The truth is revealed - Dr. Haim Shine

​
by Dr. Haim Shine

The protesters in the square, led by the Arab Higher Monitoring Committee in Israel – MKs Ayman Odeh, Hanin Zoabi and Jamal Zahalka – are voicing their truth. We should heed what they are telling us and stop already with the Left's foolish march of naiveté.

The Palestinian flags waving in Tel Aviv on Saturday night are the real narrative, which no amount of wording, impersonating or mountains of hypocrisy can conceal. The protesters at Rabin Square are fighting for the right of return to Sheikh Munis (Ramat Aviv), Khirbet Azoun (Raanana), and the lands of the Abu Kishk tribe in Ramat Hasharon. They want to make Nakba Day their day of independence. Their fight is over the 1948 borders, not the 1967 borders. The protesters in the square, led by the Arab Higher Monitoring Committee in Israel – MKs Ayman Odeh, Hanin Zoabi and Jamal Zahalka – are voicing their truth. We should heed what they are telling us and stop already with the Left's foolish march of naiveté.


The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people. We longed for this place, and we prayed for our return. And to liberate it we fought and sacrificed in the many thousands. We did not confiscate foreign soil; we are not colonialists in our own historic homeland, as claimed by the protest organizers, the leaders of the Arab public.

While the United Nations was deliberating over the partition plan, Jamal al-Husseini, the  Arab Higher Committee spokesman at the time, said: "The partition line will be nothing but a line of fire and blood." He was right. Immediately after the state was declared, the War for Independence erupted, and the Arabs of Israel who collaborated with hostile Arab states were forced to pay the price for their mistake. The wheels of history cannot be turned back; the Nakba flame can only ignite more hatred and spew more smoke. The Left fringe, together with NGOs funded by Germany and a pro-Palestinian Israeli media mouthpiece unbelievably lent their hands to the demonstration spearheaded by the Arab High Monitoring Committee in Israel, against the essence and character of Israel as a Jewish state.

The purpose of Saturday night's rally in Tel Aviv, unlike other protests against the nation-state law, wasn't to help scrounge up votes or economic benefits. The Arabs of Israel are voicing their one truth and I recommend we refrain from dismissing them or downplaying what they say. As early as 1915, David Ben-Gurion realized the Jewish-Arab conflict was based on an Arab nationalism, incited by the Arab elites; rather than a neighborly quarrel over the seizure of land and water.

For many years now, the Israeli Left has been gripped by a naiveté bordering on a severe inability to assess reality. This naiveté began with the intellectuals of the binationalist Zionist group Brit Shalom and morphed into Peace Now. It is now exhaustingly championed by the Meretz party and inept Zionist Union mouthpieces. These groups espouse the delusion that if we just withdrew to the 1967 borders, peace would reign. It is a persistent, dangerous lie that leads people to believe, wrongly, that prior to the Six-Day War we were all sitting around singing "Kumbayah." Saturday's demonstration makes it clear to the naive and fatigued among us that we are in the midst of a fight over Israel's essence. It is a fight between the Jewish majority and those who want Israel to be a country of all its nationalities.

Equal rights among citizens is a worthy demand; a shared Jewish-Arab national home will never happen. The nation-state law is crucial for precisely this reason, while the Arab public in Israel undergoes a radical process of Palestinization. For anyone who still has any doubt, the next elections will be about Israel's character and essence. We must win these elections for the next generations as well.

Dr. Haim Shine

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/the-truth-is-revealed/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
U.K. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn at a memorial service for Palestinians terrorists | Photo: Palestinian Embassy in Tunisia via the Daily Mail

Photos surface of Britain's Corbyn at memorial for Munich terrorists - Dan Lavie

​
by Dan Lavie

Daily Mail publishes photos of British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn laying a wreath at graves of Palestinian terrorists who murdered Israeli athletes at 1972 Munich Olympics

U.K. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn at a memorial service for Palestinians terrorists  
Photo: Palestinian Embassy in Tunisia via the Daily Mail

The Daily Mail on Friday published photos of Britain's Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn taking part in a memorial ceremony for the Palestinian terrorists who murdered 11 Israelis at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games.

The Daily Maily first reported on Corbyn's attendance at the 2014 ceremony in May. At the ceremony, Corbyn laid a wreath at the grave of one of the terrorists involved in the attack and later wrote about the ceremony in a column for the British communist newspaper Morning Star. Titled "Palestine United," the column called the service "poignant."

Jennifer Gerber, the director of Labour Friends of Israel, said, "It beggars belief that anyone would wish to honor the terrorists behind the brutal massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at Munich."

"However, it is sadly utterly unsurprising that Jeremy Corbyn appears to have done so. Others will rightly regard it is as totally sickening."

Corbyn's allies have insisted Corbyn was attending a memorial ceremony for Palestinians killed in an Israeli airstrike in the country in 1985. But in its Friday report, the Daily Mail noted that the monument for those who died in the strike is situated some 15 yards from the site where Corbyn was photographed and in an entirely separate section of the cemetery. In the photos, Corbyn can be seen standing in front of a plaque near the graves of three terrorists involved in the attacks.

The murder of the Israeli athletes by Palestinian terrorists in Munich is engraved in Israel's national memory. The attack began early on Sept. 5, 1972, when eight Black September terrorists entered the Olympic Village and broke into the apartments where the Israeli athletes were sleeping. Two of the Israelis were killed during the hostage-taking, and nine others were taken hostage and killed 20 hours later during a failed rescue attempt.

Dan Lavie

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/08/12/photos-surface-of-britains-corbyn-at-memorial-for-munich-terrorists/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

GOP condemns primary winner who said 'Hitler was right' - AP and Israel Hayom Staff

​
by AP and Israel Hayom Staff

Missouri Republicans denounce northwest Missouri primary winner Steve West, who has promoted conspiracy theories about Jewish "cabals" that torture children 

Steve West, the winner of a GOP primary for a northwest Missouri seat
Photo: PR

Missouri Republican leaders are condemning the winner of a GOP primary for a northwest Missouri seat, saying they did not recruit or support the candidate who has said "Hitler was right" and promoted conspiracies about Jewish "cabals" that torture children.

Steve West, who also has a YouTube channel and a website where he has expressed homophobic, Islamophobic and racist views, won Tuesday's primary for a Clay County House seat by nearly 25 points over three other candidates, The Kansas City Star reported.

On Jan. 23, 2017, West, using his persona "Jack Justice," remarked on a show on AM radio station KCXL that "looking back in history, unfortunately, [Nazi leader Adolf] Hitler was right about what was taking place in Germany."

The Missouri Republican Party on Thursday issued a statement distancing itself from West.

"Steve West's shocking and vile comments do not reflect the position of the Missouri Republican Party or indeed of any decent individual," the statement said. "West's abhorrent rhetoric has absolutely no place in the Missouri Republican Party or anywhere. We wholeheartedly condemn his comments."

Karen Aroesty, a regional director of the  Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish NGO that combats anti-Semitism worldwide, said she was trying to determine how West and his views "flew under the radar" before the election.

"What is a person who is elected into a position of power going to do with beliefs like this?" she asked.

Asked if anyone had performed a background check on candidates, the Clay County GOP said it does not vet candidates or involve itself in primary elections.

The Missouri House Republican Leadership said in a statement Thursday that it was not aware of anyone asking West to run.

"To our knowledge, no member of the Missouri Republican Party, the House Republican Campaign Committee or sitting member of the General Assembly recruited Mr. West to run for office. We find his statements to be vile, offensive and out of line with our party's values," the statement said.

West told The Kansas City Star Thursday that he wanted to talk about his platform and suggested his recorded statements may have been taken out of context. He said he believes all men are created equal, but that he finds fault with some ideologies, including Islam and Judaism.

When asked about Jewish people in Missouri, he said, "Well, maybe they shouldn't vote for me."

He said he hoped voters would listen to his remarks in full and make up their own minds.

State Rep. Jon Carpenter, the Democratic incumbent for the district, said he hoped people who voted for West simply were unaware of his views.

"I just want everyone who lives in this community to know that they're welcome here," Carpenter wrote in an email. "Muslims, Jews, Catholics, the LGBTQ community, people of all races and national origins, and everyone else Steve West has targeted with hate. His views do not reflect our values. We'll stand together and love will conquer hate, as it always does."

AP and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/08/12/gop-condemns-missouri-house-primary-winner-who-said-hitler-was-right/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

UK: Boris Johnson Sparks 'Burka-Gate' - Soeren Kern

​
by Soeren Kern

Although this deliberate identity-concealing contraption is banned at the Kaaba in Mecca it is permitted in Britain..." — Taj Hargey, imam at Oxford Islamic Congregation.

• "I believe that the public will see this for what it is — an internal Conservative party witch hunt instigated by Number Ten against Boris Johnson, who they see as a huge threat." — Tory MP Andrew Bridgen.
• "Taken to its logical conclusion, the anti-Johnson brigade's stance would mean that nobody is allowed to offer their view on any matter in case it causes offence. Is that really the kind of country we want to live in? ... We live in a country that used to believe passionately in free speech. As we all know, even when exercised with care and responsibility, free speech can and does offend some people. But timid politicians who take the easy option and prefer not to tell people what they really think about things like the burka are killing this vital right." — Nigel Farage, former leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP).
• "Boris Johnson should not apologise for telling the truth.... [female facial masking is] a nefarious component of a trendy gateway theology for religious extremism and militant Islam.... The burka and niqab are hideous tribal ninja-like garments that are pre-Islamic, non-Koranic and therefore un-Muslim. Although this deliberate identity-concealing contraption is banned at the Kaaba in Mecca it is permitted in Britain..." — Taj Hargey, imam at Oxford Islamic Congregation.

Former foreign secretary (and possible future prime minister) Boris Johnson sparked a political firestorm after making politically incorrect comments about the burka and the niqab, the face-covering garments worn by some Muslim women.

The ensuing debate over Islamophobia has revealed the extent to which political correctness is stifling free speech in Britain. It has also exposed deep fissures within the Conservative Party over its future direction and leadership.

Pictured: Boris Johnson (the Foreign Secretary) leaves 10 Downing Street following a cabinet meeting on June 12, 2018 in London, England. (Photo by Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images)

In an August 5 essay published by the Daily Telegraph, Johnson argued that he was opposed to Denmark's burka ban because the government should not be telling women what they may or may not wear in public. Johnson wrote:

"What has happened, you may ask, to the Danish spirit of live and let live? If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree — and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the Koran. I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes....
"If a constituent came to my MP's surgery [one-on-one meetings between MPs and their constituents] with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled... to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly. If a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber, then ditto: those in authority should be allowed to converse openly with those that they are being asked to instruct."

The response from senior Conservatives was immediate.

Prime Minister Theresa May said that Johnson "was wrong" in the language he used to describe women who use the burka. She added that Johnson had "clearly caused offense" and demanded that he apologize:

"I do think that we all have to be very careful about the language and terms we use. And some of the terms Boris used describing people's appearance obviously have offended. What's important is do we believe people should have the right to practice their religion and, in the case of women and the burka and niqab, to choose how they dress. I believe women should be able to choose how they dress."

Conservative Party Chairman Brandon Lewis also called for Johnson to apologize, as did a long list of current and former ministers and MPs. Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve threatened to quit the party if Johnson became leader.

Tory peer Mohamed Sheikh, founder of the Conservative Muslim Forum, said that Johnson had "let the genie out of the bottle" and called for Johnson to be removed from the party.
Conservative Member of the House of Lords Sayeeda Warsi — who herself has said that she hopes women in Britain will stop wearing the Islamic face veil within the next 10 or 20 years — accused Johnson of "Islamophobia" and said he should be required to attend diversity training:

"In his Telegraph piece, Johnson was making a liberal argument. He was saying that we shouldn't ban the burqa, as Denmark has done. But his words signaled something else. He said — not only to those Muslim women who veil, but to many more who associate with a faith in which some women do — that you don't belong here....
"He set out a liberal position, but he did it in a very 'alt-right' way. This allowed him to dog-whistle: to say to particular elements of the party that he's tough on Muslims. Yet again, he's trying to have his cake and eat it....
"An apology is now due. But what happens if, as looks likely, it doesn't come? Every time incidents like this occur in the party and there are no consequences, it sends out a clear message that you can get away with Islamophobia.
"As far as Boris Johnson is concerned, this is surely time for the promised diversity training scheme to kick in."

Johnson has refused to apologize, and the Conservative Party has now launched an inquiry into whether Johnson's comments violated its code of conduct, which states that Tory officials and elected representatives must "lead by example to encourage and foster respect and tolerance" and not "use their position to bully, abuse, victimise, harass or unlawfully discriminate against others."

Britain's most senior police officer, Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick, said that she had consulted hate-crime specialists and determined that Johnson's comments did not break the law:

"I know that many people have found this offensive. I also know that many other people believe strongly that in the whole of the article, what Mr Johnson appears to have been attempting to do was to say that there shouldn't be a ban and that he was engaging in a legitimate debate.
"I spoke last night to my very experienced officers who deal with hate crime and, although we have not yet received any allegation of such a crime, I can tell you that my preliminary view having spoken to them is that what Mr Johnson said would not reach the bar for a criminal offence."

Johnson's supporters jumped to his defense. North East Somerset MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said:

"It's hard to see what he should apologise for. He has defended people's right to wear the burka whilst saying it is an inelegant garment. Neither of those proposals are unreasonable."

Tory MP Andrew Bridgen accused May of orchestrating a politically motivated "witch hunt" against Johnson:

"I believe this is politically motivated, by the internal politics of the Tory party, by politicians who want to humiliate and destroy Boris Johnson. I believe that the public will see this for what it is — an internal Conservative party witch hunt instigated by Number Ten against Boris Johnson, who they see as a huge threat."

In a blog post, Bridgen elaborated:

"Looking at those who have jumped on the bandwagon of protest, the vast majority appear to be ardent Remain campaigners, who still bewildered that the public could have a different viewpoint to them, still seek to lay the blame at their defeat at the door of Boris Johnson. These same people remained stoney silent when lifelong Remainer Ken Clarke enlightened us with his views of the burka: 'I do think it's a most peculiar costume for people to adopt in the 21st century, but that's not to me for decide, when they're not engaged in some serious issue such as giving evidence. That's the bit that I think it's almost impossible to have a proper trial if one of the persons is in a kind of bag'...
"It is clear that this is not about standing up for the rights of Muslim women to wear the burka, if that is what they really want to do? This is about getting Boris. The great irony of all of this is many EU Countries who those criticising Boris are desperate to stay in political union with have in fact banned the burka. Not the fringe countries but France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria and now Denmark, with a partial ban even in the uber-liberal Netherlands.
"I myself, am the chairman of the All-Party Parliament Group for Uzbekistan, a country which is 90% Muslim, enjoys great religious harmony and interestingly which banned face coverings in 1992.
"Unfortunately, in using this issue as a stick to beat Boris, Theresa May and some of the members of her government have shown themselves to be once again totally out of step with the views of the majority of members of the Conservative Party and indeed of the public as a whole."

The former leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Nigel Farage, wrote:

"I wonder how many of those who are now jumping up and down calling for Johnson to have the Conservative whip withdrawn [disciplinary measure], or to be expelled from the party altogether, actually read his original Telegraph article which has apparently offended them so much. Had they done so, they would surely remember that he states he does not believe the burka and niqab should be banned in Britain – a ban which is already in full force in EU nations like France, Germany, Denmark, Austria and Belgium.
"Having set out his liberal position, he then augments it by taking up the feminist argument that he thinks it is 'oppressive' to force women to cover their faces in public. For emphasis he offers his opinion that it is 'weird' and 'bullying' to expect them to do so. And then he says it is 'ridiculous' that women should go around 'looking like letter boxes'.
"Absurdly, this opinion has been seized upon as 'Islamophobic' or 'racist'. An essentially liberal commentator is being pilloried for expressing his belief using, what I accept, is rather playful language. But to suggest he should be kicked out of his party is nothing but lunacy. To Boris I say: stand firm...
"Taken to its logical conclusion, the anti-Johnson brigade's stance would mean that nobody is allowed to offer their view on any matter in case it causes offence. Is that really the kind of country we want to live in? Remember – ironically, we are talking in this case about a politician who has stated he thinks it illiberal to ban the burka...
"We live in a country that used to believe passionately in free speech. As we all know, even when exercised with care and responsibility, free speech can and does offend some people. But timid politicians who take the easy option and prefer not to tell people what they really think about things like the burka are killing this vital right.
"By allowing politics to become too PC, they are damaging democracy in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for future generations to repair, ultimately condemning them to a society where nobody is allowed to be honest about anything."

An imam at Oxford Islamic Congregation, Taj Hargey, wrote that Johnson did not go far enough:

"Boris Johnson should not apologise for telling the truth. His evocative analogy is unfortunate but he is justified in reminding everyone that the Wahhabi/Salafi-inspired fad of female facial masking has no Koranic legitimacy. It is, however, a nefarious component of a trendy gateway theology for religious extremism and militant Islam.
"The burka and niqab are hideous tribal ninja-like garments that are pre-Islamic, non-Koranic and therefore un-Muslim. Although this deliberate identity-concealing contraption is banned at the Kaaba in Mecca it is permitted in Britain, thus precipitating security risks, accelerating vitamin D deficiency, endorsing gender-inequality and inhibiting community cohesion.
"It is any wonder that many younger women have internalised this poisonous chauvinism by asserting that it is their human right to hide their faces?
"Johnson did not go far enough. If Britain is to become a fully integrated society then it is incumbent that cultural practices, personal preferences and communal customs that aggravate social division should be firmly resisted."

Rowan Atkinson, a British comedian also known as Mr. Bean, defended Johnson:

"As a lifelong beneficiary of the freedom to make jokes about religion, I do think that Boris Johnson's joke about wearers of the burka resembling letterboxes is a pretty good one. All jokes about religion cause offence, so it's pointless apologising for them. You should really only apologise for a bad joke. On that basis, no apology is required."

A Sky Data Poll published on August 8 found that 60% of Britons surveyed said that it is not racist to compare Muslim women wearing burkas to bank robbers and letter boxes, while 59% were in favor of a burka ban.

An August 1 poll of Tory members by ConservativeHome found that Johnson's popularity had almost quadrupled since he resigned on July 9 after clashing with May over her vision for Brexit. He is now at the top of the list of favored successors to May.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.  Follow Soeren Kern on Twitter and Facebook

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12830/boris-johnson-burkas

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Media covering (up) Dianne Feinstein’s major spy scandal - Thomas Lifson

​
by Thomas Lifson

As Joe Biden would put it, this is a “big f-ing deal”

The mainstream media desperately want to deflect attention away from a huge spy scandal involving the ranking Democrat senator on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. For two decades, Senator Dianne Feinstein employed a Chinese spy on her staff. And when it was discovered, she was notified, the spy was fired (but not prosecuted), and the entire matter was kept secret from the public.

Only 5 years later did the news appear in public to almost no fanfare, bured deep in a Politico story on other matters.

The reason is obvious. The contrast with the treatment received by the Trump campaign when a Russian spy was merely suspected (on the basis of what appear to be ginned-up concerns over Carter Page, an FBI informant)  is so stark as to raise serious question as to the integrity of the FBI counterintelligence operation.  The NSA’s ability to monitor every form of electronic communications except ham radio[i] was mobilized to spy on the presidential campaign of the opposition party to the Obama administration. No notification to the campaign was offered, unlike Feinstein’s treatment.

The entire incident is being presented to the public as no big deal. That is a classic example of the fake news of which President Trump so vocally complains.  Fortunately, Mark Thiessen checked out the real dimensions of the spy operation:

Feinstein insisted, "he never had access to classified or sensitive information or legislative matters" and was immediately fired. In other words: junior staffer, no policy role, no access to secrets, quickly fired -- no big deal.

But it is a big deal. I asked several former senior intelligence and law enforcement officials how serious this breach might have been. "It's plenty serious," one former top Justice Department official told me. "Focusing on his driver function alone, in Mafia families, the boss's driver was among the most trusted men in the crew, because among other things he heard everything that was discussed in the car."

A former top CIA clandestine officer explained to me what the agency would do if they had recruited the driver of a senior official like Feinstein. "We would have the driver record on his phone all conversations that Feinstein would have with passengers and phone calls in her car. If she left her phone, iPad or laptop in the car while she went to meetings, social events, dinners, etc., we would have the driver download all her devices.

If the driver drove for her for 20 years he would probably would have had access to her office and homes. We would have had the source put down an audio device in her office or homes if the opportunity presented itself. Depending on the take from all of what the source reported, we would use the info to target others that were close to her and exhibited some type of vulnerability."

Image by Timorthy Bishop

If you think our major media are going to inform us of the dimensions of the intelligence loss, or investigate Feinstein’s financial connections to China, from which she and her husband have made millions of dollars, forget about it. Tom Friedman thinks it is much more important to focus on the t-shirts worn by two members of an audience of thousands at a Trump rally.

As Joe Biden would put it, this is a “big f-ing deal”

[i] not coincidentally, the form of communication favored by Nellie Ohr, employee of Fusion GPS and wife of the fourth-ranked official in the DOJ

Thomas Lifson

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/media_covering_up_dianne_feinsteins_major_spy_scandal_.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Turkey's Neighborhood Bullies - Burak Bekdil

​
by Burak Bekdil

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's foreign ministry keeps bullying his country's neighbors and the region, just like his friends, President Maduro of Venezuela and President al-Bashir of Sudan.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's motorcade arrived at his 1,100-room palace on an unusually rainy day in Ankara on July 9. His armored Mercedes was showered with red roses, thrown at the car by crowds cheering him hours before an extravagant inauguration ceremony. A 101-gun salute and an Ottoman military band greeted him along with 10,000 selected guests (this author was on the guest list but, in protest, preferred not to attend).

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan makes a speech at his inauguration ceremony in Ankara on July 9, 2018. (Photo by Stringer/Getty Images)

Whereas pompous scenes from Erdoğan's palace ceremony showed the glittering face of Turkey on July 9, events from the day before were saddening and unveiled "the other Turkey." A passenger train derailed in the Thrace region west of Istanbul, killing 24 and injuring more than 300. On the same day, students from the Middle East Technical University in Ankara were arrested for carrying placards "insulting the president" at their graduation ceremony.


Also on July 8, more than 18,000 government employees were fired "over suspected links to groups that 'act against national security.'" That brought the number of people purged to 125,806 since the July 2016 coup attempt.


Back at the palace, on July 9, everyone was smiling and greeting Erdoğan. Nicolás Maduro, for instance, Venezuela's autocratic president, called Erdoğan "a friend of Venezuela and leader of the new multi-polar world." Maduro seems to have almost forgotten that he is the unwanted leader of a country mired deeply in undemocratic chaos and violence, where the annual inflation rate has shot up to over 82,000%.


In Maduro's Venezuela, according to the 35-member Organization of American States, systematic crimes against humanity are being committed, including torture, rape and more than 8,000 extrajudicial executions.


The list and profile of the foreign dignitaries and statesmen who were Erdoğan's guests further revealed his own political profile, ideological inclinations, friends and foes, possibly causing shy smiles in the world's more civilized capitals: heads of state from Qatar, Bulgaria, Georgia, Macedonia, Moldova, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Pakistan, the [breakaway] Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognized only by Turkey), Kyrgyzstan, Guinea, Zambia, Guinea Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Somali, Mauritania, Gabon, Chad and Djibouti. Russian President Vladimir Putin sent his prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, to the festivities in Ankara.


Another presidential guest, one of Erdoğan's favorite Islamist friends, was Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, who is the first sitting president to be indicted by International Criminal Court (ICC) for genocide and crimes against humanity, for presiding over the deaths of "between 200,000-300,000 people" in Darfur since the start of the conflict there in 2004. Erdoğan has in the past to defended al-Bashir, saying: "It is not possible for those who belong to the Muslim faith to carry out genocide."


About two weeks after he posed for the cameras with his happy smiles, according to Reuters, "Erdogan said on Tuesday an Israeli law declaring that only Jews have the right of self-determination legitimizes oppression and shows that Israel is a fascist and racist country where the spirit of Adolf Hitler has re-emerged."


Just like his friends Maduro and al-Bashir, Erdoğan's foreign ministry keeps bullying his country's neighbors and the region. On July 30, Turkey warned Israel and Egypt not to "exceed their limits" after the two countries' ambassadors to Cyprus reportedly "both suggested that military action against Turkish naval forces in the Eastern Mediterranean was an option" to protect Cyprus's offshore energy exploration in the face of "Turkish provocations."


Erdoğan has an ideological commitment to the "new multi-polar world," as his friend Maduro put it. His palace party was like a birthday party bringing together all the school bullies of the neighborhood. Teachers and parents in the neighborhood are fearfully waiting for the gang's new venture. Kids will be kids. But this gang is not always content just vandalizing the enemy's cars or throwing stones at the enemy's windows.

Burak Bekdil one of Turkey's leading journalists, was recently fired from Turkey's leading newspaper after 29 years, for writing what was taking place in Turkey for Gatestone. He is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12821/turkey-neighborhood-bullies

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Day Andrew Cuomo Got Religion - T. R. Clancy

​
by T. R. Clancy

Lo and behold, the extremely pro-abortion governor has decided that he dislikes only certain kinds of death...when it's politically popular.

Who could have predicted back in 1928 that Al Smith's successor as governor of New York would be explaining his advancement of legislation by his "solidarity" with the pope?  Back then, poor Governor Smith was defeated in his run for president in part by anti-Catholic fears that he represented a "Romish Peril," not least by way of a transatlantic tunnel between Washington and the Vatican.  A vote for Al Smith would put America under the dictatorship of the pope.

So when Governor Andrew Cuomo, literally on the same day Pope Francis declared that the death penalty is "inadmissible" in all cases, introduced a bill to abolish capital punishment in New York, the left erupted in justifiable outrage at Cuomo's attempt to establish religion. 

Or not.  So far, there have been no actual reports of protesters turning out with signs telling the pope to stay out of our lethal injection chambers.

Francis's declaration didn't change Cuomo's views on the subject; he was already an opponent of capital punishment, as was his father before him, the late Governor Mario Cuomo.  But Andrew sees this new teaching as divine "validation of my father's principled stand against the death penalty."

Speaking of principled stands, you may recall Andrew's father as the originator of the now-ubiquitous moral nonsense that Catholic politicians could be "personally opposed" to abortion, while at the same time, "as servants of the broader public – supporting its availability to those who did not share those beliefs."  With that single phrase, Mario handed pro-abortion Catholic politicians (and their Catholic voters, who by that time were mostly Democrats) the get-out-of Hell-free card they needed to explain their fervent advocacy for an evil practice to which they said they were personally opposed.  The Church had already condemned that position, and  John Paul II clearly reiterated "that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a 'grave and clear obligation to oppose' any law that attacks human life."

Even the Catholic bishops' conference, which in those days was living up to its nickname of "the Democratic Party at prayer," had to draw the line at Cuomo's twisted logic:

No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life.  [N]o appeal to policy, procedure, majority will or pluralism ever excuses a public official from defending life to the greatest extent possible.

But the Cuomos, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and God knows how many other Catholic politicians (and just think: he really does know how many!) have gone right on appealing directly to those very things to justify themselves – to those things, and to their unqualified loyalty to the separation of Church and state. 

I learned long ago that if your Christianity leans far enough left, you get a pass from the passionate defenders of the Wall of Separation, the same ones who will tell you that tolerance in the public square of the belief in marriage is tantamount to the establishment of a Christian theocracy.  (I specify a Christian theocracy, because none of these folks seem even slightly concerned at some fairly explicit intentions to establish an Islamic theocracy.) 

This free pass is the reason black ministers can preach the Democratic platform from their pulpits, or lend those pulpits to progressive candidates who describe their activism as the "Lord's work," while never rating so much as a raised eyelid from the ACLU.  As long as the religion you're establishing saves room for the gospel values of abortion, pseudo-marriage, and really big government programs, the Southern Poverty Law Center sees no harm in it. 

You see, they're not politicizing Jesus the way Republicans are when they say He's conservative and try to force the Ten Commandments on everybody.   Instead, liberals just follow Jesus's clear and simple teachings about taking care of the poor (through massive entitlement programs), showing compassion to the stranger (through open-border immigration policies), and stressing the importance of being nonjudgmental (by using Caesar to force stubborn Pharisees to participate in ceremonies claiming to unite same-sex couples and pay for someone else's contraception). 

Even in spite of the double standard, I've never believed that preachers should be barred from mixing faith with politics.  I only wish our side could do it, too.  And I don't believe one bit that Andrew Cuomo taking this political action in compliance with a religious edict is a threat to the constitutional order.  Nor do I necessarily oppose either Francis's or Cuomo's opposition to capital punishment.  I'm agnostic on the subject; it's never been legal in the state where I live, and if there were a vote to legalize it in Michigan, I'd likely vote no. 

But when Andrew Cuomo, quoting his father before him, calls the death penalty "a stain on our conscience," demeaning those "who strive to preserve human life and dignity," it's impossible not to notice how badly out of proportion he's getting things.

Take the fact that the death penalty has been virtually extinct in New York since a state Court of Appeals ruling in 2004.  On a national scale, it's hardly commonplace.  By July 2018, there have been 1,479 executions in this country since 1976.  Of course, I don't mean to imply "only 1,479"; every single one of those was an individual facing the horror of being put to death.  But as stains on our national conscience go, just how big a stain is it?

I'm thinking of how the "stain" of 1,479 executions in 42 years looks beside the stain of 2,537 abortions in the United States per day.  Can you be taken seriously as a defender of "human life and dignity" when you're supporting a regime that's taking a human life every 30 seconds? 

Pope Francis's careful wording that capital punishment is now "inadmissible" posits that the historical practice of executing dangerous criminals to protect society is unnecessary in our time, when the means now exist to effectively incarcerate them.  But the pope's new language stops short – notably – of calling capital punishment "intrinsically evil," a "theological term meaning that an action can never be done in a moral way, regardless of the circumstances."  The new Catechism entry will neither state that the death penalty would always be immoral in other circumstances nor condemn those who have supported its use in the past.   

What the Church does define as intrinsically evil, and always has, is abortion.  If Governor Cuomo's newfound respect for Church teaching so moves him to ban an evil from New York that doesn't even take place there anymore, why not some moves toward ridding our consciences of that larger, darker stain that's spreading more and more every day? 

It's the cynicism that gets me.  Because Governor Cuomo's father was "personally opposed to the death penalty," he vetoed death penalty legislation 12 times.  His stated personal opposition to abortion didn't drive him to lift a finger for the unborn even once.  Andrew Cuomo wasn't claiming any personal opposition to abortion in 2014, when he called pro-life Republicans "extreme conservatives" who have "no place in the state of New York."  Planned Parenthood just endorsed Cuomo for re-election because he's so "personally committed to our issues and other progressive values we believe in."

If the bigots of Al Smith's times could have seen ahead to this future Catholic governor in Smith's old job, they'd see little reason to fear that this guy was digging a tunnel to Rome.

But is he digging a tunnel to somewhere else?  That's another question.

T. R. Clancy

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/the_day_andrew_cuomo_got_religion.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Media should Fear Muslims and Leftists, not Trump - Daniel Greenfield

​
by Daniel Greenfield

The media ought to be thanking Trump for protecting it from its allies.

Trump's criticism of the media “is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence,” claims Artie Sulzberger, the latest scion of the New York Times dynasty. 

Artie, who got the chairman job because of his last name, earns $5 million a year. The only threat to him came from a shameless bootlicking Washington Post article praising his journalistic humility.

“Yeah, we get it, you don’t like us. Fine. But do you have to put our lives in danger?" MSNBC's Katy Tur whined. “He wants to endanger the lives of journalists,” columnist Connie Smith wailed at Trump.

How endangered is the modern media hack?

Reporters, pundits and other fake news media gobbers have been claiming that Trump is endangering them for a while now. 

"How long before someone is seriously hurt, or worse?" New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg demanded last August.

How long? It’s been over a year now. 

"Someone is going to do something awful to a journalist," Jeffrey Toobin claimed on CNN. And they have. They’ve mocked, ridiculed and humiliated the media for its hysterical fake news nonsense. 

The number of reporters shot by Trump supporters because of his attacks on the media currently stands at zero. And counting down. So the media has shifted gears of predicting that Trump’s criticism will cause reporters to die overseas. Sulzberger warned about the threat to the media overseas. "Trump slams CNN in potentially dangerous way," claims CNN. But agreed that the real threat is overseas.

Reporters are dying overseas. At the hands of Muslim terrorists.

The vast majority of massacres of reporters in recent years were carried out by Muslim terrorists. Of Reporters Without Borders’ own list of the deadliest attacks on the media in the last 10 years, including the most recent suicide bombing which killed 9 reporters in Afghanistan and the obscure Maguindanao massacre, dubbed the "single deadliest event for the press" since the Committee to Protect Journalists started keeping records, were carried out by Muslims.

The only non-Muslim attack on the list was carried out by a faction of the leftist FARC narcoterrorist group whose leadership was able to meet with John Kerry despite having a reward placed on their heads by the United States. As the media likes to mockingly sneer, “thanks Obama”.

In America, the single greatest death toll for media personnel in the last generation occurred on 9/11.

Maybe the media ought to reconsider its mindless ideological opposition to a terror state travel ban? 

The statistical evidence very clearly shows that media personnel are far more likely to be murdered by attackers shouting, “Allahu Akbar” than “Make America Great Again.” They’re also more likely to be hit by lightning than killed by a Trump supporter angry over the latest fake news smear of the president.

The media’s hysteria about the Trump threat is as baseless and groundless as the rest of its fake news.

There’s been no outbreak of violence against reporters in this country. Instead reporters have come more under physical threat from Black Lives Matter, Antifa and other leftists. 

Leftist doxer Taylor Lorenz, formerly of the Daily Beast and currently of The Atlantic, who doxed the daughters of a female counterjihad activist, exposing them to potential harm, was punched in the face in Charlottesville. But the puncher was a fellow leftist counterprotester inflicting collateral damage. He got off with a slap on the wrist, a suspended sentence, anger management and community service.

While the media blew up every incident where a reporter in Ferguson inhaled tear gas, actual physical attacks on reporters by Black Lives Matter racist thugs were mostly swept under the media’s dirty rug. 

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Paul Hampel was beaten bloody by Ferguson thugs. 

CNN devoted a fraction of the time to its own correspondent, Sara Sidner, being hit by rocks than it has to all the imaginary dangers of violence from Trump supporters.

A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel intern described a mob scene in which reporters were threatened and assaulted. 

“When they threw me to the ground, I reflexively curled up into a ball. Blows landed on my back, head and torso. 'Stop! He’s not white! He’s Asian!' I wasn’t sure who said it, or how they knew my race, but within seconds, the punches stopped." 

Then he blamed Asians for being insufficiently supportive of the racist black nationalist movement.

Despite all the media’s hysteria, the violent attacks on their ranks in this country aren’t coming from Trump supporters at rallies, but from their fellow leftists who are actually driving the violence.

And the media has covered up the scale of those attacks, especially after Ferguson, while refusing to address the ideological motives of the attackers. It’s made little to no effort to bring those attackers to justice or to challenge the culture of radical impunity that has led to physical attacks on the media.

If Trump supporters had assaulted a white reporter, beat him, and then let him go because he was white, we would never have heard the end of the story. There would already have been a bestselling book, a movie, a memorial and an annual award inspired by those events. And if Republicans were regularly beating reporters to a pulp, we would be hearing about it too. Non-stop. On every channel.

Instead the media wails about the hypothetical threat of one day being attacked by a Trump supporter.

Maybe overseas. 

The groups most likely to kill reporters overseas are Latin American drug cartels and Muslim terrorists. These are the two groups that benefit the most from the media’s leftist advocacy against border security and immigration security reform. 

Domestically, the media’s greatest violent threat comes from leftist activists. Overseas, its greatest threats come from the two types of migrants whom Trump wants to keep out and it wants to let in.

Trump isn’t threatening the media. He’s protecting it from the consequences of its own ideology. 

If the average media type had enough brains to fill a flash drive and enough common sense to stock a highlight reel, he would be thanking Trump for keeping the media safe from its own stupidity.

Instead the media can’t wait to get blown up, shot, beheaded and beaten by its own political allies. And once it’s through covering up the latest attack on it by Muslim terrorists, black nationalists, Marxist narcoterrorists or lefty thugs, it spreads dire warnings about the consequences of Trump’s rhetoric. 

The media’s shameless lying hacks can’t stop the fake news long enough to save their own lives.

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

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270948/media-should-fear-muslims-and-leftists-not-trump-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter