial preference to minorities of upscale households or new immigrants whose ancestors were not the victims of slavery, from preaching social equity and justice to courting the wealthy and privileged in legacy preference, from promoting campus diversity and inclusion to racial balancing by limiting Asian-Americans based on invidious racial stereotypes and prejudice, from advocating risk-taking and world-changing to maintaining the status quo and social norms, Harvard seems to want to have it all. 

But does Harvard want to seek truth? Pursuing truth will inevitably and painstakingly require Harvard to choose what's right over what's convenient.

It's high time for Harvard to revisit its assumptions, expand its understanding of diversity and sensitive racial issues, reject racial bias and stereotype, question social orthodoxy, challenge the status quo, and ultimately seek truth. If Harvard wants students to change the world, as so clearly manifested in its mission statement and eloquently exhorted by countless graduation speakers and alumni, a good start would be to change Harvard first. 

George Shen


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Defying US sanctions threat, Turkey to maintain Iran ties - AP

by AP

The White House has threatened to impose sanctions on countries that maintain ties with Iran.

Turkey's president has argued against severing economic ties with Iran as the United States readies for sanctions.

Speaking in Ankara, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said it goes against the independence of states to cut ties with its "neighbor and strategic partner" because the U.S. demands it.

President Donald Trump announced in May that he would pull out of an international nuclear agreement reached in 2015, meant to curb Iran's controversial nuclear aspirations, and plans to reimpose sanctions. His administration threatened countries with sanctions if they do not cut off Iranian oil imports by early November.

Turkey imported 3 million tons of crude oil from Iran in the first four months of 2018, amounting to 55% of crude supplies and 27% of its total energy imports.

Erdogan asked Wednesday: "Who will heat my country throughout the winter?"



Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Suspected ISIS rockets hit Sea of Galilee; IDF destroys launcher in Syria - Lilach Shoval, Daniel Siryoti, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

by Lilach Shoval, Daniel Siryoti, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

Defense officials believe the projectiles were BM-21 Grad rockets fired by Islamic State fighters still battling the Assad regime

Searching for rocket debris in the Sea of Galilee, Wednesday
Photo: Gil Eliyahu / JINI

For the first time since the Syrian civil war erupted over seven years ago, two rockets hit the Sea of Galilee on Wednesday.

Air defense sirens blared across the Golan Heights in the afternoon hours and after an inquiry, the IDF Spokesperson's Unit said the military had identified one rocket launch toward Israel – apparently errant fire from the fighting in southwest Syria between the Assad regime and rebel groups.

Eyewitnesses in Israel later reported seeing two impact explosions in the Sea of Galilee, near the Gofra beach, where numerous beachgoers, among them families with children, were vacationing.

Shimon Cohen, a Western Galilee resident who was at the beach with friends and family, told Israel Hayom, "We didn't hear sirens, and suddenly we saw a smoke trail and heard a strong explosion sound. It looked like an artillery shell or rocket that fell deep into the lake and it's not clear if they exploded in the water. At first, we didn't understand what was going on, but then other people at the beach started to get reports of sirens on the Golan Heights and rocket fire from Syria that trickled over to Israel. It's a scary and concerning situation because the Sea of Galilee and the entire north are full of vacationers."

Hasdia Rada, a lifeguard at one of the lake's beaches, told Israeli news outlets, "As I was watching the water, I saw something fall in. I didn't see what it was but I saw the spray from the impact."

Another man said he heard a whistling sound before an impact.

A large contingent of security personnel arrived at the scene and began searching for rocket debris in the water.

In response to the grave incident, Israeli aircraft attacked the launcher that fired the two rockets and IDF artillery batteries shelled the area around the launcher.

"In response to the two rockets launched at Israeli territory from Syria, [Israeli] aircraft targeted the rocket launcher. The area surrounding it was targeted by artillery," the IDF said in a statement.

The IDF "will act against any attempt to compromise Israeli sovereignty and the safety of its civilians," the statement said.

IDF officials believe the projectiles were BM-21 Grad rockets fired by Islamic State operatives still battling the Damascus regime and its allies.

The Sea of Galilee represents the farthest point that any errant fire from the war in Syria has reached inside Israel.

Earlier this week – amid mounting tensions and the Syrian army's advance toward the Israeli frontier – the IDF shot down a Syrian fighter jet that had breached Israeli airspace. Israel also activated its aerial defense system on Monday in response to missiles fired from Syria.

Lilach Shoval, Daniel Siryoti, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Is Portugal Becoming a Bastion of Neo-Marxism? - Tiago S. Freitas

by Tiago S. Freitas

It is time for the people of Portugal to take a break from their concern over soccer scores to wake up to the dangerous attempt -- within their own parliament -- to turn their lovely sunny country into a bastion of neo-Marxism.

Since the dramatic October 4, 2015 legislative election in Portugal, which resulted in the fall of the newly-formed conservative government after less than two weeks, the country has been run by a far-left coalition.

On one hand, this is not surprising, given Portugal's long-standing socialist tradition; like many European countries, it has managed to balance a free-market economy with heavy government taxation and powerful labor unions.

On the other hand, the ruling coalition now has the contribution of a toxic partner -- the "Bloco de Esquerda" ("Left Bloc") -- which has been demanding implementation of its extreme social, economic and foreign policy agenda in exchange for political support. Since its formation in 1999, through the convergence of the neo-Marxists, Trotskyists, feminists and environmentalists, this bloc entered the scene like a political Trojan Horse, and gradually took root in academia and other cultural institutions, to the point at which it now wields actual parliamentary power.

This power has taken the form of an intensification of a neo-Marxist agenda, ranging from a near-successful attempt to legalize euthanasia, disproportional defense of animal rights, gender modification for anyone 16 and older, and a series of draconian anti-private-sector measures. Yet, not a word from Portuguese media platforms.

While other European countries are at a crossroads, seeking to regain control of their social structure and borders following years of extreme liberalism, Portugal is backtracking -- falling prey to a group that organizes youth camps with indoctrination seminars, and holds conferences on topics such as: "Private Property is Theft: The Need for the Socialization of Productive Assets," and "Boycott Israel; Free Palestine."

It is time for the people of Portugal to take a break from their concern over soccer scores to wake up to the dangerous attempt -- within their own parliament -- to turn their lovely sunny country into a bastion of neo-Marxism.

São Bento Palace in Lisbon, seat of Portugal's parliament. (Image source: Sharon Hahn Darlin/Wikimedia Commons)

Tiago S. Freitas currently works as a corporate lawyer in Lisbon, Portugal.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Who’s Afraid of a Jewish State? - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

The scariest thing for a fake Jewish organization is a Jewish State.

The Palestinian Authority’s basic law and draft constitution states that “Palestine” is an “Arab” entity,  that “Islam is the official religion”, that “Islamic Sharia” is the basis for its law and Arabic is its official language. Unlike Israel’s nation-state bill which defines the Jewish State as Jewish, there’s been no criticism of this PLO document. And the media has not labeled it as divisive or controversial.

The constitution of neighboring Jordan states, “Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official language.” "The people of Syria are part of the Arab nation," Syria's constitution declares. "The religion of the President of the Republic is Islam; Islamic jurisprudence shall be a major source of legislation". That means Syria may only be ruled by a Muslim. "The official language of the state is Arabic."

Egypt's constitution declares it to be an "Arab Republic" and "part of the Muslim world". You will not be surprised to learn that, "Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic is its official language. The principles of Islamic Sharia are the principle source of legislation." These same statements, with minor variations, hold true for most of the Muslim countries in the region, and excluding Arabic, throughout the world.

All of Israel’s Arab Muslim neighbors very clearly define their countries as Arab and Muslim. Their religion is Islam, their identity Arabic, variations of the same document declare, their language is Arabic.

These assertions of Arab and Muslim national identity are not criticized by the same gaggle of organizations, governments and reporters tearing their hair out over Israel’s nation-state bill.

The nation-state bill defines Israel as the "the historical homeland of the Jewish people" and "the nation-state of the Jewish people". Hebrew is its official language with Arabic enjoying a special status. (No Arab constitution bothers offering Hebrew a similar status.)

Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs denounced the bill as “racist”. The state sponsor of Islamic terror complained that, “human civilization tends to celebrate diversity”. Qatar's own constitution declares that it is an Arab country whose "religion is Islam" and "Sharia law" is the basis for its laws.

So much for celebrating “diversity”. (But the Qatari constitution simultaneously claims that “its political system is democratic” and that “rule of the State is hereditary in the family of Al Thani.” The Qatari constitution also states that, "The Heir Apparent must be a Muslim of a Qatari Muslim Mother" and “there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex, race, language, or religion”.)

The Israeli nation-state bill speaks of the "cultural, historical and religious legacy of the Jewish people" and of Jewish "religious" self-determination, but unlike the Arab-Islamic constitutions it does not define Judaism as the official religion.

Virtually every media outlet described the nation-state bill as “controversial”. As everyone knows, the definition of a controversial issue is one that the left disagrees with. The Oslo Accords which killed and crippled thousands of Israelis and created an even greater threat to Israel’s existence than Iran’s nukes were described as “optimistic”. Dismantling Israel is “optimistic”. Believing in it is “controversial”.

But if Israel’s nation-state bill is controversial, then what of the PLO’s basic law, and the constitutions of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and nearly every Arab and Muslim country in the world? If Israel declaring itself to be Jewish is wrong, how can the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and Jordan declaring that they are Muslim and Arabic be right? The double standard is ubiquitous and has only one possible answer.

There’s nothing wrong with an Arab and Muslim country, but something wrong with a Jewish country.

But this time the criticism isn’t coming from the State Department. Unlike the Obama era where an Israeli sneeze occasioned an angry lecture from Hillary Clinton or John Kerry, and a snippy remark by the State Department spokesperson, America’s first authentically pro-Israel administration is on Israel’s side. Heather Nauert at State has repeatedly deflected media demands that she condemn Israel.

In early July, Nauert responded to media insistence that BDS is a “peaceful movement” and that Israel should be criticized for denying entry to an anti-Israel activist by stating that, “countries are sovereign. They have a right to either admit or deny admittance to individuals at their border, okay?”

Instead much of the furious outrage is coming from lefty anti-Israel groups and leaders whose pretense of being pro-Israel wears particularly thin at times when Israel shows the courage of its convictions.

The American Jewish Committee could not find the time to stand up for Jewish students in New York City being disadvantaged by racial quotas, but did claim to be “deeply disappointed” by Israel calling itself a Jewish country. Perhaps then the AJC should get the “Jewish” part out of its own name.

Rick Jacobs, the anti-Israel leader of the Union for Reform Judaism, denounced the bill for damaging "the legitimacy of the Zionist vision" and "the values of the state of Israel". He vowed to "fight back" by "forging new ties" with Arabs.

"Millions of us," he declared, "are united in our opposition to this new law."

Who those millions are is anybody’s guess.  A rally against the bill in Tel Aviv sponsored by 22 organizations (including Socialist Struggle, the New Israel Fund and some pro-BDS groups) only turned out thousands.  That’s in a city where you can get 100,000 to protest the price of cottage cheese.

"The law, which celebrates the fundamental Jewish nature of the state, raises significant questions about the government’s long-term commitment to its pluralistic identity," Jonathan Greenblatt, the former Obama staffer turned ADL boss, complained.

The Jewish Council for Public Affairs expressed "profound disappointment". It whined that "this new law undermines Israel’s vibrant democracy comprised of diverse religious and ethnic groups".

Perhaps the JCPA then ought to stop undermining its own diversity and dump the “J” part of its title so that it can be better composed of “diverse religious and ethnic groups”.  If it’s good enough for Israel, why isn’t it good enough for the AJC and the JCPA who monetize Jewishness while undermining it?

Defining Israel as Jewish is a dividing line that separates authentically Jewish groups from those that are Jewish in name only. The National Council of Young Israel (NCYI), Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), and the Israeli-Jewish Congress (IJC) backed Israel. And other true Jewish organizations are joining them.

The scariest thing for a fake Jewish organization is a Jewish State. Establishment groups that have spent generations peddling lefty policy ideas to the clueless by calling them “Jewish” are deeply threatened by the existence of a Jewish State for whom the “J” part is not just a brand, but a meaningful identity.

Nothing threatens a scam artist like the real thing. And Israel, as idea and reality, has always threatened the scam artists of the left who peddle a bowdlerized Jewish history that began in the 19th century, whose messianic age is the Tikkun Olam of socialism and whose messiahs wave red flags.

Despite the clamor and the talking points, “controversial”, “divisive” and “unnecessary”, Israel’s nation-state bill is mostly symbolic. It doesn’t discriminate. It does however make a very clear statement.

And it’s that statement that has blown like a fierce desert wind through the houses of cards of an establishment that views Jewishness as a brand rather than a commitment. It is easy to find Jewish organizations that will sign letters for every lefty cause, from Muslim immigration to illegal migrants. But rarely, if ever, will these organizations stand up for a Jewish cause, even if, like the racial quotas being imposed on Jewish students in New York, the cause has absolutely nothing to do with Israel.

Israel, the “Palestinians”, the two-state solution and all the rest of it was never the issue. Jewishness is. The only people who are afraid of a Jewish State either hate Jews or hate being Jewish.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter