Friday, June 26, 2020

Biden's Foreign Policy Boss Called for Anti-Israel DNC Platform - Daniel Greenfield


by Daniel Greenfield


Avril Haines' disturbing connections.




Jewish Democrats are working hard to convince American Jews that Biden will be friendly to Israel, but his latest move once again sends a very different message.

The Biden campaign is busy putting together its transition team and Avril Haines, Obama’s deputy CIA director, will head foreign policy and national security. Putting a former deputy CIA director in charge of foreign policy would be an odd choice, but Haines was already an inappropriate pick at the CIA.

Haines was an Obama legal adviser who was brought in to replace Michael Morell who took the fall for the Benghazi talking points. Bringing in Haines to serve under Brennan was a blatant attempt at embedding an Obama loyalist near the top of the CIA. And Haines has stayed loyal to her former boss.

In May, Haines joined other Obama staffers in signing on to a letter by the J Street anti-Israel lobby which complained that previous DNC platforms had been “silent on the rights of Palestinians, on Israeli actions that undermine those rights and the prospects for a two-state solution.”

That isn’t true, but the J Street letter nevertheless urged the DNC platform to be more critical of the Jewish State.

Haines’ role taking point on foreign policy for Biden signals that the DNC platform and, more importantly, his administration, will take an anti-Israel direction. And that’s not surprising.

Currently, Avril Haines heads up Columbia World Projects. A big part of the university’s internationalization effort is the Obama Foundation Scholars initiative. Being a Foundation Scholar requires “a proven commitment to service and leadership within a community, region or country outside the United States” and, it ought to go without saying, the right set of political agendas.

The Obama "Scholars" at Columbia World Projects include Mor Efrat, the head of the Occupied Palestinian Territories Department for PHR-I. Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I), despite its name, isn't really about medicine, it's an anti-Israel organization whose founder promotes BDS and which seeks to try Israeli soldiers for war crimes. PHR-I’s founder had urged a move to “integrate BDS in every struggle for justice and human rights by adopting wide, context-sensitive and sustainable boycotts of Israeli products, companies, academic and cultural institutions, and sports groups.”

This is the relationship that the Obama Foundation and Columbia World Projects under Haines have toward Israel.

Funding for Columbia World Projects comes from a variety of donors, including a Saudi businessman, a Lebanese billionaire who is the brother of a former prime minister, the daughter of a Turkish media tycoon, a Chilean businessman, and the billionaire head of a major Hong Kong real estate company.

Much like the Clinton Foundation, this raises serious questions about Haines’ conflicts.

An ex-CIA deputy director went to work for a Columbia project closely entwined with the Obama Foundation which received funding from foreign donors and will now head foreign policy for Biden.

Why bring in a former legal advisor to do all this? Haines isn’t qualified as a foreign policy expert, but she knows the limits of the law. Bringing her in is a way of handling dubious legal matters, whether it was the entanglement of the CIA under Brennan with Obamagate and then serving as Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, or the conflicts of interest from the Obama Foundation and Biden 2020.

But it also sends a clear message that Biden is going to build on Obama’s anti-Israel foreign policy.

Even while at Columbia, Haines continued her political work as the co-chair of Foreign Policy for Foreign Policy for America. The board of Foreign Policy for America includes Jeremy Ben Ami, the head of J Street, while the Advisory Board includes Joseph Cirincione, the head of Ploughshares, a key Iran nuclear legalization pressure group, alongside Haines, and Rob Malley, the Obama adviser initially forced out for his Hamas contacts, who now heads Soros' International Crisis Group. Malley is also an advisor at Columbia.

Avril Haines is also a Nonresident Senior Fellow at Brookings, which is heavily funded by Qatar. The wealthy tyranny is closely entangled with a variety of Muslim Brotherhood groups, including Hamas.

Haines is not a foreign policy or national security expert. Putting her in the pole position really means that the same foreign policy people who ran things under Obama are the ones who are really in charge.

And that should surprise no one.

Jewish Democrats had a choice between an anti-Israel legacy candidate and a rabidly anti-Israel candidate, but the choice between Biden and Bernie was just a game of good cop and bad cop. The differences between Rob Malley and Cornel West, or Ben Rhodes and Rep. Ilhan Omar are matters of style, not substance. Bernie’s proxies are determined to vent their hate publicly, while Obama’s people play a more careful game, shifting America away from Israel through a series of staged confrontations.

Bernie’s open antagonism toward Israel allowed Biden to appear friendly toward the Jewish State.

Haines’ appointment makes it very clear that Biden’s foreign policy will consist of the same corrupt entanglements with Islamist regimes and attacks on Israel. And pro-Israel Democrats are fooling themselves if they think otherwise. And it’s not just foreign policy where Biden is playing that game.

Biden’s transition team is being drawn from the staffs of some of the most radical Democrat elected officials, including Julie Siegel, Warren's senior counsel, and Gautam Raghavan, Rep. Pramila Jayapal's chief of staff. Raghavan had already become infamous for declaring, “I want to be careful that we don’t say there is a kind of balance between equality and religious freedom.”

The Biden campaign has always going to be a trojan horse for radicals. And as the titular candidate declines, it will become easier for the radicals pulling his strings to maintain control over the campaign.

And while they would like to win, their short-term goal is to bend the DNC platform further leftward.

Even as Democrats try to sell pro-Israel Jews on Biden, the campaign has already sold them out. The Biden campaign’s position on Israel will be that of J Street. Its point woman on foreign policy signed a J Street letter calling for the platform to criticize Israel and heads an organization backing an anti-Israel activist.

While Biden is happy to take anyone’s money, the only point of view he’ll be listening to on Israel will be coming from the anti-Israel lobby.

* * *
Photo credit: Pete Souza


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

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/06/bidens-foreign-policy-boss-called-anti-israel-dnc-daniel-greenfield/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Palestinians: Is It Really about 'Annexation'? - Khaled Abu Toameh


by Khaled Abu Toameh

Those who are pressuring Israel not to proceed with the "annexation" plan need to hear what Islamic leaders are saying, day and night: that the conflict is not about Jewish settlements or the Jordan Valley, but the "big settlement" called Israel.

  • It is dead wrong to assume that if Israel abandons its plan, most Muslims would give up their desire to destroy Israel and replace it with an extremist Iran-style Islamic state.
  • [Islamic officials] are now calling on Palestinians to launch terror attacks against Israel, not because of the "annexation" plan, but in order to drive the Jews out of the "Palestinian Arab Islamic lands."
  • Those who are pressuring Israel not to proceed with the "annexation" plan need to hear what Islamic leaders are saying, day and night: that the conflict is not about Jewish settlements or the Jordan Valley, but the "big settlement" called Israel.

Islamic officials in the Gaza Strip are now calling on Palestinians to launch terror attacks against Israel, not because of the "annexation" plan, but in order to drive the Jews out of the "Palestinian Arab Islamic lands." Pictured: Hamas gunmen in the Gaza Strip. (Photo by Said Khatib/AFP via Getty Images)

As far as Palestinian Islamic religious clerics are concerned, Israel's intention to extend its sovereignty to parts of the West Bank, particularly Jewish settlements and the strategic Jordan Valley, means very little: to them Jews "have no right to Palestinian, Arab and Islamic land."

The position of the Islamic figures contradicts the Palestinian Authority's claim that the annexation plan would "destroy the two-state solution and any chance of a peace process with Israel."

The picture Palestinian Authority officials are painting is that the Israeli annexation of any part of the West Bank is the one and only obstacle to regional peace, security and stability. According to these officials, the Israeli plan would deprive the Palestinians of their right to establish an independent and sovereign state on the pre-1967 armistice lines.

A large group of Palestinian Islamic scholars and clerics, however, evidently disagree with the Palestinian Authority's claim.

On June 21, the Association of Palestine Scholars held a meeting in the Gaza Strip to discuss the Israeli plan. The meeting was attended by several Islamic religious judges representing the Supreme Council of Sharia Judiciary, senior officials of the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Waqf and Religious Affairs, academics from several Islamic colleges and universities, as well as jurists who issue rulings on Islamic law (sharia).

In a statement issued after the meeting, the Islamic religious personalities, referring to Israel as the "usurping entity," condemned as "dangerous" the Israeli plan to extend sovereignty to parts of the West Bank.

Their statement quickly makes clear that what is really bothering the Islamic scholars and clerics is not the possibility that Israel might impose its sovereignty on Jewish settlements and the Jordan Valley.

They are not really worried about the possibility that Israel might annex 10% or 20% or 30% of the West Bank. There is something that worries them much more than any part of the West Bank, and that is the very existence of Israel. The Islamic scholars and clerics believe that Israel has no right to sovereignty over Tel Aviv, Haifa, Nazareth, Tiberias, Jerusalem or and any other part of Israel.

The Islamic leaders even contradict their own statement by pretending to be worried only about the ostensible loss of West Bank land to Israel.

On the one hand, they say that "one of the most dangerous things that this [Israeli] enemy intends to do is to annex a part of the Palestinian lands to its usurping entity." They are pretending, in other words, that they are worried only about the "annexation" of parts of the West Bank.

On the other hand, The Islamic leaders emphasize that "Palestine, all of Palestine, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, is a Palestinian Arab Islamic land for which the Jews and Zionists have no right." They go on to explain that "this fact won't be changed by any measures taken by the [Israeli] enemy."

It is clear from the statement that whether the "annexation" plan is implemented or not, many Muslims would still reject the State of Israel because, in their view, it continues to "usurp" Palestinian Arab Islamic land stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. It is dead wrong to assume that if Israel abandons its plan, most Muslims would give up their desire to destroy Israel and replace it with an extremist Iran-style Islamic state.

To back up their argument even further that the main problem is not the West Bank, the scholars and clerics said that "recognizing the state of this usurping entity is a religious, legal, humanitarian and historical crime that must be immediately corrected by cancelling the abhorrent Oslo Accords."

So, the problem is not really the "annexation" plan that they want to see cancelled, but the Oslo Accords signed in 1993 and 1995 between Israel and the PLO. These accords marked the beginning of the so-called Israeli-Palestinian peace process after the PLO purportedly recognized Israel's right to exist in peace and security.

Declaring the accords "null and void," the scholars and clerics called on the Palestinian Authority and its president, Mahmoud Abbas, to "renounce the disastrous agreements, side with the people, and join forces with the resistance and its men." This is not only a direct threat to Abbas and his associates, but also an appeal to them to increase and upgrade their terror attacks against Israel.

As part of his attempt to appease the Palestinian public in general and Islamic extremists in particular, Abbas announced on May 19 his decision to renounce all agreements and understandings with Israel and the US, including security cooperation.

This decision, however, has failed to satisfy the Islamic scholars and clerics, as well as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. They are now demanding that he and his government and security forces explicitly join the armed struggle against Israel.

Moreover, they want Abbas openly to cancel the Oslo Accords in order to avoid being accused of committing a "religious, legal, humanitarian and historical crime" against his people.

Abbas's decision to walk away from the agreements with Israel and halt security coordination between his security forces and the Israeli authorities has actually worked up the appetite of leading Islamic officials. They are now calling on Palestinians to launch terror attacks against Israel, not because of the "annexation" plan, but in order to drive the Jews out of the "Palestinian Arab Islamic lands." In their statement, the scholars and clerics urged Palestinians to "rise and revolt against the Nazi occupier with all possible means."

Palestinians have often interpreted the term "all possible means" as a green light for carrying out various terror attacks, including suicide bombings, drive-by shootings, stabbings, vehicular rammings and firing rockets at Israeli cities.

When this green light comes from an influential religious body such as the Association of Palestine Scholars, of course it carries additional weight and credibility, especially for devout Muslims who spend most of their time in mosques and take seriously every word uttered by imams and other Islamic figures.

The next time a terrorist plunges a knife in the throat of a Jew, the blood-soaked hands will be those of such scholars and clerics. Abbas's fear of opening his mouth against these prominent Muslims at least makes some sense. The dead silence of the international community to this murderous incitement, however, makes much less sense. Those who are pressuring Israel not to proceed with the "annexation" plan need to hear what Islamic leaders are saying, day and night: that the conflict is not about Jewish settlements or the Jordan Valley, but the "big settlement" called Israel.
  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16147/palestinians-annexation

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



How to Deal with China?: "Made in America" - Lawrence A. Franklin


by Lawrence A. Franklin

The only real solution to China's duplicity and aggression would be for Western nations -- all 186 nations that were harmed by China's lies during the Covid-19 pandemic -- to cut all ties with China

  • China's threats to punish Australia seem to be part of an increasingly bullying, aggressive approach by Chinese officials, not only toward Australia, but also toward India, and at least four other countries in the region: Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Japan, as well as islands in the Pacific.
  • The only real solution to China's duplicity and aggression would be for Western nations -- all 186 nations that were harmed by China's lies during the Covid-19 pandemic -- to cut all ties with China, to start a firm policy of "Made in America" or "Made Anywhere But China" to show a willing independence from a country that openly aspires to dominate the world.
  • China -- perhaps hoping that everyone is sufficiently distracted by the virus the Chinese Communist Party unleashed on it, as well as by the "free gifts" from China that, in their trade-off for freedom, promise to be fatal -- is clearly on the march. The world might remember that it would have been so much easier to stop Hitler before he crossed the Rhine.


China's Communist Party leadership was not pleased to hear a call from Australia for a global inquiry into the origin of the Covid-19 virus and China's possible role in it. China's threats to punish Australia seem to be part of an increasingly bullying, aggressive approach by Chinese officials towards countries in the region. Pictured: China's President Xi Jinping. (Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

China's Communist Party leadership was not pleased to hear a call from Australia for a global inquiry into the origin of the Covid-19 virus and China's possible role in it.

Australia further requested that the investigation be conducted outside the purview of the World Health Organization (WHO), which had had been spreading lies and disinformation about the transmissibility of the virus. China seems to have decided that Australia's insistence on an independent study was a violation of the spirit of their bilateral relationship. Indeed, for the past three decades, the Australian economy has been buoyed by expanding commercial ties with China. This relationship has now soured, and China has been threatening Australia with economic warfare unless it reconsiders its inquisitive foreign policy.

Making good on its threat, China slapped an 80% tariff on Australian barley and has threatened to boycott Australian wine and beef. Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne has rejected any such attempts at economic coercion.

The attacks by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on Australia's policies and politicians have since become even more strident and personal. Chinese state-affiliated social media accounts have called Australia "gum stuck to China's shoe" and suggested that Australia's head of government had been kicked in the head by a kangaroo. Also, Chinese State Security agents have attempted to silence independent Chinese-language media in Australia by pressuring advertisers to withdraw their sponsorship.

Beijing's threats to punish Australia seem to be part of an increasingly bullying, aggressive approach by Chinese officials, not only toward Australia, but also toward India, Taiwan and China's neighbors in the Pacific. The CCP is receiving growing resistance from the Pacific nations to China's aggressive expansionism. China will nevertheless continue to pull all the levers of its influence in Australia, and most likely elsewhere, to its advantage. China might, for instance, dispatch lobbyists to pressure Australian businessmen who have benefited from past economic cooperation with the Chinese in an effort to persuade political leaders to back off on their criticism of China for its handling of the COVID-19 virus.

China's decision to play hardball with Australia, however, might be a miscalculation. China's communist regime may have drawn the wrong conclusions about what they may have hoped would be Australia's lack of desire to protect its Free World values and its belief that such values are more important than short-term economic advantage.

Australia still needs to lessen its economic vulnerability to China. Extracting itself from the web of relationships that entangle Australia can extricate itself from the claws of the dragon. Australian meat exporters could increase shipments of pork products to Japan, Vietnam, and other Southeast Asian neighbors. Australia, unlike China, enjoys warm relations with all members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Australia might capitalize on these cordial diplomatic ties to maximize mutually beneficial trade.

Australian political leaders could also create tax incentives to facilitate greater investment by Australian business leaders in India's enterprises, especially in defense-related industries. Australia could also divorce itself from Chinese supply lines by shifting them to other advanced economies in the region such as South Korea and Singapore. Australia could encourage wholesale imports of computer and electrical products from other East Asian manufacturers of these products. The Australians could decide no longer to export uranium to China from its own mines in the Northern Territory and elsewhere, and thereby discontinue servicing China's plans to construct about 100 nuclear power plants by 2025. Australia might well find a willing alternative customer in India.

Australia, on June 10, sent a clear message to China by fostering enhanced defense ties with India -- China's rival for Asian leadership. Australian PM Scott Morrison and Indian PM Narendra Modi, in a video conference, announced that the two countries had formed, as a bulwark against Chinese expansionism in Asia, a comprehensive strategic partnership. Australian Minister of Defense Linda Reynolds praised the agreements, which will provide for interoperability of weapons systems and promote sharing defense technologies.

Australia is now ready to be a full partner in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), a cooperative defense information dialogue consisting of the U.S., Japan, India, and Australia. Australia will likely also participate in the Indian-sponsored Malabar military exercise, which focuses on how India and Australia might better patrol international straits vital to commerce in the region by using military facilities on Indian and Australian off-shore islands and atolls.

China may continue to bellow, but Australia will remain bound to the West as a nation that embraces democratic political and free market economic values. Australian soldiers have fought alongside U.S. troops in every major conflict since World War I. For instance, Australian Defense Force (ADF) soldiers were among the first to deploy to Afghanistan after 9/11. Shared values between Australians and Americans -- and their ability to continue existing as members of the Free world -- should be a far more potent magnet than short-term profits.

The only real solution to China's duplicity and aggression would be for Western nations -- all 186 nations that were harmed by China's lies during the Covid-19 pandemic -- to cut all ties with China, to start a firm policy of "Made in America" or "Made Anywhere But China" to show a willing independence from a country that openly aspires to dominate the world.

China -- perhaps hoping that everyone is sufficiently distracted by the virus the Chinese Communist Party unleashed on it, as well as by the "free gifts" from China that, in their trade-off for freedom, promise to be fatal -- is clearly on the march. The world might remember that it would have been so much easier to stop Hitler before he crossed the Rhine.


Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16153/how-to-deal-with-china

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Seattle CHOP zone prompts lawsuit from businesses, residents: reports - Dom Calicchio


by Dom Calicchio

Workers and residents also joined the lawsuit over CHOP, the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest

Numerous Seattle businesses – including an auto repair shop, a tattoo parlor and a property management company – sued the city Wednesday, alleging city officials were complicit in allowing an “occupied protest” that has made them feel unsafe in their neighborhood, according to reports.

Workers and residents also joined the lawsuit over CHOP, the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest, which drew scorn from President Trump and other critics who accused Mayor Jenny Durkan, the city’s police chief and other city leaders of turning the area over to “anarchists.”

Organizers of CHOP -- part of the widespread rioting and demonstrations that followed the May 25 death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis -- said they sought to establish a “police-free” area in Seattle’s Capitol Hill district.

SEATTLE CHOP LEADERS URGE PROTESTERS TO GO HOME, THROW SUPPORT BEHIND BIDEN, DEMOCRATS

Since the occupation began June 8, the area has seen shootings, vandalism and other crimes.

Last Sunday a 17-year-old victim was shot in an arm and last Saturday a 19-year-old man was shot dead and another person was critically wounded, Q13 FOX of Seattle reported. In both cases, hostile crowds slowed police efforts to reach the crime scenes, the station’s report said.






“(T)his lawsuit is about the constitutional and other legal rights of plaintiffs – businesses, employees and residents in and around CHOP – which have been overrun by the city of Seattle’s unprecedented decision to abandon and close off an entire city neighborhood, leaving it unchecked by the police, unserved by fire and emergency health services and inaccessible to the public at large,” the lawsuit says, Q13 FOX reported.

One local business owner, Joey Rodolfo of Buki clothing, told “Fox & Friends” this week that he plans to move out of state because of what he described as Seattle’s lack of governmental leadership.

"Since we have no leadership and we have a city council that's so socialist, there really is very, very little support for businesses,” Rodolfo said. “As far as the city reaching out to small businesses like ourselves, or any business, there has been zero.”






The Seattle city attorney’s office told local media that it hadn’t yet had an opportunity to review the lawsuit but planned to respond after reviewing it.

The plaintiffs allege that city leaders provided the demonstrators with barriers, public restrooms and medical supplies – in effect supporting the occupation of the neighborhood and hindering the efforts of local businesspeople, employees and residents to reach their buildings, receive deliveries and provide services, the Seattle Times reported.

The CHOP zone has also worsened conditions for elderly and disabled people in the area, the lawsuit asserts, according to the newspaper.

“The result of the City’s actions has been lawlessness,” Calfo Eakes LLP, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, told the Times in a statement. “There is no public safety presence. Police officers will not enter the area unless it is a life-or-death situation, and even in those situations, the response is delayed and muted, if it comes at all.”
“The result of the City’s actions has been lawlessness.”
— Calfo Eakes LLP, law firm representing plaintiffs suing Seattle
Facing mounting pressure, Durkan on Monday said the city would begin dismantling the blocks-long occupied area – claiming the crimes and other violence in the zone were distracting from the message that peaceful protesters tried to communicate when they established the occupation, Q13 FOX reported.

“The cumulative impacts of the gatherings and protests and the nighttime atmosphere and violence has led to increasingly difficult circumstances for our businesses and residents,” Durkan said. “The impacts have increased and the safety has decreased.”






Soon after the occupation began, President Trump told Fox News’ Harris Faulkner that he thought Durkan and Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee had surrendered control of the situation.

“I will tell you, if they don’t straighten that situation out, we're going to straighten it out,” Trump said June 11, in an interview that aired on “Outnumbered Overtime” in its entirety the next day.

In a social media message posted Wednesday, addressed to “Comrades in the struggle,” CHOP organizers declared their “project” concluded, and urged demonstrators to leave by Wednesday night.


Dom Calicchio

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-chop-zone-prompts-lawsuit-from-businesses-residents-reports

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Iran's coronavirus death toll continues to surge, nears 10,000 - Reuters and ILH Staff


by Reuters and ILH Staff

The daily death toll has regularly topped 100 in the past week for the first time in two months, mirroring a sharp rise in new infections since restrictions on movement began to be lifted in mid-April.


Iran's death toll from COVID-19 has risen to nearly 10,000 with 133 new fatalities in the past 24 hours, the health ministry said, extending a reversal from a steady fall in daily numbers as the country has relaxed its lockdown.

There were 2,531 new coronavirus infections reported in the past 24 hours, raising the total number of cases to 212,501, along with 9,996 deaths in all, the ministry said on Wednesday.

The daily death toll has regularly topped 100 in the past week for the first time in two months, mirroring a sharp rise in new infections since restrictions on movement began to be lifted in mid-April.

Senior officials have regularly warned that restrictions will be reimposed if health regulations such as social distancing to stem the surge in infections are not observed.

In a sign of such concern, the Islamic republic's official IRNA news agency said on Tuesday that the main Friday prayer gathering would not resume in the capital Tehran this week despite an announcement last week that it would.

State television aired footage of a hospital coronavirus ward on Wednesday showing a patient coughing and a nurse warning Iranians to take necessary precautions.

On Saturday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the government was considering making it mandatory within days to wear masks in public places and enclosed spaces, given the surge in the number of confirmed infections.

Iran has been the Middle East country hardest hit by the coronavirus pandemic.


Reuters and ILH Staff

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/06/25/irans-coronavirus-death-toll-continues-to-surge-nears-10000/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Sowing the Sixties Winds, Reaping Today’s Whirlwind - Bruce Thornton


by Bruce Thornton


Today's disorder reflects just how successful the leftist “long march through the institutions” has been.




From one perspective, the surreal absurdity of the current protests, vandalism, and riots is not even close to the disruption and mayhem of the political violence in the Sixties and Seventies. We have not yet seen the kidnappings, murders of judges, and scores of bombings that roiled that era. In 1967 alone there were 159 riots, and in the Seventies 14 people were killed and 600 wounded by politically motivated bombings.

But what’s going on today is more dangerous, for the ideologies driving the disorder reflect just how successful the leftist “long march through the institutions” has been at corrupting American education and culture over the last half a century. As a result, ideas and behaviors that by consensus were out of bounds then, have now been normalized and abetted by civic leaders and politicians, as well as popular culture, schools, and even sports.

I spent the Seventies in college and graduate school, so I had a front-row seat for the “long march.” In the early years there were, of course, radical professors who opposed the war in Vietnam and hated free-market capitalism. They preached abandoning the bourgeoisie virtues like self-restraint of desires and appetites, especially of sex. Those virtues were redefined as tools of political oppression. As cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse put it, “The civilized morality is reversed by harmonizing instinctual freedom and order: liberated from the tyranny of repressive reason, the instincts tend toward free and lasting existential relations––they generate a new reality principle.”

Such opinions were a minority among an otherwise liberal faculty. But as the decade progressed, they steadily became more mainstream. One reason is that a consumer-driven economy had long found sex to be a great marketing tool, and impulsive behavior to be good for business. And so this corrosive politicizing of promiscuity was promoted by many big businesses. The powerful sex-drive, recognized as a potential force of destruction by our Greco-Roman and Hebraic traditions alike, was legitimized and idealized as fashionable “liberation.” Leftist ideology now had a potent ally in subverting all authority, and in masquerading its illiberal politics in the rhetoric of liberation and freedom. “If it feels good, do it” became the foundational mantra of politics and consumerism alike, one we see taken to excess in the wanton and gleeful destruction and vandalism of the current disorder. More important, political freedom as ordered liberty founded on law was transformed into what the Founders called “license,” the freedom to do what one wants, no matter how destructive to one’s self and others.

The rejection of traditional sexual morality and mores thus extended to all authority, particularly that of tradition and religion. This rejection of the past is ideal for utopianism, the notion that there can be a perfect politico-social order with perfect equality and justice; as the Elvis Costello lyric has it, “Let’s talk about tomorrow now we’ve put the past away.” History now becomes the systematic demonization of our ancestors for their flawed humanity and failure to create an impossible utopia. The West now is notable only for its crimes against that idealism, while its unique transcendence of those crimes, its recognition that certain behaviors and institutions are crimes, is forgotten.

For example, slavery, the historical evil that so exercises the “woke” protestors and rioters, is an historically unexceptional, universal institution. In the past it was no more problematic than the domestication of animals. But the rejection of slavery happened only in the West, from the 4th century BC Greek rhetorician Alcidamas, who said “The god gave freedom to all men, and nature made no man a slave”; to the Christian American and British abolitionists of the early 19th century, who finally brought about the end of slavery in the West.

But because the left sees only the West’s flaws, today we are watching the violent assault on public monuments to people from the past, even statues of Lincoln, who ended slavery in the U.S. In the Sixties and Seventies left-wing terrorists bombed military recruiting offices and university labs that allegedly served the “military-industrial complex.” Apart from a few police precincts, today’s Jacobins are focusing their rage on private businesses and public statues, the latter the tangible and communal celebrations of our past and the all too human people who now don’t measure up to the exalted expectations of callow, entitled, badly educated young people. The goal is to “cancel” Western Civilization.

This vandalism of the past, moreover, is a visible sign of what has happened to the profession of history beginning in the Sixties: It has been turned into a Leninist “who, whom” melodrama, with crude, moustache-twirling Western villains endlessly tying to the railroad tracks of history an equally crude roster of innocent victims “of color.” Human complexity, mixed motives, failed good intentions, and unforeseen consequences­­––the tragic heart of good history ever since Thucydides––are all cast aside for therapeutic bedtime stories comprising the creepy, sadomasochistic theater of guilty whites and their victims “of color.” This vandalizing of history has now triumphed, for today it dominates the curricula of schools from kindergarten to university.

In addition to vandalizing monuments, we have the spectacle of mayors, governors, and Congressmen abasing themselves before the “woke” dominitrices “of color,” and shedding crocodile tears for offences they never perpetrated and their punishers never suffered. Worse yet, such empty moral preening changes nothing for the people they’re supposed to help. The dysfunctional conditions of the black underclass––a product of the Sixties’ abandonment of traditional morality and virtue, denigration of fatherhood, and destruction of character through failed antipoverty programs––continue to destroy thousands of black lives a year that don’t “matter” to the “woke” shock-troops. Meanwhile, a president who has done more for “black lives” than Barack Obama and the Black Congressional Caucus put together, is slandered as a “racist” and “white supremacist.”

Next, we are witnessing the most blatant examples of the leftist principles that flourished in the Sixties: “any means necessary” and “never let a crisis go to waste.” The former explains what seems to be the pointless protests and violence. Even the so-called “peaceful protests” have no legitimate purpose other than hysterical virtue-signaling. The protestors say, and even some conservatives agree, that the protests and accompanying violence are legitimate since they express the “grief and anger” of the people, and they force the nation to confront a serious crisis. But does anyone really believe that the issue of police encounters with blacks males is unknown to anyone, especially since Rodney King nearly 30 years ago? Or that public displays of alleged “grief and anger” on the part of strangers have any practical utility? The culprit in Minneapolis was fired and charged with second degree murder in a week. What other practical actions are supposed to follow? And how does killing and beating people, or vandalizing and looting small businesses, advance the “conversation” we allegedly refuse to have?

As for the crisis, it is not just being taking advantage of, as was the Vietnam war in the Sixties, in order to promote a leftist political agenda.  Today the crisis is being manufactured. All the available data show that police shootings of unarmed black men are rare––9 in 2019–– and usually happen when a suspect resists arrest. In fact, police shootings in general are down almost by half over the last few decades. Yet videos of police arrests that are atypical of the millions of police contacts with citizens every year saturate the internet, social media, and cable news, creating the illusion that such lethal abuses of force are common.

The purpose, then, of the protests and violence has little to do with correcting a widespread abuse, or the mythic “systemic racism” responsible. It’s about leveraging the rare dramatic instances of police misbehavior into political power––not letting the crisis go to waste. Black Lives Matter, which has been at the forefront of this “crisis,” has been raking in millions of dollars from corporations eager to pay the danegeld. As well as enriching the movement’s leaders, this lucre will be spent on fomenting even more protests and disturbances, and on promoting an explicitly Marxist agenda that the movement cannot as of now persuade enough voters to accept at the ballot box.

Finally, the response of civic authority these days is very different from how disorder was handled in the Sixties. Back then, despite some sympathy from progressive politicians, most state and federal government officials understood that keeping order and protecting citizens was their primary responsibility. Today, mayors, governors, and police chiefs in blue states have stood down in the face of violence, and even issued public declarations of support and sympathy for the rioters and their goals, including the preposterous proposals like “defunding the police” or redirecting resources to non-lethal responses to dangerous spousal abuse emergencies. And most of the few criminals who are arrested are not charged or held, but instead put back on the street.

This mostly blue-state dereliction of civic duty is unprecedented, and illustrates just how thorough the multigenerational corruption of education has been. We are now entering the third generation of those who have been indoctrinated rather than educated, which means that the political ideologies of a minority in the Sixties, today are more widespread and embedded in the halls of government, as well as in popular culture and entertainment.

We sowed that wind in the Sixties, and now we are witnessing the whirlwind. The longer we appease public violence and disorder, the bolder the rioters become, and the more death and destruction will follow. At some point there will have to be a reckoning to restore the prestige and deterrent power of civil authority. For now, that possibility has to wait on the choices we the people make on November 3.

* * *
Photo credit: Rosa Pineda at Wikimedia Commons


Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/06/sowing-sixties-winds-reaping-todays-whirlwind-bruce-thornton/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Leftist Minstrel Show: Self-abasing protestors mostly white, and blacks are starting to laugh - Monica Showalter


by Monica Showalter

And paradoxically, it's still a sort of racism.


Anti-racism protests, which form the backdrop of the violence, desecration and looting going on around the U.S., are starting to look just a little bit strange to some black people.

Made up almost solely of whites, they feature kneeling, self-abasement, calls for absolution, and vows of reparation. There have been celebrities declaring they 'take responsibility,' Congress members bowing in Kente cloth stoles, ritual kneelings in the street, uplifted fists of ecstasy, and in one particularly ridiculous instance, thick, pasty white protestors dancing around a fallen Columbus statue as Indian drums beat, oblivious to the logic of their declaration, in that they best go back to Europe to atone. They've actually become religious rituals for white people with no religion and in need of one, what with global warming not coming through on its promises of Armageddon. National Review calls them the "white guilt cult"

To black people though, they're starting to get ridiculous, according to self-made tycoon Robert Johnson, founder of BET, who's probably one of the sanest voices in the so-called black community. He's had about all a body can stand of them, doesn't like them, and calls them laughable:
"You know black people, in my opinion, black people laugh at white people who do this, the same way we laugh at white people who say we got to take off the TV shows," he said mentioning the "Dukes of Hazard," a decades-old television program that has come under fire for featuring a car emblazoned with a Confederate flag graphic.
He pointed out that knocking over a statue will not "close the wealth gap," "give a kid whose parent's can't afford a college money to go to college," "close the labor gap between what white workers are paid and what black workers are paid" or "take people off welfare or food stamps."
Johnson said that whites who seek to "assuage guilt by doing things that make them feel good" would be much more reluctant to support payments for blacks.
Maybe that's because most of these white protests, supposedly on behalf of backs, don't actually do anything useful for black people. White leftists, in fact, can be pretty bossy to black people about what their interests actually are, as this disgusting video of a white protestor lecturing a black police officer on racism shows. Because surprise, surprise, it turns out these self-abasing feel-good protests are led by white people, and mainly participated in by white people.

According to a new study from Pew Research, blacks are far from the top racial minority group involved in these protests. 

Here's the Breitbart News take on it:
Only about one-in-six protesters over the last month are black Americans, while the plurality are white, according to Pew Research Center analysis.
Though recent protests and riots have been centered around racial tensions with law enforcement, only 17 percent of protesters have been black, while 46 percent are white, 22 percent are Hispanic, and eight percent are Asian, the analysis shows.
Wow. Only one in six protestors is actually black, and based on the photos seen of anti-racism protests, it's a lot less than that, except of course, if they've put blacks at the back of the line or something. But in reality, it sounds like Johnson is right in that Blacks would rather not get involved. This is whitey's show:


Call it a minstrel show of whites, designed to win redemption from blacks, but in reality, ending up entertaining blacks, or at least making them laugh. 

He points out that it's actually its own form of racism.
Referring to actions such as "changing names, toppling statues, [and] firing professors because they said all lives matter," Johnson explained that "it just shows to me that white America is continually ... incapable of recognizing that black people have their own ideas and thought about what's in their best interests."
He suggested that black people should be consulted before people take actions like tearing down statues or firing someone for a comment they have made.
"Give us the belief that you respect our opinion. You go out and do something and destroy something, fire somebody because you think it hurts us. Why don't you ask us first if it hurts us before you go and say 'Oh, I gotta do something for the negroes to make them feel better.' Well ask us if we want you to do that to make us feel better," he said.
Johnson, of course, is a Trump supporter, and doesn't care if any leftist doesn't like it. He didn't become a billionaire by following the herd. What he's saying is that making moves to help people escape poverty and powerlessness is a lot more important than white ablutions and abasements. 

In the National Review story on the white guilt cult, black people are rather stunned at the sheer ridiculousness of whites, thinking they are all helpless babies and throwing $20 bills at them.
Parker Gillian, a young black college graduate in Chicago who is in no need of financial support (she grew up in affluence, she told the Washington Post), says that someone from work texted out of nowhere to ask, “What’s your cash app?” and then pinged $20 into her account, unasked. “It is so exhausting being everybody’s one black friend right now,” tweeted a comedian named Sarah Cooper. Black people observing such displays by their white acquaintances can be forgiven for wondering: Is it really a friendship if one party is groveling, throwing money, and begging to wash the other party’s feet? If anything, the Great Awokening’s response to the George Floyd killing seems to be bolstering racial barriers rather than eradicating them. By making a religion of anti-racism, white people carry on with the longstanding project of “othering” black folks
If you were black, wouldn't you be grossed out by this obeisance? It just goes to show that white liberal culture has a sort of racism all its own even as it begs for absolution from Black people. The natural response from Black people, or anyone in a comparable situation would indeed be contempt and laughter, how could it not be? What this shows is that the white liberal virtue-signalers are the mirror image of their Democratic Party racist forebears, the people who held slaves, introduced Jim Crow, counted bloodlines, resisted the Civil Rights measures of the 1960s, and now abase themselves for absolution, tearing down statues and skipping idea of jobs, intact families, and security that provably benefit Black people, same as whites. To white liberals, Blacks will always be 'other.' Now they're getting ridiculous.

Image credit: Photo montage by Monica Showalter with use of screen shots from shareable YouTube videos, from Bloomberg Markets and Finance, Clevver News, NBC New York 4, Evening Standard, ABC7 New York, and WCCO Minneapolis.


Monica Showalter

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/06/white_minstrel_show_selfabasing_protestors_mostly_white_and_blacks_are_laughing.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



'EU policies on Israel influenced by political pressure from radical elements' - Ariel Kahana


by Ariel Kahana

Foreign Ministry official says EU is not as invested in other territorial disputes worldwide as it is in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many of Brussels' policies are subject to pressure from the BDS movement, he says.


"The European Union is discriminating against Israel," a senior Israeli diplomat stated in a position paper presented Thursday to the Mitvim Institute for Regional Foreign Policies.

The former head of the European Division in the Foreign Ministry and Israeli Ambassador to Norway Raphael Schutz wrote that "in other territorial disputes, such as the Spanish Sahara and northern Cyprus, European countries and their envoys to Brussels do not invest the same energy, time, and thought as they do to promoting the boycott of goods produced in Israeli settlements."


The EU, he continued, only recently approved the open sky agreement with Israel, which ostensibly contradicts its principles concerning the Jewish state, and it did so only because the accord is in line with Brussels' current interests.

"The EU is inconsistent. When it is convenient for them, European officials have refrained from taking an ideologically approach to Israel in drafting the open sky agreement, understanding that it has considerable economic benefits for them," Schutz wrote.

The veteran diplomat added that "it is impossible to get a definitive statement from Brussels about Israel's right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people, and it has not come out in rejection of the [Palestinian demand for] the 'right of return.'"

This lack of clarity while the EU has fully adopted the Palestinians' positions with respect to the regional conflict, especially in regards to the territorial aspects.

"EU policy on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is clear and decisive with regard to territorial aspects, about which the EU aligns with the Palestinian position. However, when it comes to the Israeli positions – even those it does not oppose in principle – the EU is less clear or decisive," Schutz continued.

Schutz's paper was written in response to a paper by Mitvim, in which the think tank explains why the so-called "differentiation policy" the EU practices with respect to Judea and Samaria, vis-à-vis Israeli areas within the Green Line, does not constitute a boycott against Israel.

But while Mitvim argued that the EU's "policy of differentiating between sovereign Israel and the [Palestinian] territories is fundamentally different from the BDS movement," Schutz argues that it is a direct result of pressure from the BDS movement.

In addition, he noted that the EU's punitive measures against Israeli exports from Judea and Samaria hurt the Israeli economy as a whole and are a dangerous gateway to official boycotts, which also harm the Palestinians employed by Israeli business in Judea and Samaria.

"We cannot ignore the 'elephant in the room' – this policy is substantially influenced by ongoing political pressure from radical elements, including the BDS movement," Schutz said.


Ariel Kahana

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/06/25/eu-policies-on-israel-influenced-by-political-pressure-from-radical-elements/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Will China Ever Be Reined In from Within? - Victor Jen


by Victor Jen

How are the nations supposed to like even the idea of China if there is no discernible Chinese activism against the communist regime?


As a person of Chinese descent, I sense a comeuppance of the ethnic sort: as a race, haven't we tolerated the rule of the Communist Party long enough? And hasn't the mechanism of the Party, so entrenched in the mainland, been the reason for the coronavirus run amok, now a pandemic of global proportions, downing lives and livelihoods everywhere?

As much as an ordinary Chinese person wants to stay out of the furore of inter-ethnic tension, the tension is there nonetheless. There is no use denying that the virus and its mismanagement and concealment started in mainland China. And there is no use lamenting that the peoples of the world do not trust, like, or support the Chinese.

How are the nations supposed to like even the idea of China if there is no discernible Chinese activism against the communist regime? The Chinese, out of racial insecurity, often stand with the People's Republic and its communist paradigm.

The ambivalence and slowness with which persons of Chinese ancestry treat the communist problem can find explanations in a millennia-old Confucian ethos: to actively scold one's government seems unfilial and ungrateful. Coupled with spectacular socioeconomic growth brought about by decades of manufacturing, the Party resembles a savior of the people. Chinese persons, whether mainlander or foreign-born, feel a distinct Chinese success that is hard to rail against.

But Chinese the world over have failed to understand that the Communist Party isn't even Chinese. The Party has been unfailingly anti-traditional, iconoclastic, and abusive and is a prime modern example of leftism on a large scale operated to its farthest excesses.

Things are funny only when they don't happen to you. The communist regime in China isn't historical, but fully present. Communist parties possess a seemingly automatic habit of obfuscating the truth in anything to do with people, running the gamut from history and politics to science and economics. The Chinese seem adroit at putting up with it. Nearly thirty years after the Soviet Union gave way to Russia, and still the People's Republic thrives.

The Chinese civilian evidently tolerates nonsense with a gusto outstripping the Russian's. It is true that there are haphazard and unprofessional oppositions observable in Hong Kong and Taiwan. But rallying at those safe distances is really just that: safe. Beijing can't terrorize Taipei across those straits, and the Hong Kongers do live in a Western-connected cosmopolis with a full slate of foreign safeguards.

So how shall the ordinary Chinese citizen free the mainland? The vast majority of Chinese people are too afraid to act from within. This is precisely the rationale that needs to underpin any foreign action from outside China.

There is no Boris Yeltsin or Mikhail Gorbachev in the mainland. There are no powerful men like these who will free China and transition her. Therefore, Western commentary and Western intervention are laudable things and, in fact, are things most necessary in this new chapter in global affairs. The coronavirus crisis is the last straw.

No longer can the world be made to watch the rise of a new Soviet megalith. No longer should a billion and a half innocent people be tasked with carrying forth the whims and fancies of an undemocratic, totalitarian party that rules on a basis already untenable in this century. And no longer should we entertain the fantasy that the Communist Party can be rendered benign by time or foreign relations.

How is the Party benign, four decades after its economic restructuring in 1978? In the time the West gave it, it threw its weight behind despotic Arab and African regimes, gave support to terror organizations, recognized "Palestine," invested in Sudan, and aligned itself with leftist and Islamist nations against Western interests.

The Party utilized bloc power and economic tidbits to invalidate the Republic of China (the constitutional republic, founded in 1911, presently based in Taipei). The United Nations has become a circus act for communist China and its partners such as Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, where these atrocious entities go on an apparently free pass and lambast the daylights out of the State of Israel.

At the end of it all, the coronavirus emerges, and the World Health Organization, as a U.N. body, has ostensible support for communist irresponsibility and is keen on persecuting American leadership for words of outrage.

In this new day in international relations, it has become apparent that the nation that is China cannot be freed from within, nor will it be freed with the nonexistent help the United Nations provides. Western intervention, of the kind that comes directly from the United States, is now more needful than ever. It was not a U.N. secretary-general who said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

As it stands, the Communist mainland is pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian. This is an aberration, possible only in a China held back by the trappings of socialist, left-wing militancy. Islam is not a natural ally of traditional Chinese culture and is in practice antithetical to everything classical Chinese values stand for. This is why the Uighurs, no matter what rule or dynasty they live in, will always oppose Oriental Chinese civilization.

If a modernized and classical China can afford to be utterly non-communist, un-Islamic and freed from the rule of the Party, why wait? There is no logical impetus for the communist system to continue. There is a poignant sensibility to be made about stronger futures for relations between China and Israel. A true Chinese Republic would fortify the Jewish State and serve as an emphatic full stop to Arab belligerence.

Without communism, the Chinese people would no longer feel compelled to support Arab causes, which are fundamentally destabilizing and morally reprehensible. Without communism, a restored Chinese Republic would rekindle a commonality of purpose, between Chinese and Jewish peoples, for national defense. It is as much the preservation of Jewish sovereignty, as the restoration of the classical Chinese spirit in the mainland.

As peoples persecuted, herded, and massacred in the Second World War, there are hallowed memories in the Jewish and Chinese nations, indelible and eternal. To free China means to free more than a billion people for cultural restoration in the homeland and clear, unequivocal support for the State of Israel.

Perhaps this sort of strength is the reason why there are forces, even in America, that do not want China to be free.

Photo credit: Pexels

Victor Jen, or Wang Yongren, chairs a community roundtable for Chinese values and is a member of an overseas Chinese association for the Southeast Asian diaspora.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/06/will_china_ever_be_reined_in_from_within.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter