Friday, May 3, 2019

Why Does Islamist Anti-Semitism Receive a Pass? - Hesham Shehab

by Hesham Shehab

Much of the growing tide of anti-Semitism in the West has a basis in Islamist anti-Semitism promoted by hate preachers

In the wake of the shooting at the San Diego-area synagogue in California on Saturday, April 27 that left one worshiper dead and two wounded, and the ongoing outcry against an Anti-Semitic cartoon published in the New York Times, we are reminded that anti-Semitism exists on all sides of the political spectrum, and can yield deadly results.

While these acts of anti-Semitism are rightfully publicly decried, and the organizations that traffic in them condemned, much of the growing tide of anti-Semitism in the West has a basis in Islamist anti-Semitism, promoted by hate preachers utilizing the West’s famous tolerance to promote vile conspiracy theories against the Jews.

All too often, however, the organizations that permit this form of anti-Semitism are protected from criticism by cries of “Islamophobia” and the organizations that support them are treated as important community organizations.

Take, for example, Sheikh Omar Baloch, the Resident Scholar of the Bolingbrook Illinois-based Al-Furqaan Foundation, a group which performs “Dawah”, or proselytizing, by distributing Qurans across the United States. 

Baloch’s YouTube Channel consists of a series of videos warning the world, in general, and Muslims in particular against the threat of the Zionist movement that, according to his YouTube videos, wreaks havoc in the world in order to achieve its goals. Titles include “Illuminati, Zionism & the Third Temple”, “9/11 TO Sri Lanka Zionist Link- Hoax After Hoax, Muslims Cry Wolf (Shocking Truth!)” and “Sri Lanka Deadly Attack and New World Order”.

In his most recent YouTube video, Baloch, as if reading from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, emphasized that Zionists “have done everything against anything that has been religious. This is their modus operandi,” adding, “the Zionist Movement itself used secular people, [and] used religious people to their ungodly Satanic ends.”

The sheikh introduces the specific topic of his video by emphasizing strongly that Zionists “want to bring down a sacred place; Al Masjid Al Aqsa (…) [in order] to build the [Jewish] Temple. Also, because under the Temple there are a lot of artefacts (…) Probably, it has to do with magic, but I am not going to go into that today.”

In the video, Baloch goes on to suggest that Zionists perpetrated the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York on September 2001, the Mossad created the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), that Zionists carried out the horrific massacre at the Christchurch mosques in New Zealand and the suicide bombings in Sri Lanka, on Easter Sunday, in order to create conflict in the world and give Islam a bad name.

Baloch is not a foreign-born imam raised on the historical anti-Semitism prevalent in the Middle East. He was born in Chicago and studied at Georgetown University. His bio also lists him as attending in addition Al-Azhar University in Egypt and the Jamia Thul Ahlul Hadith in Pakistan.

Al-Furqaan Foundation’s Facebook page notes that Baloch “is responsible for all activities and material relating to communicating the Message of the Qur’an to Muslims and non-Muslims.”

Al-Furqaan Foundation oversees a number of linked organizations including Al Furqaan Institute of Quranic Education (FIQE), where Baloch is an instructor and which emphasizes providing Islamic education to prison inmates, as well as the Al Furqaan Academy, an Islamic school teaching young Muslims with branches in Chicago and Dallas.

Al Furqaan Foundation is also a leading member of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC) a coalition that claims to be “the leading advocate of Muslim community interests and a catalyst for enriching American society.” Through CIOGC and with the help of Bolingbrook Mayor Roger Claar, Al Furqaan Academy received the ability to utilize public school buses for its students in 2016.

CIOGC held its annual Muslim Advocacy day in Springfield earlier this month, meeting with Governor JB Pritzker and state legislators.

Al Furqaan Foundation and CIOGC should be required to condemn Omar Baloch’s anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and remove him from his position. 

Of course, Baloch is not an isolated case, anti-Semitism has spread through the Islamic world like a cancer. A survey of attitudes toward Jews in more than 100 countries found that anti-Semitism was twice as common among Muslims as among Christians.

It requires an honest assessment of the problem, a candid conversation, and hard work to isolate and discredit Islamist demagogues, and to encourage moderate leaders. Only then can we help build a healthy American community free of the scourge of anti-Semitism. We can’t do that if we allow apologists to treat Islamist anti-Semites differently.

Hesham Shehab is the Chicago Area Associate of the Counter-Islamist Grid (CIG)


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why FDR wouldn't condemn Hitler - Dr. Rafael Medoff

by Dr. Rafael Medoff

Roosevelt not only refused to criticize the Hitler government, but he personally removed critical references to Hitler from at least three planned speeches by Interior Secretary Harold Ickes in 1935 and 1938. And that's not all.

“Danzig is a German city and wishes to belong to Germany!”

With that declaration eighty years ago this week, Adolf Hitler once again threw down the gauntlet to the international community. No other country had interfered when Nazi Germany illegally remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936, annexed Austria in 1938, and gobbled up Czechoslovakia in 1938-39. So now Hitler set his sights on his next target: the city-state of Danzig.

Situated strategically on the coast of northwestern Poland but inhabited overwhelmingly by ethnic Germans, Danzig had gone back and forth between German and Polish rule over the centuries. The Versailles Treaty after World War One established it as a “Free City” under the control of the League of Nations.

As Nazism rose in Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s, so too did it gain in popularity in Danzig. The city’s Nazi party went from winning one seat in the Danzig parliament in the elections of 1927 to twelve (out of 72) in 1930, then 38 in 1933, giving it a majority.

But Hitler did not act immediately. In the mid and late 1930s, the Nazis were still in the process of re-arming and testing the West’s responses to their actions. The failure of the international community to challenge Hitler over the Rhineland or Austria sent a clear message. That was followed by the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia, in the 1938 Munich Agreement. Then came Hitler’s announcement to the Reichstag on April 28, 1939, demanding the surrender of Danzig along with a land corridor leading to it. 

Reporters were keen to learn how President Franklin D. Roosevelt would respond to this latest, blatant challenge by the Nazi leader to the authority of the League of Nations. FDR, however, was not too keen to comment.

On April 29, the New York Times reported:  “Anticipating the nature of Herr Hitler’s address and the barrage of questions on his reaction to it that would have been inevitable under the circumstances, the President late yesterday had canceled his usual Friday press conference.”

The Times added that during President Roosevelt’s meeting with the prince and princess of Norway that day, a conversation was overheard in which the president was asked what he thought of Hitler’s Danzig threat. FDR reportedly responded, “How can any one have a reaction to a speech that lasts more than two hours?” And then: “Six o’clock in the morning is rather early, don’t you think?”

The next day, April 30, the president spoke at the opening of World’s Fair in New York City. In his first public remarks since the Hitler speech, FDR spoke vaguely of the need for “peace and good-will among all the nations of the world,” but made no mention of the Nazi leader or the fate of Danzig.

Finally, on May 2, the president held a regularly scheduled news conference, at which point there was no way avoid questions about his reaction to Hitler’s threat. Here’s how the exchange went:

Q: Have you seen the full text of the Hitler speech yet?

FDR: What?

Q: Hitler’s speech?

FDR: Only the one that came out in the papers. Probably the State Department is still translating it.

Q: It takes a while, I imagine.

FDR: Do you suppose that the text was handed to them, translated into English in Berlin?

Q: Yes, sir; one of the stories said it was handed to them in an English translation.

FDR: Was it?

Q: Official translation. The English translation was flown to London, I saw in one story.

FDR: Well, the State Department was doing its regular translating for what they had taken down on the verbal stuff. I don’t know how much he followed the text. As you know, sometimes I do not stick to the text.

President Roosevelt is best remembered for leading America towards military preparedness  and, later, in the war against Nazi Germany—yet he was remarkably reluctant to even verbally criticize Hitler in the 1930s.

Throughout the pre-war period, FDR strove to maintain cordial diplomatic and economic relations with Nazi Germany. He sent Secretary of Commerce Daniel Roper to speak at a German-American rally in New York City in 1933, where the featured speaker was the Nazi ambassador to Washington, and a large swastika flag was displayed on stage. The president allowed U.S. diplomats to attend the mass Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg in 1937, and his administration helped the Nazis evade the American Jewish community’s boycott of German goods in the 1930s by permitting the Nazis to deceptively label their goods with the city or province of origin, instead of “Made in Germany.”

Despite the intensifying anti-Jewish persecution in Germany in the 1930s, Roosevelt not only refused to criticize the Hitler government, but he personally removed critical references to Hitler from at least three planned speeches by Interior Secretary Harold Ickes in 1935 and 1938. Even Roosevelt’s criticism of the infamous Kristallnacht pogrom—a public statement which has often been cited as proof of the president’s willingness to denounce the Nazis—did not contain a single explicit mention of Hitler, Nazism, or the Jews.

Roosevelt said nothing about Hitler’s action in the Rhineland (1936); applauded the Munich agreement, which handed western Czechoslovakia to the Nazis (1938); and, eighty years ago this week, ducked reporters’ questions rather than utter a single critical word regarding Hitler’s threat to Danzig.

FDR was, of course, saddled with the burden of a largely isolationist public and Congress. He was understandably reluctant to be seen as doing anything that might seem to edge America close to war with Germany.

Yet a president’s job is to lead, not to follow. A few words from the White House directly taking issue with Hitler’s aggressive actions and persecution of the Jews could have helped alert the public to the Nazi danger. 

Explaining President Roosevelt’s refusal to comment on Hitler’s remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, the diplomatic correspondent of the Washington Evening Standard reported that the president “is determined not to take sides under any circumstances.” But there are circumstances when, even if it is unpopular, a president needs to publicly “take sides”—to take the side of good against the side of evil.

A stronger response from President Roosevelt over Danzig or the earlier crises also would have indicated to Hitler that there might be consequences for his actions—something that was particularly important in the early and mid 1930s, when the Nazi leader was still testing the waters. 

“It is not trade but empire that is Hitler’s goal,” a New York Times editorial acknowledged following the Danzig speech. “How far he will go and how fast he will go toward acquiring it will depend solely upon how much opposition is offered him.” FDR’s non-response to Danzig sent Hitler exactly the wrong message.

Dr. Rafael Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and the author of The Jews Should Keep Quiet: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and the Holocaust, forthcoming from The Jewish Publication Society in 2019. Reposted with author's permission from the History News Network - April 28, 2019.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Arab chapter of the Holocaust - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

The Palestinian mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, prodded Hitler to exterminate Europe's Jews, established the Muslim division of the SS, and incited the murderous "Farhud" pogrom in Baghdad. Let us never forget the wretched concentration camps in North Africa.

Naturally, the Holocaust is perceived as a fundamentally European event. It’s customary to approach it as the “Holocaust of European Jewry,” whose perpetrators were European nations, the Germans and their allies. But we should not ignore the aspects of the Holocaust which pertain to the Arab world.

One of the more striking of these aspects was the role of the Palestinian mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini. Even prior to the Holocaust, when he held various public positions in the Land of Israel (1920-1937), his sermons incited the murder of Jews in the riots in 1920, 1921 and 1929, and again in the Arab Revolt of 1936. It isn’t surprising that he was later involved in the genocide of Europe’s Jews.

According to testimonies provided by Nazi officers at the Nuremberg trials after the war, the mufti is mentioned as one of the figures who pushed Hitler to annihilate the Jews of Europe, from the moment he arrived in Germany in late 1941. While reasonable to assume Hitler didn’t need much “encouragement” from the mufti, his role in promoting the idea of destroying the Jews, and its implementation, was prominent.

The mufti also played an important role for the Nazis between the years 1942-1944, when he initiated the creation of Muslim units in the German military and the SS, whose soldiers were drafted in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. In 1944, when the majority of Hungary’s Jews were rounded up – more than half a million people – in the Budapest area, the Germans intended to transport them by train to the Auschwitz extermination camp, but were worried that partisan fighters would blow up the bridges in an effort to disrupt the shipments. The mufti sent the Muslim units to protect the bridges and ensure the Jews were sent to their deaths.

The mufti didn’t hide his intentions. He wrote and broadcast – mainly in Arabic via radio from Berlin – his commitment to preventing at all costs European Jews from immigrating to “Palestine,” whose extermination, in his view, was necessary and crucial. In July of 1945, the “Yugoslavian Commission for Determining the Crimes of Occupiers and their Collaborators” adopted Resolution 1892, which included Amin al-Husseini on the list of war criminals, for his role in the forced enlistment of the populace in territories under occupation, based on clause 23 of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

The commission noted: “As a result of [al-Husseini’s] actions… the Muslim division of the SS was established… everywhere they were deployed these units committed numerous war crimes, such as mass slaughter, despicable atrocities, burned entire communities to the ground and plundered. Because of this activity… the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini has been added to the list of international war criminals… he bears responsibility for the induction of the Muslim masses, in other words for compelling these people, who were forced to enlist to fascist military organizations, and accordingly, he is also guilty of the same crimes.” After the war, the mufti fled to France, where the French heartily welcomed him and gifted him a villa to live in for a year.

However, beyond the mufti’s role, we must note in this context the concentration camps in Libya, which was under Italian control during the war. The Jews of Libya were sent to camps in the desert: Jadu, Sidi Azaz, Gharyan, Buq Buq, Ifrane. They were held in squalid conditions, suffered from hunger and thirst, hundreds perished. Who hunted the Jews? Who identified them for the Germans? The answer is clear: Their Muslim neighbors.

Finally, we must also remember the “Farhud” of Baghdad, a pogrom of murder, rape and plunder perpetrated by Iraqi Arabs against the Jews of Baghdad over the Shavuot holiday in 1941. In total, 179 Jews were murdered, thousands were wounded, women were raped and children orphaned due to the demonic incitement spewed by al-Husseini, who was in Baghdad at the time.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and is an expert on the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

European Elections: "The Battle for Europe has Begun" - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

Nationalist Europeans leaders meet to share concerns and goals relating to national sovereignty

  • "We are fighting for Europe to remain European, with European values...." — Tomio Okamura, President, Czech Freedom and Direct Democracy party (SPD) and Deputy Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies.
  • "My friends, we are gathered here today to stand up for our freedom and our sovereignty. The most precious things we have. Because without a strong nation state, there is no democracy. And without democracy there are no liberties.... My friends, our countries are strong nations. Based on a Jewish-Christian and humanistic civilization. That should never change. So, we want to control our own borders again. We do not want mass immigration. And we do not want to be invaded by a tyrannical ideology." — Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV).
  • "However, my friends, it isn't easy to leave the EU, as the British have found out. Despite a majority voting for Brexit, the establishment and the EU have colluded to stop us." — Janice Atkinson, British MEP, who is also Vice Chair of the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF) political group in the European Parliament.
  • "Immigration must be stopped, and the Islamist ideology must be eradicated.... Islamization and globalism are new totalitarianisms that threaten European countries." — Marine Le Pen, Prague Press Conference.

The leaders of several European nationalist parties campaigned in Prague on April 25, ahead of the European Parliament elections set for May 23-26. Pictured: Tomio Okamura (left), president of the Czech Freedom and Direct Democracy Party, Marine Le Pen (center), leader of France's National Rally, and Geert Wilders (right), leader of the Dutch Freedom Party. (Photo by Gabriel Kuchta/Getty Images)

The leaders of several European nationalist parties campaigned in Prague on April 25, ahead of the European Parliament elections set for May 23-26.

The rally was sponsored by the Movement for a Europe of Nations and Freedom (MENF), a pan-European alliance of nine nationalist parties dedicated to stopping mass migration and recovering national sovereignty from the European Union.

The Prague event was organized by the president of the Czech Freedom and Direct Democracy Party (SPD), Tomio Okamura, who was joined by Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) leader Geert Wilders, French National Rally (RN) leader Marine Le Pen, the President of Movement for a Europe of Nations and Freedom (MENF), Gerolf Annemans, and British MEP Janice Atkinson, who is also Vice Chair of the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF) political group in the European Parliament. Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, leader of the anti-mass migration League party, sent a video message. They spoke to a crowd in Prague's downtown Wenceslas Square. Following are some excerpts of the keynote speeches:

Tomio Okamura, President, Freedom and Direct Democracy party (SPD) and Deputy Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies:

"Dear friends, dear guests, dear Marine, dear Geert, dear colleagues, I warmly welcome you here in the historical center of the Czech capital. We stand here symbolically at the statue of St. Wenceslas. Under the banner of St. Wenceslas, our ancestors fought more than a thousand years of hard struggle for the freedom and sovereignty of the Czech crown countries....

"Today, Europeans are once again fighting for their survival. It is not just the migration of colonists from Africa and the Arab countries that is changing the face of Western Europe. It is also the growing assault from Brussels on the sovereignty of Europe's nation states in the name of a multicultural superstate.

"For those who downplay this warning, I would like to mention a quote from the former President of the European Union, Herman Von Rompuy: 'The time of the homogenous nation-state is over. Each European country has to be open for different cultures.'

"In contemporary Europe, the Brussels aristocracy has no place for nations, and no place for democracy either. The former President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, has been quoted as saying: 'It is not the EU's philosophy that the crowd can decide its destiny.'

"And for those who are still not sure about Europe's ambitions, German Deputy Foreign Minister Michael Roth has called for replacing the principle of unanimity in EU decision-making with qualified majority voting.

"Dear Citizens, the mass immigration of millions of Africans and Muslims to Europe is no coincidence — it is a targeted liquidation of traditional European nation states, as well as the targeted destruction of traditional European values — hence the concept of the traditional family is being liquidated, and patriotism becomes a rude word, because these values ​​are the biggest obstacle to the demolition of nation states.

"It is up to us to decide whether we give up all that our ancestors have sacrificed their lives for, whether we will savor their memory, or defend their heritage....

"I say clearly that the current EU must end! I remind you that at present, European Union directives and regulations outrank the laws of the EU's member states....

"The European Parliament is the only place where we can change Europe. Come to the polls! Together across Europe we advocate a return to the original model of European cooperation, without regulation from Brussels, when sovereign nation states had a common market and free movement of citizens of European nations. And each state was at the same time a sovereign in its territory, adopting its own laws and, if necessary, protecting its borders.

"We are fighting for Europe to remain European, with European values....

"Dear citizens, dear friends, we say a clear 'NO' to further restrictions on the rights of citizens, including the right to own a gun. NO acceptance of Euro currency by the Czech Republic. NO transferring further power from state to EU....

"We are not alone. National patriotic parties are on the rise all over Europe, promoting freedom, democracy and the sovereignty of their peoples.

"We are not alone and together we have a tremendous historic opportunity to win and change the European Union from the Brussels dictatorship to the Union of Free European States, which cooperate on the basis of mutual equality and mutual benefit.

"These elections, if we want, can be a real referendum on the European Union."

Geert Wilders, MP and Chairman, Party for Freedom:

"My friends, we are gathered here today to stand up for our freedom and our sovereignty. The most precious things we have. Because without a strong nation state, there is no democracy. And without democracy there are no liberties.

"Today, we are fighting for our existence. And the biggest threats to our survival and our freedom are the European Union, mass immigration and the Islamic ideology of submission and violence.

"First, let's talk about the European Union. An undemocratic superstate. It is forcing its commands on the peoples of Europe. It is trying to take away our national sovereignty! And we want to be sovereign, don't we?

"The European Union is attempting to erase our nation states. But we say; no more! Let's say it loud and clear: no more! Our nations are shaped by their own history, culture, language and identity and therefore they are impossible to erase!

"My friends, our countries are strong nations. Based on a Jewish-Christian and humanistic civilization. That should never change.

"So, we want to control our own borders again. We do not want mass immigration. And we do not want to be invaded by a tyrannical ideology.

"You Czechs are — as a matter of fact — an example to us all. Because you are opposing the EU asylum policy. You are opposing the Islamization of Europe. You say: Ne, Nikdy [No, not ever]. Your resistance inspires us!

"Let me tell you something about my country, the Netherlands. A few weeks ago, a jihadi attack took place in one of our major cities, Utrecht. Four innocent people were killed in broad daylight in a tram by a jihadist. And in the three largest cities in the Netherlands, the majority of people under the age of 25 are non-Western immigrants. Mostly Islamic. Our people are already a stranger in their own town and country. The Netherlands is given away by the elites. On a silver platter. In many western European countries, it is just like that or even worse.

"The European Union has been pampering Islam for decades now. But Islam is a medieval cult that denies freedom to others. So why should we grant Islam any liberties? We should not, we should stop Islam. By depriving Islam of the means to destroy our identity, we are not violating freedom; we are preserving our identity and guaranteeing freedom.

"As we have seen, the free world has been the victim of many terror attacks in the last few years. From New York, Madrid, Paris, Brussels and Nice to Barcelona, Manchester, Berlin, Stockholm and Marseille innocent people were murdered by Islamic inspired terrorists, that hate us and cherish death more than life. And a few days ago, innocent people died on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka, where Christians in churches and westerners in hotels were attacked and brutally slaughtered. So, Islamization comes with a very high price. One we are not willing to pay.

"Freedom obviously also has a price and we must be prepared to pay it: a choice has to be made. The choice between Islam and freedom. There is no middle way. Because nothing is more precious than liberty and freedom.

"Defending our freedom, defending our way of life, requires all of us to be vigilant, courageous and audacious. It requires all of us to raise our voice. To raise our voice against the enemies of freedom. Against the tyranny of Islamization. Against everyone who tries to silence us!

"The European Union and many governments facilitate Islam and Islamic immigration. Why are they facilitating a totalitarian ideology? Why are they accommodating an intolerant dogma? It is as if they have surrendered. It is as if they have capitulated. But not on behalf of the people. Not on behalf of you.

"We will never apologize for being free men. We will never surrender. We stand on the shoulders of giants. And there is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty. Because freedom is the birthright of all men. And Islam and freedom are incompatible.

"Unless there are radical changes to the present policies towards migration, over 30% of Sweden will be Islamic by the year 2050. And almost 20% in Germany and France. And it will only get worse in the next decades, because the population of Africa is exploding. According to the United Nations, the population of Africa will grow from one billion people to 4 billion Africans by the end of this century. Many of them will want to come to Europe. Many of them will come from Islamic countries. My friends, Europe is on the brink of cultural suicide.

"The European Union will never defend our national interest and our freedom. So, we need strong nation states. And we need brave leaders who care about the freedom and security of their own people. Who are not afraid to speak the truth about the dangers of mass immigration.

"That is why it is so important to have a huge group of political allies working together in the next European elections. That's why it is so important that brave leaders as Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini have our support.

"And that's why it is so important to have one of the bravest politicians of all Europe on our side, a hero who is not afraid to speak the truth about the EU and Islam: Tomio Okamura!

"My friends, we are the patriots! And we will win! Long live the Czech Republic! Svoboda! Thank you."

Gerolf Annemans, President, Movement for a Europe of Nations and Freedom (MENF):

"I stand like all of you on this central spot of the continent, not only on the crossroads of Europe, but also and more than ever we stand at the crossroads of European history.

"The European Union has become an institution that crushes the peoples of member states because the big bosses of the European Union want to put their organization to become the one and only superstate on the continent.

"Our proud nations will become powerless provinces if we let this happen. What this all means for the future of our children can be seen in the way the European Union put mass migration in motion on the continent.

"Under EU rules, mass migration became a historic icon of wild migration. We have to resist this chaos. We are the resistance. Our political family has the image of Matteo Salvini, who showed as Italian minister that to reverse migration you need one thing and one thing only, the political will to do so. Nothing more, but unfortunately, these days, nothing less.

"Putting this political will into the center of politics is our goal.

"I ask you, did the brave Czech people fight for their freedom to become oppressed by disappearing in the European Union? Did we, did you fight the USSR to get a similar threat in return? Tell us, yes or no?

"No, of course. We fought, you fought for freedom. We stand for freedom. And in this historical election of May 2019 the battle for our freedom will be decisive.

"We are the resistance. Matteo Salvini, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, my party president Tom Van Grieken of the Flemish party Vlaams Belang, and all the others, we are proud to have you and Tomio as strong allies in Central Europe of what will become a force for change in Europe.

"For our homeland and for our freedom, let us join forces and let us stand strong. No matter how strong our opponents could be, we will be stronger because we have the strength of our conviction, and we are the hope that the people of Europe have in us.

"Long live the Europe of nations. Long live the Europe of freedom."

Janice Atkinson, British MEP and Vice President, Europe of Nations and Freedom:

"My message to the Czechs and for the citizens of the EU is to vote for the parties that will take you out of the EU. It is the evil empire. Vote for the parties that will tear down the EU state, so that power is returned to the nations of Europe and freedom.

"The EU is the dictatorship of the unelected, the failed politicians of their own nations, as they suck the lifeblood of democracy out of our countries. These unelected dictators have imposed mass uncontrolled immigration on our countries. They have failed to secure our external borders. They have failed to stop migrants arriving by foot, by boats and via people smugglers.

"The Schengen system allows them to walk freely, to live and work where they choose — even though it is not what we choose. They have unleashed terror on our streets. They have the rape and sexual assault of women on their hands. They have Europe's blood on their hands.

"They have changed our cities and our streets and towns so that they are unrecognizable, and we are foreigners in our own lands. They encourage radical Islam, which has brought into our lives Sharia law, female genital mutilation, child marriage and medieval clothing such as the burka. Enough. No more!

"Do not accept that this is Europe's fate. It is reversible and can be stopped. If you value your freedoms, your way of life, your rule of law, your culture and heritage, the EU has to be stopped. The only way to do this is to vote for Tomio Okamura and his party, the SPD. Tomio, together with my colleagues, Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini can change the course of Europe.

"The SPD will also give you the freedom for Czexit, a referendum on whether you want to stay in the EU. I hope you follow the British and vote to leave. However, my friends, it isn't easy to leave the EU, as the British have found out. Despite a majority voting for Brexit, the establishment and the EU have colluded to stop us. And that's the trouble. We have elected MEPs and MPs who have given control of our lives and our countries and our day to day life and our future to the people who do not believe in the nation state, sovereignty and control over our own laws.

"In these EU elections, you have the change to save the Czech Republic and to save Europe. Do you want to be robbed by unelected bureaucrats such as Jean-Claude Juncker, Frans Timmermans or Donald Tusk? No!

"My friends, we are at a tipping point in Europe. You can save our continent."

Marine Le Pen, President, National Rally:

"The battle for Europe has begun. In these elections, the supporters of globalism stand against supporters of the nation state. The globalists against the localists.

"European federalists support total deregulation, the complete abolition of borders, the free movement of migration across the planet and the weakening of nation states for the benefit of oligarchs, civil servants and experts. On the other hand, there are us patriots from all across Europe.

"We have chosen our nations, nations whose diversity is the richness of Europe. They must remain themselves and cooperate freely with each other....

"We do not want to seal the borders, but we want to put the doors back to our home....

"My country offers a sad example of migratory submersion. If you are not careful, it will be your future. Whole neighborhoods have become non-French areas!....

"The democratic push of the patriots in all the countries of Europe will make it possible to recast the European framework....

"Today, the European Union does not have the capacity to send tanks on the streets or to fire on the crowd... Yet the goal is the same: to reduce our political, legal, and national identity — our capacities of resistance....

"We, the French and the Czechs, will be at the rendezvous of history on May 26! Long live the Czech people! Long live the French people! Long live the Europe of sovereign nations!"
During a press conference, Le Pen added:
"What we see here, before our eyes, is the emergence of a new European harmony that sees the national parties coming together to offer 500 million Europeans a new framework of cooperation, a new project and a new momentum for the future.
"Immigration must be stopped, and the Islamist ideology must be eradicated.... Islamization and globalism are new totalitarianisms that threaten European countries."
In a video broadcast at the Prague event, Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini said:
"Ladies and gentlemen, I am sending a greeting to my friend Tomio Okamura and the Czech friends at the SPD. I hope, and in fact I'm sure that after May 26, after the European elections, we will finally be working together in a new Europe that defends borders and our children against immigration and Islamic extremism, which must be stopped."
Salvini is trying to unite nationalist parties scattered across the 28-nation European Union to join forces in a new political alliance. On April 8, Salvini was joined in Milan by representatives of Germany's Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, the Danish People's Party and the Finns Party, to launch a new alliance called "Towards a Common Sense Europe." Salvini hopes that the new bloc will emerge as the largest in the 751-member parliament after the elections in May.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump Drops the Hammer on Castro - Humberto Fontova

by Humberto Fontova

Obama's communist romance is extinguished.

“In major shift, Trump to allow lawsuits against foreign firms in Cuba--The Trump administration will allow lawsuits in U.S. courts for the first time against foreign companies that use properties confiscated by Communist-ruled Cuba since Fidel Castro’s revolution.” (Reuters.)
“Major shift,” is right. The provision in the Helms Burton Act (i.e. codification of the “Cuba embargo”) allowing for these suits was passed with the act in 1996. But ever since, frowning, finger-wagging threats from the United Nations, European Union and the “international community” in general cowed every U.S. President into lowering his head, tucking his tail between his legs and waiving the lawsuit provision.

“Good boy!” snickered Castro and his European and Canadian partners in burglary as they merrily poked each other triumphantly in the ribs and patted the U.S. on the head. “That’s a good boy!”

That snickering, rib-poking and head-patting has now ceased, replaced by gasps, gulps, damp foreheads and sweaty palms. To wit:

“(The U.S. decision) is regrettable, and will have an important impact on legitimate EU and Canadian economic operators in Cuba,” EU Vice President Federica Mogherini, Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and EU Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmstrom said in a joint statement.

Is that “the world’s smallest violin” I hear wailing mournfully in the background? John Bolton seems to hear it too—in fact he’s playing it:
“President Trump looked very carefully at this…I think this is clearly the right thing to do. Justice for Americans whose property was stolen by the Castro regime is long overdue…I can't wait for the lawsuits.” (John Bolton, April 17.)

Some of us clearly recall a U.S. Presidential candidate who stressed—almost from day one of his campaign-- that should he gain office, our trading partners would no longer take advantage of Americans.”

Little did these “trading partners” realize how far this defense of American interests would extend.

Sounds shocking, I know. But—contrary to leftist fairy tales--the embargo was NOT put into place simply because “Mean and Rich ‘Ole Scrooge/Uncle Sam” had a hissy fit after Castro threw out the mob and granted his everlastingly grateful subjects free and fabulous healthcare as they blissfully sang and danced the days away, in a manner to shame what Dorothy witnessed in The Emerald City.

In brief, amigos: The buzzard-like European, Asian, Canadian, etc. companies who swooped into Cuba rubbing their hands and snickering to partner with the Castroite thieves to take over, operate and profit from property STOLEN at Soviet gunpoint from U.S. citizens (some who were tortured and murdered for resisting the blatant theft) may finally face some justice at the hands of the theft victims.  

You’d never guess this from the Cuba “reporting” by the Fake News Media but the reason for the Cuba embargo in the first place was Castro’s mass theft, at Soviet gunpoint, of almost 6,000 businesses in Cuba worth $9 billion (in current dollars) from U.S. citizens. A few American business owners who resisted were tortured and murdered.

The Inter-American Law Review classifies Castro’s mass burglary of U.S. property as “the largest uncompensated taking of American property by a foreign government in history.” Rubbing his hands and snickering in triumphant glee, Castro boasted at maximum volume to the entire world that he was freeing Cuba from “Yankee economic slavery!” (Che Guevara’s term, actually) and that “he would never repay a penny!” (this was the only promise Fidel Castro kept in his life!)

One of these American burglary victims was Howard Anderson, a successful businessman who owned a chain of service stations and a Jeep dealership (not a casino or brothel, which were relatively rare in pre-Castro Cuba, by the way.)  Mr. Anderson was a happy family man with four children and president of the American Legion's Havana Chapter. He was beloved in the Cuban community. Howard Anderson embodied in his athletic 6' 2" frame everything the Castroites most hated and resented (and envied.) I’ll quote from Anderson v. Republic of Cuba, No. 01-28628 (Miami-Dade Circuit Court, April 13, 2003):

“In one final session of torture, Castro’s agents drained Howard Anderson’s body of blood before sending him to his death at the firing squad.”

"Death to the American!" screamed Howard Anderson's communist “prosecutor” at his farce of a trial on April 17, 1961. "The prosecutor was a madman!" says a Swiss diplomat who witnessed the trial, "leaping on tables, shrieking, pointing, as Mr. Anderson simply glared back." 

Two days after his "trial," Howard Anderson refused a blindfold, to glare at his executioners. Medically he was probably in shock at the time from the blood-draining. "Fuego!"  The bullets shattered Howard Anderson's body at dawn on April 19, 1961. 

In fact, in stressing that (portions of) the Cuba embargo will FINALLY be enforced, President Trump is simply upholding U.S. law. Let’s turn to a section of the Cuba “embargo” (Helms-Burton Act) as codified into U.S. law. Here’s Sec. 207, Settlement of Outstanding U.S. Claims to Confiscated Property in Cuba:
“The satisfactory resolution of property claims by a Cuban Government recognized by the United States remains an essential condition for the full resumption of economic and diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba.”

But Castro’s apparatchiks laughed in the faces of Obama’s sniveling and apologetic 'negotiators' when they meekly tried broaching this “essential condition.” No matter. Obama opened the Cuban embassy (spy center) in Washington D.C. anyway.

“Helms-Burton Act,” by the way, refers to its authors, the late great Jesse Helms of North Carolina and the great Dan Burton of Indiana. The latter is shown here in an apparently delighted frame of mind while holding a signed book he patiently stood in line to obtain.

Humberto Fontova


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

An 8-Year Media Lie About How the Syrian War Started is Finally Exposed - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

The six boys who all started the war and the fake news that made them stars.

The end of the big lie about the origins of the Syrian Civil War began on the Arizona border.
Claas Relotius, a German reporter for Der Spiegel, had written a piece about being embedded with a militia patrolling the Arizona border for illegal migrants. Gullible German leftist readers were regaled with tales of the militia, whose leader called Mexicans "bean eaters" and, at the end of the article, opened fire into the night. It was one of a series of Relotiusarticles delving into Trump country with novelistic accounts of pro-Trump Americans that confirmed all the stereotypes of Der Spiegel’s readers.

But the residents depicted in the Minnesota town in which ‘Where They Pray for Trump on Sundays’ is set quickly pointed out that much of the article was factually wrong and that Relotius had never even bothered talking to the people he claimed to have been writing about. And a woman doing media relations for the militia contacted Der Spiegel and informed the magazine that he had never been there.

That was the beginning of the end.

But Relotius had not confined his creative journalism to depictions of Trump’s America. He was better known for his writing about the Middle East. As the scandal that was about to demolish his reputation was breaking, Relotius was receiving a Journalist of the Year award for a very different kind of story. (That award and a number of others, including two from CNN, would soon be returned or withdrawn.)

But the exposure of the particular story that Relotius was receiving an award for on that day has been slow in coming because its roots go deep into a fake news matrix that predates the fraud of one German reporter. It’s the story of an eight-year fake news scam used to mythologize the Syrian Civil War.

Relotius was honored with the ‘Journalist of the Year’ award for the story of one of the ‘boys’ who had started the Syrian Civil War by spraying graffiti on a wall. The story has since been withdrawn, but the case of Relotius impelled one German media site to take a closer look at its larger contradictions.

The Arab Spring regime change operations coordinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar, the Obama administration, and some of its European allies began with propagandistic origin stories to justify the violence and the overthrow of the targeted governments. In Tunisia, it was a street vendor who had been slapped by a policewoman. The story of the slap turned out to be fake and his family blames his bizarre reaction, setting himself on fire, on a sexist reaction to being humiliated by a woman.

The Syrian Civil War’s origin story was of a group of boys who were detained and tortured after one of them spray-painted anti-government graffiti. In Child’s Play, Relotius became one of the final journalists to go back for a drink of dirty water from a tainted well that had trickled into international media outlets from CNN to Qatar’s Al Jazeera, from Vice to Time Magazine, from the Globe and Mail to NPR.

There’s usually a boy at the center of the story. The one boy who scrawled “It’s Your Turn, Doctor” and started the cycle of violence that led to the fighting in Daraa and then across Syria.

But his name and identity keep changing all the time.

On March 2017, almost exactly six years after the original story broke out, the Daily Mail ran a story headlined, The Boy Whose Graffiti Changed the World. The boy in question is named NaiefAbazid, who claims to have been 14-years-old when he scrawled the graffiti that started the war.

Four years earlier, in 2013, the UK’s Daily Mail ran another story, Revealed: The Boy Prankster Who Triggered Syria's Bloody Genocide with Slogans Sprayed in His Schoolyard.
His name is Bashir Abazed and he was 15-years-old.

Both stories from the same media outlet claim that the two different boys were both the ones who started the Syrian civil war by scrawling the same phrase, “It’s Your Turn, Doctor” on the wall.

In 2017, the Globe and Mail featured its boy in a headline titled, How I Found the Teenager Who Inadvertently Sparked the Syrian War. His name is also Naief Abazid.

In 2018, Qatar’s Al Jazeera Islamist news network claimed thatthe "boy credited with prompting Syria’s uprising" was a 14-year-old named Mouawiya Syasneh.

In 2016, Canada’s Reuters reported that the boy who wrote the slogan that started it all was actually a 16-year-old named Mohammed.

Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung ran its own 2016 article, The Boy and his Graffiti that Started the War in Syria. In the Zeitung’s version, his name is Abdulrahman al-Krad and he was only 10-years old. Even though al-Krad is also in Jordan, his name doesn’t appear to be mentioned by non-German media.

Germany’s Die Welt, in its 2013 article, The Civil War in Syria Began With This Boy, claimed that the boy was actually 15-year-old Bashir Abazed.

In 2012, NPR published an interview with an anonymous man in Jordan who, “at 19 years old, he has the face of a 40-year-old.” That would have made him an adult at the time of the graffiti incident.

In 2013, the New York Times published an interview with a“faceless” 17-year-old in Jordan, wearing a Syrian flag over his face, who claimed it had been his cousin. The man in the photo does not look like a teenager. The reason for the anonymity is given as a need to protect relatives back in Syria, but if he had actually been detained and tortured by the regime, wouldn’t the authorities already know who he was?

The New York Times article furthermore claimed that the boy who wrote the graffiti was dead. How then could Al Jazeera, and so many other media outlets spend years claiming to have talked to him?

Even the most hardened media apologist would have to admit that there is a fundamental contradiction.

There are at least 6 boys who started the war. Some of them are actually men. They all have different names. Some have different ages. Even the accounts of the ages of their friends who were also there, ranging from 9-year-olds to adults, vary wildly between different stories from major media outlets.

As in Mark Twain’s The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg, they declare that they were the ones who wrote, “It’s your turn, Doctor” -- the Syrian equivalent of Twain’s: “You are far from being a bad man.”

Reporting on a war in another country is tricky, but none of the stories attempt to reconcile or recognize their basic contradictions. The media insists on the right to fact check conservatives and erase them from social media, but fails at the most elementary fact checking when it comes to its own stories.

In their sensationalist stories about how the Syrian Civil War began, media outlets failed to even acknowledge that other outlets had published claims that fundamentally contradicted their own.

If they really believed their own reporting, they would have defended it.

Instead, Mohamed, Naief, Bashir, Mouawiya, and Abdulrahmanall got their 15 minutes of fame. And the journalists who claimed to have interviewed them in cafes, safe houses, or ruined cities, posing smilingly for photos or hiding their faces, were celebrated and even honored for their contradictory stories.

Why did Claas Relotius believe he could get away with it? The same reason that most criminals commit crimes. They’re socialized by their surroundings to believe that crime is normal and laws don’t matter.

Claas Relotius was only the latest media journalist to wade into the story of the boy who started the war. And, looking over the previous accounts, the contradictory media stories all listing different boys as the one who started the war, he would have seen no reason not to add his own boy to the mix.

Relotius was lying. But it was a lie so commonplace in his industry that it was normative behavior.

The story of the boy who started the war demonstrates that the term ‘Fake News’ is not an insult, but an accurate description of the media’s preference for narratives over truth. Relotius’ only mistake was making up stories about pro-Trump Americans whom he assumed wouldn’t be able to read German.

The 6 boys’ story is undeniable proof that the media cannot be trusted to police its own facts, let alone those of its political opponents. That it is not an industry of facts, but an assembly line of propaganda. And that its reporting on major issues, including wars in other countries, is quite often fake news.

If you don’t believe that, ask the media how the Syrian Civil War started. Then ask if his name was Mohamed, Naief, Bashir, Mouawiya, or Abdulrahman.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Use and Abuse of Political Accountability - Bruce Thornton

by Bruce Thornton

The lethal dangers of leaving unpunished the principle of equality before the law.

In the aftermath of the Mueller investigation, both parties are calling for accountability. Dems believe that despite Mueller’s findings of the president’s innocence of collusion, Donald Trump obstructed justice and must be held to account by impeachment. Republicans are demanding that the federal perpetrators of the Russian “collusion delusion” be made to answer for their violations of the Constitution and the laws limiting their powers.

Beyond the partisan divide, we are witnessing the uses and abuses of one of the fundamental building-blocks of political freedom––the assertion of the citizenry’s right to call out and punish those politicians and public servants who exceed the legal limits placed on a political power that is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Like free speech, term limits, and regularly elected or appointed offices, accountability reinforces the central premise of political freedom: that power is not the personal possession of individual men or women, but belongs to the community of citizens as a whole. Accountability checks and deters the innate human tendency to abuse power, and thus to weaken political freedom with tyranny: “That arbitrary power,” as Aristotle defined it, “of an individual which is responsible to no one, and governs all alike, whether equals or betters, with a view to its own advantage, not to that of its subjects, and therefore against their will. No freeman willingly endures such a government.”

There is no question that accountability is due for the sorry spectacle of the Russian collusion hoax. It was created and nourished by so-called public servants in the FBI and Department of Justice. Despite their responsibility to honor the Constitution and maintain political neutrality in performing their duties, officials like James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, Bruce Ohr, Andre McCabe, and other members of the Obama administration abused their professional ethics in order to weaken one party in a presidential election and to help the other whom they preferred. Then after Trump was elected, they worked to cripple his presidency, engineering the appointment of a special counsel who spent two years investigating a charge that relied on flimsy and dishonest predicates easily debunked by information already public.

Finally, the political aims of the Mueller investigation were made clear in his inappropriate statement that Trump had behaved in ways that smacked of obstruction of justice. But that the problem of “intent,” and the legal uncertainties of indicting a sitting president, required the special counsel not to indict, despite the counsel’s mendacious catalogue of behavior and statements suggestive of obstruction. Mueller’s violation of the principle that a prosecutor either indicts or stays silent was clearly intended to feed the Democrats’ continuing obsession with the president’s alleged crimes, and thus create momentum for impeachment.

Significant numbers of voters are rightfully angry over public “servants” armed with police and investigative powers violating their professional ethics and Constitutional limits. This anger is intensified by the blatant double standard evident in the kid-glove treatment of Hillary Clinton, whose violations of the law regarding her private server, pay-for-play State Department, involvement with the infamous Steele dossier, and corrupt foundation are obvious just from the public record and investigative reporting like Peter Schweitzer’s Clinton Cash. People wonder why Mueller’s charge to investigate “Russian interference” ignored Hillary and the DNC’s purchase of a fictional dossier created by an ex British spy, with the help of Russian professional fabricators of disinformation. 

Voters are right to be angry. This double-standard and willful inattention on the part of our security agencies, strikes at the heart of political accountability: the enforcement of the principle of equality under the law. Without that principle, there can be no political freedom or equality. Justice then becomes shaped by the interests of those with wealth or political connections, and government then degenerates into a species of tyranny.

This still festering scandal over the surveillance of the Trump campaign and administration based on a spurious collection of lies and rumors demands that the perpetrators be held to account. They must be investigated, questioned under oath, and forced to tell the truth, take the Fifth, or perjure themselves. Grand juries must be impaneled and indictments handed down. Trials must be held, and juries must decide guilt or innocence. And all this must be done as publicly as possible, so that we the people can see that justice is blind, and that no amount of power or connections gives someone exemption from the laws that govern everybody else.

So much for how accountability can contribute to the political health of a nation by reaffirming its foundational principles. But like everything else people do, accountability can be warped into a political weapon. The ongoing vilification of Trump by the Democrats, and the strident demands of radical Dems to proceed with impeachment, represent the abuse of accountability to serve partisan ends.

Now we see anti-Trumpers from both parties latch on to Mueller’s statements about Trump’s alleged desire to obstruct the investigation as proof that obstruction did in fact occur, and so now they must use impeachment to hold the president accountable. The dishonesty of this pretext lies in the absence of any crime the investigation of which Trump tried to “obstruct.” Frustrated outbursts of an innocent man over Mueller’s drawn-out investigation and the media smears it has fueled; threats to fires executive-office employees the president has the Constitutional right to fire; suggestion of leniency for someonelike Mike Flynn, who has served his country honorably and could be indicted only for a confused memory during a perjury trap–– these are not crimes of obstruction. They are artifacts of our modern 24/7 surveillance regime in which the private can become the public in nanoseconds, and publicized words be reified into deeds.

Finally, no practical result will follow the Dems’ obsession with impeachment, a fact that shows even more clearly their rank partisan aims. Even if the House votes to impeach, there is no chance that 67 Senators will vote to convict. And more politically astute Democrats in the House are starting to realize that their radical colleagues are heading for a monumental political blunder, making a bill of impeachment unlikely. But just the threat of impeachment provides a pretext for the Trump-hating media to continue with their hysterical coverage of the president, which they hope can recover the viewers lost once the Mueller report blew up the whole Russian collusion hoax. Meanwhile the hard-core radical base can be kept fired-up and eager to work during the primary campaigns for whichever novelty act they support.

For now, this current abuse of accountability seems likely to damage the Democrats if they don’t give up the impeachment revenge-fantasy of their teeny-bopper Jacobins like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or obsessive Trump-haters like California Rep. Eric Swalwell. A majority of Americans––56%, and 59% of swing-voting independents––don’t support impeachment, a clear sign that it’s time to move on. So the Dems are headed for an intratribal blood-letting that can benefit only the Republicans, while their ongoing hysteria over impeaching Trump givesvoters another reason to dislike them.

But the abuse of accountability, especially impeachment, can be dangerous. The impeachment of Richard Nixon over penny-ante political crimes as common as flies in most of the world’s governments wounded the presidency at a time when the resolution of the war in Vietnam needed the commander-in-chief’s attention and commitment to make sure the gains won on the battlefield were not squandered by a political failure of nerve. We all know what followed: the wasting of the sacrifice of nearly 60 thousand Americans, the shameful abandonment of an ally to the brutalities of a communist regime, the Soviet Union embarking on a geopolitical rampage, and the empowerment at home of a left-wing faction that would begin the “fundamental transformation” of our Constitutional republic.

We are now faced with the need for a proper accountability: the exposure and punishment of those “public servants” who abused their expansive intrusive powers in order to violate the rights of Americans in an attempted coup d’état of a president legally elected by 64 million Americans. The Attorney General must make this accountability his number one priority, for the foundational principles of our political freedom have already been weakened by sustained assaults on the First Amendment, and by progressivism’s century-long erosion of citizen freedom and autonomy by an overweening technocratic elite.

Finally, leaving unpunished the principle of equality before the law will erode confidence in the exceptional goodness of our political order, and weaken with cynicism the affection we should have for it. The world’s too dangerous to let that happen.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter