Friday, November 2, 2018

Block the PA's hostile takeover - Dr. Anat Roth

by Dr. Anat Roth

Khan al-Ahmar's immediate evacuation is imperative to deliver a message that illegal settlement is reversible, and not only when the settlers are Jews.

The Khan al-Ahmar affair has outraged many Israelis for different reasons. It illustrates the discrimination between Palestinian squatters and the settlers at Migron, Givat HaUlpana, Amona and Netiv Haavot – in whose cases the state has followed the absolute letter of the law as stipulated by the High Court of Justice. It's a testament to the government's weakness in the face of leftist organizations, the current media climate and diplomatic pressure. It sends a message of feebleness and inability to govern over criminality and unlawful activity in strategic areas and points to the state's unwillingness to implement its own decisions.

But most disconcerting is the lack of decisive response to the phenomenon, which poses a significant threat to Israel. The Bedouin outpost of Khan al-Ahmar is not an unusual case of illegal Palestinian construction. It is a comprehensive system which the Palestinian Authority has orchestrated against the State of Israel for the past decade, to seize control of strategic parts of Area C – which is under Israeli civil and military control – in contravention of the Oslo Accords. This strategic initiative was devised and spearheaded by former PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. In 2008, Fayyad opened an official bureau to coordinate activities on the ground – the Union of Agricultural Work Committees – which receives tens of millions of euros from the European Union.

This sprawling takeover is implemented, first and foremost, by methodical and organized settlement of Palestinians in select strategic areas. Those willing to squat in abandoned structures and areas receive economic incentives from the PA. Likewise, these settled areas benefit from investment in infrastructure – from paved roads to the development of water reservoirs, pipelines and irrigation systems. Ultimately, this settlement endeavor is expedited through agriculture. The settled areas are systematically developed with terraces and fields for grazing and crop growing – in large part encouraged by the governments of Holland, Denmark and Norway.

Khan al-Ahmar, situated in the E1 area and adjacent to Highway 1 (Israel's main east-west artery), is just one example among many of the PA's efforts to take control of strategic areas by squatting them. Aside from Khan al-Ahmar, there are dozens of other similar illegal outposts in the area, home to tens of thousands of Palestinians.

The solution Israel has proposed to the residents of Khan al-Ahmar could significantly improve their standard of living. If this were truly the goal and interest of the PA and its supporters, they would take the offer with open arms. However, from the perspective of Palestinian leaders, relocating the residents to a different place impairs their efforts to hijack Highway 1 – hence their fervent efforts to torpedo the government's proposal.

Although the status quo hasn't changed in an official sense, recently the impression has been of gradual momentum toward Israeli annexation of Area C. This impression is mistaken. However, in recent years, mainly since Ayelet Shaked was appointed Justice Minister, important measures have been implemented to regulate settlement and normalize life in Judea and Samaria – from the Regulation Law, to making Knesset legislation more compatible with Judea and Samaria, to the state's efforts to counter the High Court's anti-settlement rulings. With that, "under our noses" the PA is flooding the area with tens of thousands of invaders and is using them to slowly annex and appropriate Area C. As of today, the Palestinian invasion sprawls over 7% of Area C, and the total area of Palestinian settlement is almost three times larger than the area housing the entire Jewish settlement enterprise.

The basic assumption of the Palestinians and their partners is that creating facts on the ground fosters an irreversible reality and that any land they are able to confiscate now will remain theirs under any future accord. The government's capitulation to pressure from elements trying to hurt Israel's interests sends the message that there is a lack of governability and it encourages further criminality.

Khan al-Ahmar's immediate evacuation is imperative, therefore, to deliver a message that facts illegally created on the ground are reversible. Meanwhile, the State of Israel must urgently formulate a comprehensive plan to remove the remaining Palestinian outposts, put an end to the PA's hostile takeover of the land – and begin governing.

Dr. Anat Roth is a research fellow at the Kohelet Policy Forum and the Israel Democracy Institute.

Dr. Anat Roth

Source: h

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Report exposes Palestinian ploy to use agriculture to usurp land in Judea and Samaria ‎ - Ariel Kahana

by Ariel Kahana

Regavim advocacy group claims Palestinians are using extensive EU-funded ‎agricultural activity to take over strategic areas with the aim of creating facts on the ground ahead of any peace deal

The Bedouin village of Khan al-Ahmar
Photo: AP 

A new report presented to the Knesset's Subcommittee ‎on Judea and Samaria on Thursday claims that the ‎Palestinian Authority is using extensive EU-funded ‎agricultural activity to take over lands in the ‎area.‎

The report was compiled by Regavim, a ‎nongovernmental organization that describes its mission as seeking to ‎‎"ensure responsible, legal, accountable and ‎environmentally friendly use of Israel's national ‎lands."‎

The findings claim that the PA's activity follows a ‎specific plan that focuses on Area C of Judea and ‎Samaria, which under the 1993 Oslo Accords is under ‎full Israeli control, with aim of setting facts on ‎the ground so that such agricultural ‎lands would be ‎recognized as Palestinian in any future peace deal.‎

The report also criticizes Prime Minister Benjamin ‎Netanyahu's for his decision to postpone the ‎eviction of Khan al-Ahmar, a Bedouin village that ‎was illegally built some 6 miles east of Jerusalem. ‎

The High Court of Justice cleared the way for the ‎village's eviction, but international uproar has ‎given the government pause and it was eventually ‎decided to defer the move. ‎

The report slams the government's response to the ‎‎"Palestinian takeover" of the area where Khan al-‎Ahmar‎ is located, between the Israeli communities of ‎Maaleh Adumim and Kfar Adumim, calling it "weak to ‎nonexistent." ‎

Regavim claims that the Palestinians' agricultural ‎takeover of lands in Area C takes place in three ‎ways: first, paving hundreds of miles of roads that ‎access lands in strategic locations such as the ‎Jordan Valley, Gush Etzion, Ariel and Mount Hebron; ‎second, usurping water resources and setting up ‎illegal grids of water pipes; and third, usurping ‎hundreds of acres of land and setting up ‎agricultural infrastructure.‎

The report outlines the careful Palestinian choice ‎of areas of diplomatic and security importance and ‎names the various organizations involved in this ‎activity.‎

‎"If the government does not come to its senses and ‎does something now, the Palestinian plan will create ‎irrevocable changes and facts on the ground," the report ‎warns. ‎

Ariel Kahana


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

American Socialism through the Prism of Marxism - Alexander G. Markovsky

by Alexander G. Markovsky

Who are American socialists, and what are they fighting for?

Few events in history rival the gap between exuberant optimism and tumultuous reality, great dreams and vain illusions, as the spread of socialism. Its rise and fall constituted one of the most tragic episodes of the last century. It has created unparalleled violence, millions of innocent victims, modern slavery, and environmental disasters of biblical proportions. The movement has gone from spectacular triumphs to humiliating defeats – from victory in Russia in 1917 and the conquest of Eastern Europe and China in the 1930s and 1940s to what seemed an unstoppable march in Africa and Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s, and then to the spectacular implosion of the Soviet Union, the liberation of Eastern Europe, and the economic liberalization of China.

What is socialism? Who are American socialists, and what are they fighting for? Socialism is a political philosophy and economic system that promotes egalitarianism – a theory of economic equality. It is usually defined as "common ownership of the means of production," which is in the ballpark of the definition given by Karl Marx.

Lenin defined socialism as a society organized on the principle "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his work [contribution]."

But Barack Obama nailed it. In his speech in Berlin, Germany on July 24, 2008, he declared:

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably.
Obama clearly was talking about not wealth creation, which would be capitalism, but wealth distribution, which is socialism.

It was an astonishingly ambitious vision for the future president of the United States. And it was not just a vision; he had a plan, and he had a strategy. 

Obama, who adopted Marxism as a young man, grew gradually convinced (he had to) that the general theories of Marx, Engels, and Lenin outlined in Das Kapital, The Critique of the Gotha Program, What Is to Be Done, and other communist publications could not be directly applied to the contemporary United States of America. According to Marxist dogma, the transition to socialism and subsequent distribution of wealth must be accomplished by expropriation of the means of production with the imposition of a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Yet the proletariat – organized masses of working people, who, according to Marx, had "nothing to lose but their chains" – ceased to exist a century ago.

As an ardent Marxist, Obama had read more deeply in Marxism than most contemporary Marxists and came to the conclusion (correctly) that the main purpose for the expropriation of the means of production was not the distribution of wealth, but the subjugation of the population to the government control.

As Leon Trotsky put it, "in a country where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle, who does not work does not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey does not eat."

The acquisition of this knowledge predisposed Obama to the recognition that society does not necessarily require government ownership of the means of production to implement the egalitarian dream. As long as the government controls the economy and is able to replace the free-market capitalist economy with political economy, and subsequently control profits, the objectives of socialism can be achieved. Obama also ascertained that in order to control the economy, the government needs to control only three major sectors – health care, finance, and energy.

An unemotional logician and imaginative tactician, Obama, while preserving the theoretical significance of Marxism, trashed those nineteenth-century Marxist orthodox theories and Lenin's principles that applied to an impoverished country and stood in the way of twenty-first-century American capitalism, and replaced them with his own pragmatic Marxism.

He substituted the dictatorship of proletariat with the dictatorship of government bureaucracy, and the expropriation of private property with statism – i.e., government control of the economy and supremacy of the values of the state that result in domination of the economic and political life of the citizenry. The driving force behind his adroit model was bondage: "The hand that feeds you controls you."

Alarmingly, Barack Obama had come within measurable distance of accomplishing the centerpiece of his strategy. However, not everything went as planned. Obama's reach exceeded his grasp – he and his democratic socialists had grossly underestimated U.S. economic vitality and regional demographics, so critical to securing the Democratic Party's electoral supremacy.

Although Dodd-Frank and Obamacare effectively took the financial and health care sectors under government control, draconian environmental regulations failed to subdue the energy industry. With the discovery of new domestic oil reserves and deployment of innovative technologies, energy production was thriving.

Moreover, not all of Mexico, Central, and South America crossed our open borders into Texas, Arizona, and California, and unlike some European cities, Chicago, Detroit, and New York were not yet annexed to the possession of Islam.

Even more importantly, socialism had not yet attained political meaning and the concept of economic equality still had little reverence in American society. Overall, the implementation of the strategy was taking longer than planned.

It was left to Hillary Clinton, whose ascendance to the presidency of the United States seemed assured, to complete that journey under the ideological guidance of Barack Obama. 

However, as with many instances in the political process, what was perceived as obvious and certain at the time only exposed the limitations of human foresight. The election of Donald Trump, perhaps without him being aware of his historic role, redeemed this country and left the socialists in a post-orgasmic swoon. But the ideas of Marx and Lenin did not die. The egalitarian disease is not well, but it is alive and keeps on growing.

Alexander Markovsky is a scholar of Marxism and Leninism and a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research. He is an author of Anatomy of a Bolshevik and Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The New Jihad: More Threatening Than Ever - Guy Milliere

by Guy Milliere

This week, the unelected judges of the European Court of Human Rights submitted to the demands of Sharia blasphemy laws and decided not to allow criticism of Muhammad

  • It is important to emphasize that radical Islamists use means other than terrorism to gain ground.
  • This week, the unelected judges of the European Court of Human Rights submitted to the demands of Sharia blasphemy laws and decided not to allow criticism of Muhammad, lest Muslim feelings be hurt. The court actually chose hurt feelings over freedom of expression and truth as a defense.
  • "As someone who has known what it is to live without freedom, I watch in amazement as those who call themselves liberal and progressive – people who claim to believe so fervently in individual liberty and minority rights – make common cause with the forces in the world that manifestly pose the greatest threats to that very freedom and those very minorities... We need to say to Muslims living in the West: if you want to live in our societies, to share in their material benefits, then you need to accept that our freedoms are not optional". — Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2016.

Following the destruction of the Islamic State, awareness of the danger embodied by radical Islam has been largely erased in Europe. Knife attacks and the slaughter of passers-by in France or Britain were not treated by the mainstream media as more important than road accidents. Pictured: Police officers and soldiers secure the site of a terror attack, in which a police officer was shot and killed, on April 20, 2017 in Paris, France. (Photo by Aurelien Meunier/Getty Images)

When the Barcelona terror attack took place August 17, 2017, as horrible as it was (13 deaths, 130 injured), the jihadists did not consider it a success. They had a more lethal project. They wanted to drive vans packed with explosives into the of the Sagrada Familia basilica and two other tourist areas of the city. That, however, was the last major jihadist attack in a Western country. The Manchester attack had taken place two month earlier, on May 22, 2017; the attack in Nice, France, had taken place on July 14, 2016; and the in Orlando attack, in Florida, on June 12, 2016.

The destruction of the Islamic State under President Donald J. Trump has not only deprived jihadists of what had become a rear base and training camp; it also deprived them of the idea that they could quickly defeat the West.

Soon, awareness of the danger embodied by radical Islam faded in the United States and was largely erased in Europe. Knife attacks and the slaughter of passers-by in France or Britain were not treated by the mainstream media as more important than road accidents. Jihadist murderers were usually immediately defined by the authorities as mentally disturbed. In Europe, the names of the murderers were often hidden to avoid possibly firing up anti-Muslim "prejudices".

What happens in other parts of the world rarely makes headlines and is usually treated as a local problem of no global importance. Stabbing Israelis and launching rockets and incendiary kites and balloons from Gaza into Israel are looked on as strictly part of "the Middle East conflict." Attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt are defined as an Egyptian problem. More than 1,800 Christians massacred in Nigeria are barely mentioned in the news. The death sentence for blasphemy in countries such as Pakistan are not mentioned at all.

Radical Islam may be on the defensive, but its offensive has not stopped. The main Islamist organizations appear to be waiting for the moment to strike again. Al Qaeda was recently described in a January 2018 UN report as "strong," "influential," and "resilient." Islamic State may have lost territories it once ruled in Syria and Iraq, but, according to the UN report, "The group continues to transform into a terror organization with a flat hierarchy, with cells and affiliates increasingly acting autonomously."

Groups of Islamist jihadis are still active in Libya, where they control people-smuggling activities and infiltrate their operatives among the migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe. The police keep seizing components used to make explosive devices and have foiled attempted attacks on European soil, but instructional videos still circulate.

What is important to emphasize is that radical Islamists use means other than terrorism to gain ground. The Muslim Brotherhood, the main Sunni Islamist organization, has never rejected violence, but says it prefers da'wa (proselytizing, infiltration and influence) to attain power in the Muslim world and beyond. Sayyid Qutb, its leader in the 1950's, said that the aim of the Muslim Brotherhood was to "establish Islamic rule" wherever it was possible, by "any means available". Its members may have thought they were achieving their objective during the uprising journalists called the "Arab spring." Unfortunately for them, former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi's attempt to make Egypt an Islamic totalitarian state, and the economic collapse that resulted, led to a takeover of the government by Egypt's current president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and to a crackdown that eradicated the organization there. The Muslim Brotherhood, however, has not vanished. It still has the support of Turkey and Qatar, and Hamas was founded as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Reports show that members of the Muslim Brotherhood can rely on a network of affiliates in over 70 countries. They keep up their hope of winning throughout the Muslim world, but their main target seems to be to transform the West.

Leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood appear to think that if the West falls, the rest of the world will fall thereafter. In the US, the Muslim Brotherhood has unofficial branches that try to hide what they actually are, but that are extremely active: these include the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

The Muslim Brotherhood is deeply implanted in Western Europe, where it controls many organizations and charities that also do their best to hide what they are. These include the "The Islamic Community of Germany," the Muslim Association of Britain, and "The Muslims of France." The Muslim Brotherhood has, in addition, created vast networks of mosques and schools that recruit, indoctrinate and claim that the future of Western Europe will belong to Islam and that Europeans will continue to submit.

This week, the unelected judges of the European Court of Human Rights submitted to the demands of Sharia blasphemy laws and decided not to allow criticism of Muhammad, lest Muslim feelings be hurt. The court actually chose hurt feelings over freedom of expression and truth as a defense. It is probably time to unelect these unelected judges.

Islamist organizations are present and growing. Often, they join forces to advance intimidation campaigns that push governments, the mainstream media and universities to ban all criticism of Islam and to enforce a growing Islamization of everyday life. Examples include efforts to change academic programs to present Muslim civilization in a more attractive light; efforts to have hospitals accept that Muslim women may be examined only by female doctors, and that social service agencies must respect polygamy. Many organizations rely for support on "fellow travelers" -- mainly Westerners who hate Western civilization and may see the rise of Islam as a means of destabilizing it. They want, and get, results.

Western European politicians, left and right, increasingly rely on the Muslim vote to get elected: they see that the birthrates (now well below replacement levels) and migratory flows create a population change; they calculate that being too hostile to Islam could lead to their political defeat.

Although the Swiss Islamist author Tariq Ramadan remains jailed in France over rape accusations, his books are still move up bestseller lists. Islamic bookstores are becoming more and more numerous. They sell anti-Semitic and anti-Western books that incite violence. No-go zones continue to proliferate in France, Britain and now in Germany. In his book No Go Zones, Raheem Kassam shows that female genital mutilation, sexual assault, and sometimes honor killings take place in these areas.

A few politicians -- Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Italy's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior Matteo Salvini, and Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz -- are trying to defend European civilization. They are dragged in the mud by Merkel, May, Macron and other Western European leaders. The chance of Orbán, Kurz and Salvini to win the fight in the short term is limited by the rapid aging of their country's populations.

Authors criticizing Islam are still allowed to write in Western Europe, but, with some exceptions, such as Éric Zemmour in France or Thilo Sarrazin in Germany, they are now almost totally ignored by the mainstream media. All of them are harassed by Islamists and sometimes by prosecutions. Anyone who has left Islam risks being killed. Some have chosen to escape to a safer part of the world. Ayaan Hirsi Ali left the Netherlands in 2006 and is now an American citizen. Others, who stayed in Western Europe, have to live under police protection. Hamed Abdel-Samad, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood who now lives in Germany, is the author of Islamic Fascism. Abdel-Samad says what Western European leaders refuse to see: "Islam is a religion of war". In a recent interview, he added that when a non-Muslim country is strong, "Islam can end up agreeing to coexist", but when a non-Muslim country is passive, "war comes back" on the horizon. This war, he added, "can be violent. It can be non violent". Western European countries show all the signs of being passive.

The United States is stronger. Will it remain a safe haven for ex-Muslims and freedom of speech? The Islamists are at work. Some in mosques incite violence. They find support. They intimidate institutions. In April 2018, M. Zuhdi Jasser, a practicing physician and founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, which advocates the separation of religion and state, was invited to speak at Duke University. Under pressure from Islamist students, the invitation was cancelled; it was then reinstated.

In 2014, when Brandeis University wanted to honor Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an author who abandoned Islam, Islamic organizations and "progressives" demanded that Brandeis to revoke the invitation. She was "disinvited" and the invitation not extended again. Hirsi Ali said:
"As someone who has known what it is to live without freedom, I watch in amazement as those who call themselves liberal and progressive – people who claim to believe so fervently in individual liberty and minority rights – make common cause with the forces in the world that manifestly pose the greatest threats to that very freedom and those very minorities... We need to say to Muslims living in the West: if you want to live in our societies, to share in their material benefits, then you need to accept that our freedoms are not optional".
Guy Milliere, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump Is the Best President Ever for American Jews - Karin McQuillan

by Karin McQuillan

Jews are used to being alone facing murderous hate. We have never had a president stand up for us before. We are not used to words that reflect the moral truth. President Trump is sui generis.

President Trump's statement on anti-Semitism the day after the Tree of Life massacre truly was "electrifying."
The Jews have endured terrible persecution, and you know that we've all read it: We've studied it. They've gone through a lot and those seeking their destruction...we will seek their destruction...Never again.
It touched my heart deeply. Jews have never, but never, been given this kind of whole-hearted support by an American leader before. Trump told the rally-goers in Illinois, slowly, and with great emphasis:
This evil anti-Semitic attack is an assault on all of us. It's an assault on humanity. It will require all of us, working together, to extract the hateful poison of anti-Semitism from our world. This was an anti-Semitic attack at its worst. The scourge of anti-Semitism cannot be ignored, cannot be tolerated, and it cannot be allowed to continue. We cannot allow it to continue. It must be confronted and condemned everywhere it rears its very ugly head. We must stand with our Jewish brothers and sisters to defeat anti-Semitism, and vanquish the forces of hate – that's what it is.

YouTube screen grab.

Jews have never, but never, been given this kind of whole-hearted backing by an American leader before. Jews are used to facing murderous hate alone. We are not used to words that reflect the moral truth. We’re used to mealy mouthed pieties condemning hate on all sides.

A dear friend who is active fighting anti-Semitism wrote me, “It is the strongest statement in support of Jews ever made by an American president.” 

President Trump is a promise keeper. He is unique among Presidents in keeping his campaign promises. When President Trump says anti-Semitism cannot be allowed to continue, it sounds like he means it. This may be, let us hope and pray, it may be of real significance.

President Trump is sui generis. He bulls through what ‘everyone knows’ and takes on the problems that others say are impossible to change. He sees what should be done, and he gets down to do it. Bringing back industrial jobs to America? No problem. Create jobs for unemployed blacks and Hispanics. At historic levels. Dealing with the immigration disaster destroying America? Bring it on. 

And now antisemitic murders of Jews have happened in America, on his watch. Trump is putting the evil doers on notice: anti-Semitism will not be tolerated. Anti-Semitism? It’s got to end.

The forces of anti-Semitism are concentrated in four groups of our fellow Americans: white supremacists like the man who murdered the congregants of Tree of Life; the Nation of Islam and our black community, Hispanic immigrants and to a lesser extent, native-born Hispanics, and progressives. Three of these four groups are large, significant voting blocs. All three are crucial to Democrat electoral victory.

Democrats are indeed the anti-Trump. He has zero tolerance for anti-Semitism, they have 100% tolerance. They must have anti-Semites’ votes to get to their 90% bloc voting in the black community, and to kowtow to their progressives. Democrat tolerance of anti-Semitism is a national disgrace. And it is getting worse, far worse. 

The number two post in the DNC is held by Keith Ellison, a long-time supporter of Farrakhan. The famous pussy-hat women’s march was co-organized and led by an Obama “Champion of Change,” Linda Sansour, who supports jihad in America and thinks Jewish women should be kicked out of the feminist movement. She was invited to the Obama White House seven times. That’s nothing. Al Sharpton, who has the unholy honor of being the only American to instigate two anti-Jewish riots in New York that led to over a dozen murders, was invited to Obama’s White House over a hundred times.

The Democrat party is running anti-Semitic candidates in the midterms. Not one, many. As The Federalist’s Warren Henry reports, in Michigan Rashida Tlaib wants Israel wiped out as a Jewish state. In Pennsylvania, Scott Wallace has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the anti-semitic BDS campaign. In Minnesota, Ilhan Omar says Israel “hypnotized the world” and hopes Allah would awaken people to “the evil doings of Israel.” In Virginia, Congressional nominee Leslie Cockburn wrote a book that whose theme is that Jews control our government, and claims that Israel caused the cold war with Stalin. The leftist Andrew Gillum, running for governor in Florida, supports BDS and the anti-Israel group Dream Defenders. A socialist candidate for Congress in Boston, Ayanna Presley, held an event with Nation of Islam members outside a mosque known for anti-Semitic conspiracy speakers.
Twenty-one members of the Black Congressional Caucus invite and consult with the odious Farrakhan, who has spread Nazi-style anti-Semitism among American blacks for decades, with no pushback by Democrat leaders. This goes far beyond photo ops. According to NRO, one example among many, Farrakhan was invited to speak at the 32nd annual legislative conference of the CBC, where as he “held capacity audiences spellbound,” and “was mobbed by celebrities, supporters and members of Congress.” Lower Democrat politicians like the City Councilor in DC blame bad weather on Jewish bankers as a scheme to ‘own the cities.’

Anti-Semitism is as much a part of the Democrat left as it is of neo-Nazi skinheads. Skinheads are shunned as pariahs by everyone in America. Leftist anti-Semitism is supported and rationalized by Democrat liberals. If they can, they blame it on Israel. If they can’t, they cover their own collusion with evil by screeching like banshees that Republican patriotism is white supremacy. 

President Trump says, “The scourge of anti-Semitism cannot be ignored, cannot be tolerated and it cannot be allowed to continue. We cannot allow it to continue. It must be confronted and condemned everywhere it rears its very ugly head.” 

There is a lot that Trump can do. For a start, he – and all Republicans – need to call out the Democrat Party on their antisemitic candidates and supporters. Not once – loudly and consistently. It would be great for President Trump to come up with one of his genius branding names for such Democrats.

On our college campuses, jihadi front groups are protected by left-wing academics, with a vulnerable population of young Jews to attack. Antisemitic incidents on campus doubled in 2015 – including 56 violent assaults - and doubled again in 2016. Education Secretary Betsy Devos should send out guidelines that Title IX protects Jewish students.

Trump and Congress must address the problem with social media. Twitter banned gaypatriot but allows Farrakhan continue his account as he tweets that Jews are termites? Termites, extermination, get it? 

The social justice warriors who are working overtime as ‘good censors’ at Google, Twitter and Facebook are fine with anti-semites, as long as they are black or leftist or anti-Israel. This must stop.

This is where I’m supposed to start bad-mouthing President Trump as crude or vulgar or intemperate or overly aggressive or non-Presidential – to show I’m not a cheerleader or that I personally have good manners. Forget it. 

Trump has earned my gratitude by all he’s done for America, for all of us. I am a cheerleader. I love that he’s a real person. I’ll take crude and real and good anytime.

Trump can’t let an insult go by when it would be smarter to keep his mouth shut. Men with a lot of testosterone can be like that. It’s part of why he does his job like a man, too, a man who cares about getting the hard jobs done. A man who cares about protecting all Americans. I love the guy. 

He has my back, and I know it.

Karin McQuillan


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Myth-Making of Barack Obama - Lloyd Billingsley

by Lloyd Billingsley

Still “making stuff up” after all these years.

President Obama’s designated successor Hillary Clinton was a loser in 2016 and as winner Donald Trump’s midterm approaches, POTUS 44 claims “the character of our country is on the ballot” and the Republicans are “making stuff up.” Here POTUS 44 is speaking from his own experience.

Dreams from My Father was not a memoir or an autobiography; it was instead, in multitudinous ways, without any question a work of historical fiction. It featured many true-to-life figures and a bevy of accurately described events that indeed had occurred, but it employed the techniques and literary license of a novel, and its most important composite character was the narrator himself.” Is this perhaps some “birther” claiming the author made up the story?

No, it’s Pulitzer Prize winner David Garrow, author of the 1460-page Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama. So just to be clear, it’s the official biographer stating that Dreams from My Father is not a memoir or an autobiography, as the default view contends. It is a work of fiction and the author a composite character in the story.

To say the least, that is quite a revelation about the most powerful man in the world for eight years. The reality seems to have got by the Democrat party, the Republican party, the establishment media and the squad of “presidential historians” who gather on PBS. On the other hand, the same crew missed the boat back in 1995, when Dreams first emerged.

The author Barack Obama had no record of publication and he hints that another hand is at work. “I cannot honestly say,” he writes, “that the voice in this book is not mine.” Why say that if there was no question about the voice in the book?

“People have a hard time taking me at face value,” the author explains, and sometimes “I sound like I’m trying to hide from myself.” He also expresses “a stubborn desire to protect myself from scrutiny,” which might leave David Garrow puzzled.

The narrative centers on the African father the author never knew, and he was “trying to rewrite the stories, plugging up the holes in the narrative, accommodating unwelcome details.” This was to extract “some granite slab of truth upon which my unborn children can stand.” Sounds good, but he also writes of a “useful fiction” and explains, “my father became a prop in someone else’s narrative. An attractive prop – an alien with the heart of gold, the mysterious stranger who saves the town and wins the girl – but a prop nonetheless.” 

So, the father was an “attractive prop” in a “useful fiction,” which was part of “someone else’s narrative.” With open confessions like that, the author can’t blame biographer Garrow, author of books on Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement, for proclaiming Dreams from My Father a novel. As it turns out, Garrow found more evidence about the need for protection from scrutiny.

The author’s beloved “Frank,” who gets more than 2,000 words, is the African American Communist Frank Marshall Davis, who spent much of his life defending all-white Stalinist dictatorships. As Garrow noted, “Davis’ Communist background plus his kinky exploits made him politically radioactive.” That is why the author needed the narrative about the elusive foreign student, but Garrow couldn’t compare the African’s own account.  In his written communications from 1958 to 1964, including more than 20 letters, the Kenyan Barack Obama mentions nothing about an American wife and Hawaiian-born American son.

Garrow also interviewed Genevieve Cook, one of the author’s girlfriends, not present in the Dreams account. “You masquerade, you pompous jive, you act,” she tells the author in a poem. In her view, he was protecting himself from scrutiny and putting on an act. Nobody called him on it, even after Garrow’s massive book about the “making of Barack Obama.” A larger back story is at work here, beyond what Julien Benda called La Trahison des Clercs, and the establishment media as a Democrat publicity agency. 

In a time when the eschaton has been thoroughly immanentized, matters of fact become matters of unquestioned belief. Elizabeth Warren says she’s Cherokee, Richard Blumenthal says he fought in Vietnam, Christine Blasey Ford claims Brett Kavanaugh sexually abused her, and the world is supposed to believe, without evidence or corroboration.

Likewise, everyone is supposed to believe that Dreams from My Father is an authentic autobiography even after official biographer David Garrow calls it fiction. That was after the  composite character became President of the United States and served two terms.

Under Obamacare you can keep your doctor, he said. No scandals in his administration and not even a smidgen of corruption. Mass murder at Ford Hood is “workplace violence,” and a terrorist attack in Benghazi only a protest over a video. And so on. 

In 2018, the former president is taking credit for the nation’s economic surge under President Trump. The composite character is still “making up stuff” and anyone could be forgiven for disregarding everything he says.

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation, recently updated, and Hollywood Party: Stalinist Adventures in the American Movie IndustryBill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield, is a collection of his journalism.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter