Pegida: The New German Revolution - Peter Martino

by Peter Martino

Pegida's worries about the Islamization of Germany concern the seeming intolerance and religious fanaticism that have grown hand-in-hand with the arrival of the Muslim populations unwilling to adapt to Western values.
The terror attacks in France Had "nothing to do with Islam." — German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière.
By decrying Pegida's views as "xenophobic," narrow minded" and even "inhuman," Germany's ruling establishment shows how deeply out of touch it is with the worries of a large segment of the population.
Perhaps the people in the East just want to avoid the situation that the Western part of the country is in. Having gone through decades of Communist dictatorship, perhaps they are less inclined to trust that their political leaders have the people's best interests in mind with their policies.

Every Monday evening since last October, thousands of citizens have marched through the city of Dresden as well as other German cities to protest the Islamization of their country. They belong to an organization, established only three months ago, called Pegida, the German abbreviation for "Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West."

PEGIDA on a Monday "evening walk" in Dresden, November 10, 2014. (Image source: Filmproduktionen video screenshot)

Pegida is a democratic grassroots organization, without origins in the far-left, far-right or links to any political parties, domestic or foreign. The French Front National [FN] of Marine Le Pen even made it clear that it wants nothing to do with "spontaneous initiatives" such as Pegida. According to the FN, "something like Pegida cannot be a substitute for a party."

In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders of the Freedom Party [PVV] is more positive. He sees Pegida as a sign of the growing discontent of ordinary people with the political elite now governing them. "A revolution is on its way," he says. Ironically, Wilders's PVV, currently by far the largest party in the Dutch polls, is itself more of a spontaneous movement, driven by the energy and charisma of one single man with a mission to liberate his country from Islamic extremism, rather than an established and structured political party.

That Pegida is a spontaneous and diffuse organization of citizens expressing their discontent, seems to be worrying the German political establishment. German Chancellor Angela Merkel knows how powerful these movements can become. In 1989, when thousands of people shouting, "Wir sind das Volk" ["We are the people"] took to the streets in cities such as Dresden, the Communist regime in East Germany was toppled.

Apart from slogans such as: "Against Religious Fanaticism," and: "For the Future of our Children," the anti-Islamization protesters of Pegida are using exactly the same slogan -- "Wir sind das Volk" --- of the anti-Communist demonstrators a quarter of a century ago, as they march against the open-door policies of the German government.

The use of the 1989 liberation slogan has infuriated Merkel, who reproaches Pegida for using it. In her New Year's speech, Merkel attacked the Pegida demonstrators. "Their hearts are cold, full of prejudice and hatred," she said, while defending her government's policies of welcoming asylum seekers and immigrants. She pointed out that Germany had taken in more than 200,000 asylum seekers in 2014, making it the country that is accepting the largest number of refugees in the world.

Merkel has been backed by church leaders, who are slamming Pegida and calling for solidarity with migrants. The Confederation of German Employers has been blaming Pegida for damaging Germany's international reputation. Meanwhile, so-called anti-fascist demonstrators, shouting "Wir sind die Mauer. Das Volk muss weg!" ["We are the Wall. Down with the people!"], last week blocked a Pegida march in Berlin.

On January 10, fearing that the recent Islamic terror attacks in France might lead to even more public support for Pegida, Dresden Mayor Helma Orosz, a member of Chancellor Merkel's Christian-Democratic CDU Party, co-sponsored in her town a so-called "Lovestorm" event. The aim was to conquer the "xenophobia" of Pegida through "open mindedness and humanity." Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, another leading CDU politician, claimed that the terror attacks in France had "nothing to do with Islam" and warned against "political pyromaniacs" such as Pegida who suggest otherwise.

Pegida's worries about the Islamization of Germany concern the seeming intolerance and religious fanaticism that have grown hand in hand with the arrival of Muslim populations unwilling to adapt to Western values.

But by decrying Pegida's views as "xenophobic," "narrow minded" and even "inhuman," Germany's ruling establishment shows how deeply out of touch it is with the worries of a large segment of the population.

A recent poll, dating from before the terror attacks in France, found that one in three Germans support the Pegida anti-Islamization marches. Further, a new study by the Bertelsmann Foundation found that German attitudes toward Islam are hardening, with 61% saying in 2014 that Islam is "not suited to the Western world" -- up from 52% in 2012. Also, up to 57% of the Germans see Islam as a threat, 40% feel that they are becoming foreigners in their own country because of the Muslim presence, and 24% want to ban Muslim immigration.

Looking at the numbers of demonstrators that join the Pegida demonstrations every Monday in various German cities, Pegida is clearly an overwhelmingly East German phenomenon. Indeed, in the provinces formerly belonging to the Communist German Democratic Republic [GDR], many thousands of people are drawn to the demonstrations, while in the West the numbers are far lower. Political analysts admit to being puzzled by this, given that the number of immigrants, including Muslims, is far lower in the East than in the West. Some blame the higher unemployment figures in the East; the "backwardness," the lack of "civil society," the lack of "liberal open mindedness," and that "people in the East feel that they are losers."

There might, however, be two other explanations that make more sense. Perhaps the people in the East just want to avoid the situation that the Western part of the country is in, as a result of the large Islamic presence. While the West might already be lost as a result of Islamization, the East is still capable of avoiding the West's fate. Moreover, having gone through decades of Communist dictatorship, perhaps the Easterners are less inclined to trust that their political leaders have the people's best interests in mind with their policies.

Perhaps they feel that, rather than trust that Frau Merkel knows what is best for the German people -- as she welcomes in record numbers these new Islamic immigrants -- the German people need to show her clearly that they think she is wrong.


Peter Martino

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5034/pegida-german-revolution

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

A New Year: Why, Mr. President, Why? - Lloyd Marcus

by Lloyd Marcus

Who are you, Mr. President?  Why are you always on the wrong side of what is best for America and her people?  What is your ultimate goal?

Happy New Year, my fellow Americans.  Getting my butt back into the gym is my New Year Resolution.  I saw a guy I thought was around my age who looked fantastic, very muscular.  He said he was 57; his secret was protein and creatine supplements.

As I begin 2015, another year into the battle to save my country, I observe the daily news, thinking, “Same old, same old.”  President Obama continues to, in essence, give Congress and American voters the finger, arrogantly governing unilaterally against the best interest, the will, and the protection of the American people.

My dear friend Victoria Jackson, former star of SNL, has been deemed a nutcase for calling Obama a Muslim and a communist.  While I cannot confirm whether or not Vickie and other pundits are correct in their assessment, clearly Obama is on a different page from those of us who love freedom and America.

The question that continues to nag millions of Americans is, why does this man do what he does?  Why, Mr. President, why?

Why did you bring Ebola to America?  Why do you refuse to place a travel ban into America on Ebola-riddled countries? 

After abdicating your responsibility to enforce immigration law, why did you sue Arizona for enforcing immigration law, leaving Arizonans open to attacks from smugglers and violent Mexican drug cartels? 

Why do you block border patrol officers from doing their job?  Why did you dis American voters by granting executive amnesty to five million illegals? 

Why are you planning to give illegals Social Security numbers, opening the floodgates for them to claim any number of credits – rewarding them for entering our country illegally with checks written by American taxpayers? 

You once admitted that an influx of illegal immigrants will harm “the wages of blue-collar Americans” and “put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”  Why then would you implement an open-border policy guaranteed to attract the poor from around the world, encouraging them to break our immigration laws and receive taxpayer-funded handouts?  Why have you forced schools across America to take in illegal students carrying various diseases?

Why did you refuse to call the shooting at Ft. Hood a “terrorist attack,” which blocked the victims and their families from receiving their entitled combat benefits?  Why did you run to read the Boston bomber his Miranda rights, which blocked interrogators from questioning him about other planned attacks on Americans? 

Why did you join Al “scumbag” Sharpton and other race profiteers in furthering their insidious, divisive, hate-generating lie that America's police target and murder blacks? 

Why did you lie to the American people on at least 29 occasions that if they liked their health care plans and their doctors, they could keep them? 

Why did you attempt to bully the beautiful ministry of the Little Sisters of the Poor, a 100-year-old order of nuns, to violate their faith by forcing them to sign a form supporting abortion services?

Why does your Obamacare continue to cause millions to lose health care plans they like, and cancer patients to lose the doctors credited with saving their lives? 

Why did you deny additional security requests at our consulate in Benghazi, which led to the death of U.S. Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans during a 9/11/2012 terrorist attack?  Why did you order the Benghazi Annex security team to “stand down” rather than attempt to rescue our ambassador? 

Why were military assets not deployed to defend our Benghazi consulate and save our ambassador? 

Why did you send Susan Rice on five national TV shows to knowingly lie to the American people, telling them that the Benghazi attack was caused by an anti-Muslim YouTube video that was seen by hardly anyone?  Why do you persist in claiming that the war on terror is over despite glaring worldwide evidence proving otherwise? 

Why did you choose to pass on attending the historic Paris, France rally, in which 40 nations came together against Islamic extremism?  Why do you refuse to admit that we are at war with radical Islam?

Why did you release five lethal Taliban terrorist leaders, and why do you continue to release other terrorists certain to re-enter the battlefield to kill more Americans? 

Why did you demand that the name of Jesus be covered up on a stage before you spoke?  And yet you passionately defend Islam.  Why did you offer a new asylum decree favoring Muslims over Christians? 

Why have you forcefully burdened our military with social engineering policies that critics say will undermine good order and discipline for decades? 

Why have you launched a war on coal, estimated to cost nearly a quarter-million jobs per year and force plants across America to close? 

Why do you vow to veto the Keystone XL oil pipeline bill, which would further energy independence and create jobs for thousands of Americans? 

Folks, cited in this article is only the tip of the iceberg of Obama's war on America as founded: his attacks on traditional Americanism and Christian values, his unseemly attempts to divide us along racial lines to silence opposition to his overreaches, his thuggish use of government agencies to bully and intimidate Americans into submission, his encouraging the sin of covetousness/class envy to divide Americans along economic lines, his attempts to addict as many Americans as possible to government dependency, and his relentless efforts to diminish the worldwide influence of the United States of America.

Who are you, Mr. President?  Why are you always on the wrong side of what is best for America and her people?  What is your ultimate goal?

Many of us are scratching our heads, asking...why, Mr. President, why?

Lloyd Marcus

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/a_new_year_why_mr_president_why.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Duke Reverses Muslim Call to Prayer Decision - Arnold Ahlert

by Arnold Ahlert

Keeping in mind the free exchange of ideas to which Duke is ostensibly committed, perhaps it is time for the university to engender a campus-wide discussion on the difference between religious pluralism and dhimmitude, and the inherent conflict between Sharia Law and a Democratic Republic. The MSA has been allowed to hide behind a veil of campus-sanctioned political correctness for far too long.

 

In a move described as an initiative to promote “religious pluralism,” Duke University announced Tuesday it would broadcast a weekly call to prayer for Muslims from the Duke Chapel bell tower each Friday at 1 p.m. Yesterday, however, the University reversed itself. “Duke remains committed to fostering an inclusive, tolerant and welcoming campus for all of its students,” said Michael Schoenfeld, vice president for public affairs and government relations. “However, it was clear that what was conceived as an effort to unify was not having the intended effect.”

Thus Duke takes a rare break from its long tradition of fostering a politically correct, hypersensitive atmosphere on campus — one rife with hypocrisy. The same university that will not acquiesce to the MSA in this case is the one that hosted the annual conference of the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM) in 2004, during which attendees defeated proposals to moderate PSM’s “Guiding Principle #5,” that refuses to condemn terrorism. It was followed up by several speakers more than willing to bash Israel as an apartheid state, comparing their treatment of Palestinians to “Algiers under the French or Poland under the Nazis,” deriding American media for a “campaign of misinformation by Zionist-leaning news editors,” and accusing the Jewish State of “attempting to actually rid itself of the Palestinians while taking as much of their land as possible.”

In 2010, Duke’s ostensible commitment to pluralism led them to abruptly cancel an event about motherhood scheduled for the Duke University’s Women’s Center. They were upset that its sponsor, Duke Students for Life (DSFL), was initiating pro-life discussions elsewhere on campus. Duke Women’s Center Gender Violence Prevention Specialist Martin Liccardo (seriously) told the group their pro-life stance was too “upsetting” for some students.

Duke is also where Chick-fil-A’s campus outlet closed in 2013. The administration notified the university’s Center for LGBT Life that “West Union will close next summer for renovations and we’ve already made the decision not to have Chick-fil-a in the building when it reopens.” That decision followed expressions of concern from the gay rights organization, now known as the Center for Sexual and Gender Diversity at Duke. Rick Johnson, associate vice president of housing and dining, insisted the closing had nothing to do with Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s comments in opposition to same-sex marriage. But he also said he had been contacted by members of the Duke community demanding Chick-fil-A’s removal. “I told them it’s really a moot point,” he said at the time. “Their contract is up at the end of this year. It seemed to satisfy them.”

And then there was Duke’s ultimate paean to political correctness. When three Duke lacrosse players were falsely accused of raping a woman and unjustly charged by district attorney Mike Nifong—who had suppressed evidence and committed perjury before recusing himself—88 Duke professors published a letter stating “what is apparent every day now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism, who see illuminated in this moment’s extraordinary spotlight what they live with everyday.”

They did so prior to anyone being charged with a crime. And rather than apologize as the case was falling apart, they doubled down, citing the “disaster” of an atmosphere “that allows sexism, racism and sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus,” and further insisting “the legal process will not resolve these problems”—even as they claimed to believe in the presumption of innocence. Stephen Baldwin, a professor of chemistry who avoided the rush to judgment, perfectly described the ethos at work. “There was a collision between political correctness and due process,” he said, “and political correctness won.”

Not this time. And while the reversal is welcome news, one suspects optics, rather than principles, was the driving factor here. Duke was hammered on social media, led by evangelist Billy Graham’s son, Franklin. “As Christianity is being excluded from the public square and followers of Islam are raping, butchering, and beheading Christians, Jews, and anyone who doesn’t submit to their Sharia Islamic law, Duke is promoting this in the name of religious pluralism,” Graham wrote on Facebook Wednesday.

In an interview yesterday with the Charlotte Observer, Graham further illuminated  his opposition, insisting Duke should not allow the chapel to be used for the call to prayer. “It’s wrong because it’s a different god,” he said. “Using the bell tower that signifies worship of Jesus Christ, using (it) as a minaret is wrong.” And while he did say Muslims should be free to worship on campus, he added a dose of sarcasm to the mix. “Let Duke donate the land and let Saudi Arabia build a mosque for them.” In reference to the Paris atrocities he was even clearer. “Islam is not a religion of peace,” he added.

Later Thursday on Facebook, he also addressed Duke’s insensitivity and its apparent double-standard:

The Muslim call to prayer that has been approved to go out across the campus of Duke University every Friday afternoon for three minutes includes “Allahu Akbar”—the words that the terrorists shouted at the onset of last week’s massacre in Paris. It includes the proclamation that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Will evangelical Christians be allowed the same three minutes weekly to broadcast the message across campus that God Almighty of the Bible sent His Son Jesus Christ to offer forgiveness of sins and salvation to all who will repent, believe, and call on His Name? Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).

Mohammad Banawan, administrator at the Muslim American Society of Charlotte, criticized Graham’s position. “Those comments are trying to incite hatred,” he declared, adding it is wrong to impugn any religion based on the actions of a small group of extremists.

Perhaps it is. But the MSA is hardly small group. Since its inception at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign in January of 1963, the MSA has expanded to nearly 600 chapters nationwide, including 150 affiliated with MSA National.

Furthermore, it is a group with a long track record of ties to Islamist extremism. The group was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). That would be the same MB established by Hasan al-Bannain Egypt in 1928 that spawned al-Qaeda and Hamas, spied for the Nazis in the Middle East, and fought for the Nazi war machine in two specially formed Muslim Waffen-SS Handschar Divisions during WWII. The Brotherhood’s doctrines comprise the core of Islamist jihadism as practiced by Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas and the government of Iran, and it was designed to function as the chief perpetrator of the Islamist crusade against Western societies.

The MSA apple doesn’t fall far from the MB tree. During the Texas Holy Land terror funding trial, where five defendants were convicted of financing terrorism, a Muslim Brotherhood document emerged identifying the MSA as one of several groups described as MB “friends”—all of whom shared a common goal of “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands … so that … God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.”

The MSA’s creation was part of a Saudi Arabian-backed effort to establish international Islamic organizations back in the 1960s, in order to spread its Wahhabist ideology. “The Saudis over the years set up a number of large front organizations, such as the Al Haramain Foundation, the Muslim World League, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, and a great number of Islamic ‘charities,’” explained Alex Alexiev of the Center for Security Policy in 2004. “While invariably claiming that they were private, all of these groups were tightly controlled and financed by the Saudi government and the Wahhabi clergy.”

In 2007, a New York Police Department report characterized the MSA as an “incubator” for Islamic radicalism. That assessment was echoed by Former FBI Special Agent John Guandolo, who described the group as “a recruitment tool to bring Muslims into the Brotherhood,” and the the “focal point” for the MB in America.

In 2011, terrorism expert Patrick Poole took it one step further. “The Muslim Students Association has been a virtual terror factory,” Poole contended. “Time after time after time again, we see these terrorists — and not just fringe members: these are MSA leaders, MSA presidents, MSA national presidents — who’ve been implicated, charged and convicted in terrorist plots.”

They include al Qaeda cleric and Colorado State University student Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a drone strike following his orchestration of the Fort Hood massacre and other plots; Ramy Zamzam, president of the MSA’s Washington, D.C. council, convicted in Pakistan for attempting to join the Taliban and kill American troops; Omar Hammami, leader of Somalia’s al-Shabaab terrorist group and former president of the MSA chapter at the University of South Alabama; and imprisoned al Qaeda fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi, who served as national president of the MSA during the 1980s.

A 2010 exchange at the University of California-Davis between Freedom Center’s David Horowitz and an MSA member encapsulates the group’s jihadist inclinations. “I am a Jew,” Horowitz said. “The head of Hezbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally. For or against it?”

“For it,” she coldly declared.

Duke’s decision will undoubtedly be criticized by the doyens of political correctness, many of whom demonstrated their own faux commitment to pluralism and freedom by pixilating, or failing to show, the “offensive” cartoons that engendered the recent Paris carnage, or by insisting that free speech has its limits if it might offend mass murderers.

Keeping in mind the free exchange of ideas to which Duke is ostensibly committed, perhaps it is time for the university to engender a campus-wide discussion on the difference between religious pluralism and dhimmitude, and the inherent conflict between Sharia Law and a Democratic Republic. The MSA has been allowed to hide behind a veil of campus-sanctioned political correctness for far too long.

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to JewishWorldReview.com, HumanEvents.com and CanadaFreePress.com. He may be reached at atahlert@comcast.net.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/arnold-ahlert/duke-reverses-muslim-call-to-prayer-decision/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Jews Can No Longer be Safe in France - Joseph Puder

by Joseph Puder

The truth is, nevertheless, that as long as Israel is vilified in the French media, abused in academia, and betrayed by the French government, anti-Semitism will not abate, and Jews will continue to be vulnerable targets to such despicable attacks as the one of last Friday at the kosher supermarket.

Almost two years ago (March 27, 2014) a Front Page Magazine article by this writer asked the question, ‘Is France Safe for Jews?’ The answer today, more than ever is a decisive no. Immediately following the murder of Rabbi Yonatan Sandler (30), his two small children, Aryeh 3 and Gavriel 6, as well as Miriam Monsonego, 8, outside the Ozer Ha’Torah School in Toulouse, France, the French government of President Nicolas Sarkozy was determined to “fight” the anti-Semitic terror emanating from Muslim Jihadists. Sarkozy declared “We shall not back down in the face of terror,” as he went about announcing a minute of silence in all French schools. Sarkozy said, “You cannot murder children like this on the territory of the Republic without being held accountable. Today is a day of national tragedy.”

Sarkozy, on the eve of the 2012 French presidential elections, declared that he was putting the southwestern Midi-Pyrenees region (where Toulouse is located) on its highest alert level, and promised that “This odious act cannot remain unpunished. All means, absolutely all means available, will be committed to neutralize this criminal.” François Hollande, who subsequently won the presidential election under the banner of his Socialist Party called for France to unite after the shooting. He pledged, “We must do everything to ensure that acts of anti-Semitism or racism are met with a firm and common response from the whole Republic.”

Jeffrey Goldberg, of The Atlantic magazine, who interviewed Manuel Valls, France’s current Prime Minister, prior to the latest terrorist attacks, argued that not only the physical safety of Jews in France is imperiled by anti-Semitic violence, but the very idea of the French Republic. Valls told Goldberg that, “If 100,000 French people of Spanish origin were to leave, I would never say that France is not France anymore. But if 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France. The French Republic will be judged a failure.”

PM Valls admitted that anti-Semitic violence in France exists. Former French president Jacque Chirac, on the other hand said on March 1, 2002, that “I would like to say clearly there is no upsurge in anti-Semitism in France.” Similar assurances have been made by his successor Nickolas Sarkozy. And while PM Valls declared that France was at war with radical Islam, and suggested that, “Israel and Palestine are just pretext” for anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish violence, he added that, “There is something far more profound taking place now.” President Hollande also echoed his PM, saying, “It is indeed an appalling anti-Semitic act that was committed.”

This week President Hollande called once again for unity in the face of a Jihadist Muslim terror spree that murdered 17 people, including 4 Jews in a Parisian Kosher supermarket, buying groceries for Sabbath. Among the murdered were also 12 staff members of the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, as well as a policewoman.

A solidarity march in Paris last week brought out over one million people and 40 world leaders including Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel, Britain’s David Cameron, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the rather oddity of Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, itself a full-fledged terrorist organization. A visible absentee from the solidarity march was U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama. The 1.2 million Paris marchers on Sunday (January 11, 2015) called for free speech, and carried placards with the words ‘Je Suis Charlie,’ and ‘we are not afraid,’ President Hollande boasted that, “Paris is today the capital of the world. Our entire country will rise up and show its best side.” Marches alone will not however, end Islamist terror on French soil or elsewhere in the world. For the Jews of France the actions perpetrated against them and the words uttered by the French leaders gave the feeling of déjà vu.

The Jewish victims of the latest terror outrage on French soil, at the Paris Hyper Cacher (Kosher) supermarket were Yohan Cohen (22), Philippe Braham (40), Francois-Michel Saada (64) and Yoav Hattab (21). They were buried with full honors in Jerusalem, Israel, and thousands of former French Jews and native Israelis attended. In French Jewish communities conversations evolved around whether it is safe to live and raise a family in France.

Wall Street Journal reporter in Paris, Ruth Bender, got these reactions from Parisian Jews (January 13, 2015), “I feel like packing my bags and leaving” said 48-year old Delphine Sultan, “And yet, I love France and I would miss it terribly.” Her sister Laurence Sebag, 46, said, “I have always felt French, but today I am beginning to think that the future of French Jews is at risk.” Lydia Layani, 62, opined that, “It’s not normal in a republic like ours to need police to protect our schools and have to tell our children not to wear their yarmulke in the streets. She added, “I don’t want to leave France, but I feel sick to my stomach.”

Interviewed by Israel’s Channel 10-TV, Yohan Dumas, a survivor of the Paris Hyper Cacher supermarket, described how he was hidden in the cold-room trying to stay warm, and then in mid-interview he announced that he decided to move to Israel at the start of next week. Albert Levy, 60, who migrated from France to Israel a few years ago, explained his decision to move to Israel, saying, “The time of Jews in Europe is over.”Levy blamed the French media for the current atmosphere and he pointed out that the media tended to demonize Israel in recent years in the wake of events ranging from the First Gulf War to the Second Intifada.

In 2014, 7,000 French Jews immigrated to Israel, double the number of the previous year. In 2013, 20,000 French Jews formally applied to the Jewish Agency in Paris for aliyah (emigration to Israel) and more than 3,000 completed the emigration process, twice as many as in 2012. France has now become the primary aliyah source to Israel.

France’s multicultural ethos, and continued Muslim immigration is transforming France in many ways. The future for Jews looks even bleaker as thousands of French Muslim jihadi fighters in the ranks of the Islamic State (IS) and al-Qaeda return from Iraq and Syria to continue their war against the French infidels, and Jews in particular. Shimon Samuels, the Paris Director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center summed up the situation in France. He said, “A culture of excuse exonerates the perpetrators as ‘disaffected, frustrated, and unemployed.’ No other group of frustrated unemployed has resorted to such behavior. Until politicians (in France) and the media define the problem as jihadism remote-controlled from mosques in France, and not only the Middle East, the cancer will not be isolated and destroyed.”

The truth is, nevertheless, that as long as Israel is vilified in the French media, abused in academia, and betrayed by the French government, anti-Semitism will not abate, and Jews will continue to be vulnerable targets to such despicable attacks as the one of last Friday at the kosher supermarket. And as long as radical Muslims in France are not dealt with in the severest way, violence against Jews will continue and France will not be safe for Jews.


Joseph Puder

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/joseph-puder/jews-can-no-longer-be-safe-in-france/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Answer to French Anti-Semitism - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

In other words, what Halimi’s murder exposed is that anti-Semitism in France is systemic. Muslims are the main perpetrators of violence. And they operate in social environments that are at a minimum indifferent to Jewish suffering and victimization. This violence and indifference is abetted by non-Islamic elites. French authorities minimize the unique threat Jews face. And the media are happy to ignore the issue

Photo: JJ Georges

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post. 

January 16 is the nine-year anniversary of the beginning of the Ilan Halimi disaster.

On January 16, 2006, Sorour Arbabzadeh, the seductress from the Muslim anti-Jewish kidnapping gang led by Youssouf Fofana, entered the cellphone store where Halimi worked and set the honey trap.

Four days later, Halimi met Arbabzadeh for a drink at a working class bar and agreed to walk her home. She walked him straight into an ambush. Her comrades beat him, bound him and threw him into the trunk of their car.

They brought Halimi to a slum apartment and tortured him for 24 days and 24 nights before dumping him, handcuffed, naked, stabbed and suffering from third degree burns over two-thirds of his body, at a railway siding in Paris.

He died a few hours later in the hospital.

In an impassioned address to the French parliament on Tuesday, Prime Minister Manuel Valls gave a stirring denunciation of anti-Semitism, and demanded that his people stop treating it as someone else’s problem.

In his words, “Since Ilan Halimi in 2006… anti-Semitic acts in France have grown to an intolerable degree. The words, the insults, the gestures, the shameful attacks… did not produce the national outrage that our Jewish compatriots expected.”

Valls insisted that France needs to protect its Jewish community, lest France itself be destroyed.

“Without its Jews France would not be France, this is the message we have to communicate loud and clear. We haven’t done so. We haven’t shown enough outrage. How can we accept that in certain schools and colleges the Holocaust can’t be taught? How can we accept that when a child is asked, ‘Who is your enemy?’ the response is ‘The Jew?’ When the Jews of France are attacked France is attacked, the conscience of humanity is attacked. Let us never forget it.”

Valls words were uplifting. But it is hard to see how they change the basic reality that the Jews of France face.

When all is said and done, it is their necks on the line while humanity’s conscience is merely troubled.

Ilan Halimi’s case is more or less a textbook case of the impossible reality French Jewry faces. And, as Valls noted, the situation has only gotten worse in the intervening nine years. Much worse.

But back when things were much better, Ilan Halimi was kidnapped, tortured for 24 days and murdered. As Tablet online magazine’s Marc Weitzmann reported last September in an in-depth summary of ordeal, the gang that perpetrated the atrocity had been hunting for Jewish victims for several weeks before Arbabzadeh set her trap for Halimi. All their previous attempts had failed. Their previous marks included Jewish doctors, lawyers, television directors and human rights activists, as well as Jews of no particular distinction aside from the fact that they were Jews.

The anti-Jewish nature of the gang was clear from its chosen victims. The anti-Semitic nature of their atrocious crime against Halimi was obvious from the first time they contacted his mother, Ruth Halimi, demanding ransom for his release. They made anti-Jewish slurs in all their communications with her.

And as she heard her sons tortured cries in the background, Ruth was subjected to his torturers’ recitation of Koranic verses.

And yet, throughout the period of his captivity, French authorities refused to consider the anti-Jewish nature of the crime, and as a result, refused to treat the case as life threatening or urgent.

The same attitude continued well after Halimi was found. As Weitzmann noted, the investigative magistrate insisted “There isn’t a single element to allow one to attach this murder to an anti-Semitic purpose or an anti-Semitic act.”

The denial went on through the 2009 trials of the 29 kidnappers and their accomplices. Anti-Semitism was listed as an aggravating circumstance of the crime – and as such, a cause for harsher sentencing – only for the gang leader Fofana. And in the end, even for him, the judges did not take it into account at sentencing.

As for those 29 kidnappers and accomplices, as Weitzmann notes, each one of them had a circle of friends and family.

As a consequence, by a one reporters’ conservative estimate, at least 50 people were aware of the crime and where Halimi was being held, while he was being held. And not one of them called the police. Not one of them felt moved to make a call that could save the life of a Jew.

After the fact, the media in France were happy to publish articles by the torturers’ defense lawyers insisting, “Only people motivated by ‘political reasons’ would try to sell the opinion that anti-Semitism is eating away at French society.”

When the Halimi family lawyer boasted of close ties to the government and announced he would appeal the sentences of the perpetrators if he didn’t think their punishments were sufficient, the French media eagerly shifted the conversation from the torture and murder of a Parisian who just happened to be a Jew by a band of sadists who just happened to be Muslims, to the more comfortable narrative of the Jewish lobby and Jewish power. So, too, when Halimi, and six years later when the three children and the rabbi massacred at Otzar Hatorah Jewish day school in Toulouse, were brought to Israel for burial, the media reported their decision in a negative way hinting that it was evidence of the basic disloyalty, or otherness of the Jews of France.

In other words, what Halimi’s murder exposed is that anti-Semitism in France is systemic. Muslims are the main perpetrators of violence. And they operate in social environments that are at a minimum indifferent to Jewish suffering and victimization. This violence and indifference is abetted by non-Islamic elites. French authorities minimize the unique threat Jews face. And the media are happy to ignore the issue, or when given the slightest opportunity, to claim that the Jews are responsible for their own victimization.

Indeed, in live reports from the scene of the hostage taking at the kosher supermarket in Paris last week, Weitzmann noted that in the early hours of the attack, French media failed to mention that the hostages were Jews.

Under these circumstances, where the entire French system is stacked against them, what can be done for French Jewry? What can they do for themselves? It is far from clear that France is capable of correcting its downward trajectory.

Demography is moving France in a different direction. According to Israeli political scientist Guy Bechor, Marseilles will be the first Western European city with a Muslim majority. The ruling Socialists owe their victory to the Muslim vote. It is hard to see French President François Hollande and his comrades taking actions that could anger that constituency which votes as a bloc.

Moreover, anti-Semitism in all its forms is manifested throughout French society. For instance, the prosecutor in the Halimi murder trial is the son of a French Nazi collaborator and according to Weitzmann, spent an inordinate amount of the trial trying to understand the perpetrators.

Then there is the Israel issue. Valls has distinguished himself from his colleagues for his willingness to acknowledge that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

But his is a voice in the wilderness. The overwhelming sentiment of the French elites is hostility toward Israel.

This sentiment was manifested in Hollande’s treatment of Israel, and through it of the French Jewish community, in the aftermath of the supermarket massacre last Friday.

Hollande told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to attend the anti-terror march in Paris on Sunday, claiming that Netanyahu’s presence would detract from the message of unity against terrorism that he hoped the march would communicate.

The underlying assumption of Hollande’s message is deeply disturbing.

That assumption is that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism and is not, as a result, evil. The subtext is that the murder of Jews by Islamic terrorists who seek Israel’s destruction is similarly not a crime deserving of the same condemnation as the jihadist murder of French journalists.

Netanyahu rightly ignored Hollande’s request that he not attend. And for this move he was subjected to harsh criticism by the French media which accused him of crashing the party and pushing himself onto center stage against the wishes of his unwilling hosts.

Their criticism was then parroted by the Israeli media that studiously ignored the endemic anti-Israel hostility of the French media and the anti-Israel policies of the Hollande government. The Hebrew media, together with Hatnua leader Tzipi Livni, also ferociously attacked Netanyahu as well as Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman and Economy Minister Naftali Bennett for upsetting French sensibilities by calling on French Jewry to make aliya.

But aliya is the key for contending with the increasing danger that the Jews of France face from the systemic nature of French anti-Semitism. This is true first of all because as France makes it clear that it is not a warm home for its Jews, Israel is a better option. Israel exists so that Jews always will have a better option than suffering at the hands of hostile non-Jews.

Speaking of aliya is also essential because so far the only thing that has caused French authorities to speak directly against anti-Semitism and take action to defend French Jewry has been the prospect of a mass exodus of their Jews.

The year 2014 saw a 50 percent increase in French aliya. And the Jewish Agency anticipates that that number will double to 15,000 in 2015, with 50,000 more not far behind.

After Ilan Halimi was murdered, out of fear of upsetting the French, no Israeli leader, including then-foreign minister Livni, uttered a word of condemnation against the atrocity. No Israeli representative attended his memorial ceremony.

No one urged French Jews to make aliya.

And the number of anti-Semitic attacks increased massively each year. French governmental hostility toward Israel similarly escalated with each passing year.

There is unfortunately every reason to believe that the massacre at the kosher supermarket in Paris last Friday will not be the last one. But it is also clear that the best way to avert more suffering is to speak often and forcefully about the option of moving to Israel. Israel must also take active steps to prepare the country for the arrival of our French brothers and sisters.

Hollande will certainly express his annoyance as he continues to condemn Israel at every turn for imaginary misdeeds. But the French Jews will be strengthened. While the conscience of humanity may be uselessly miffed by the victimization of Jews, the Jews of France will know that there is one place on earth that exists to prevent that victimization, and that they are welcome here whenever they choose to come.


Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit carolineglick.com.


Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/caroline-glick/the-answer-to-french-anti-semitism/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Changing the Rules of the Democracy Game in Europe - Mordechai Kedar

by Mordechai Kedar

The peoples of Europe must understand that any nation that does not know how to defend itself is doomed to disappear, a culture that is unable to preserve its values is marching proudly into the showcase of a museum exhibit and a society that does not bring the next generation into the world is not going to exist in that next generation.

The situation in Europe is intolerable. At any given moment one of the thousands of Jihadists living in Europe can be annoyed by a movie, article or caricature published in a newspaper, grab the closest Kalashnikov and spread death and destruction in editorial offices, shops, museums, schools and on the streets.

He can hurl bombs – homemade or imported – into restaurants, movie houses, theaters, railroad stations, pour oil on highways and perpetrate other terrorist acts which will not be enumerated here so as not to give him any ideas.

There are various factors that indicate the potential for a major explosion:

1. The enormous number – tens of millions – of Muslims in Europe, a large number to take into account even if only a small fraction of them turn radical.  Look at it this way: if, of the fifty million Muslims in Europe, only one in a thousand becomes a Jihadist, that means there are still fifty thousand Jihadists like the ones who turned Paris into an urban battleground last week.

2. The fact is that many Muslims did not integrate into European culture. Many of them live in areas where they constitute the vast majority, where the language heard on the street is not French, schools are locally run even if they are called public schools, the mosque is the center of the neighborhood and the Imam is the spiritual leader who guides the perplexed (and there are many) and sustains the stumbling, especially economically. Many Muslims have really remained in their land of origin, both psychologically and mentally, and Islamic Sharia – anti-democratic by definition – is more important to them than the laws of the land in which they reside.

3. Europe places almost no limitations on Muslim immigration. There is no proper guarding of the coastline and when illegal infiltrators arrive, they receive fair treatment, work permits, financial support, public housing, medical care and education without any linkage to their contribution to the society and economic system that absorbs them. The good reception the immigrants receive is sure to bring the rest of the family tomorrow, the day after that and next week.

4. European security forces are not using sufficient surveillance forces to keep track of the Jihadists and their fellow travelers as well as their support systems. There is almost no one listening to what is being said in mosques, not enough tracking of Syrian and Iraqi war veterans, very little supervision of what is going on in the public sector. In France there are Muslim neighborhoods closed to police. In Germany there are already Islamist "modesty enforcing officers"  who force the locals to fall into step with behavioral requirements.

As a result of these factors, many Muslims feel that Europe is theirs. They pray on the streets and block traffic, including ambulances, force supermarkets to stop selling pork and alcoholic beverages, demand that churches cease to ring their bells and force women to dress according to Islamic law when outside the home. Europe's economy – especially the financial market – is increasingly accepting Sharia requirements. European young women are seen as legitimate prey to satisfy the lusts of some of the immigrants, and the percentage of Muslims among those in jail is much higher than their percentage of the general population. This fact reflects the derision the immigrants and their sons feel for European law.

An Algerian colleague who fled his country thirty years ago once told me: "Algerians do not move from Algeria to France; they move Algeria to France". The problem is worse when considering Muslims from Central Africa – Chad, Mali, Niger – because they suffer discrimination based on their skin color and not only their religion, a fact which explains why south Sahara Muslims are involved in terror acts: the terrorist that attacked the Hyper Casher store and the terrorist who tortured Ilan Halimi to death in 2006 were of African origin.

Europe's reality today is a continent that is adopting another culture at a rapid pace. Dreams of cultural diversity have been shown to be unfounded delusions, as the immigrant culture is sure of itself and easily subjugates the fragile indigent culture which has divested itself of all values and has no desire to defend itself from the external threat it faces.

European nations have lost their immune system and are falling prey to new ideas, post modern in nature, that have broken Europe's spirit and destroyed Europe's ability to defend itself and its culture. Europe is sacrificing its values and cultural and physical existence on the altar of human rights, of which nothing will survive when Europe ceases to be Europe.

Is there anything to be done?

First, let me point out as clearly as possible: what is written below is not a recommendation or call to any specific action. It is a list of possible measures with which every person and every country can either agree or disagree. Second, in Europe there are millions of Muslims who arrived there in order to become Europeans, adopt European culture and live with and live within Europe as citizens with equal rights and responsibilities.

They contribute to European society, to Europe's economy and to the country in which they live a normative lifestyle. They are not terrorists, do not support terrorists and are wholeheartedly against terror. One of them hid Jews in the freezer room of Hyper Casher in Paris after shutting the motor. May he be blessed. No one has the right to minimize by an iota the good deeds of these Muslims.

That is why the question at hand is what European nations can do in order to guard against Jihadists. And the answer is made up of a long list of procedures and steps whose goal is to turn the immigrant population into a European one. Of course, any Muslim who does not like these steps can leave Europe and find a home that is more suited to his cultural preferences.

The countries of Europe must own up to the fact that they are in a state of cultural emergency, change the rules of the democracy game and modify existing laws. The peoples of Europe must understand that any nation that does not know how to defend itself is doomed to disappear, a culture that is unable to preserve its values is marching proudly into the window case of a museum exhibit and a society that does not bring the next generation into the world is not going to exist in that next generation.

Future legal systems must reflect Europe's desire to preserve its civilization, heritage and culture:

Every Muslim suspected of inciting to violence, possessing an unregistered weapon, of attending weapons training or operating in Syria and Iraq must be kept from entering or remaining in Europe by governmental order.

Areas into which law enforcement forces dare not enter must be opened before them. 

Every mosque must contain a recording system and cameras that allow local security organizations to ensure that no subversive or anti-governmental activity is taking place within its confines.

Imam's speeches are to be read from a written page that is submitted to local security organizations. Imams will not be allowed to speak unless their words are recorded and documented. They must speak in the language of the host country and not in that of the country of origin.

A Muslim who visits his country of origin will have to prove the reason for his trip and what he did while there. Anyone who arouses suspicions that while in his country of origin he acted or prepared to act against his host country or against armies in other parts of the world will lose the right to return to Europe.

Imams caught inciting to violence will be returned to their country of origin forthwith.

Along with the leaders of street gangs, organizations that advance the rule of Sharia law will be closed and their members sent back to their countries of origin.

Charity fund managers will have to prove what the source of every eurocent is and where it is going.

Every immigrant will be given a year to learn a trade or choose a vocation and find his place in a normative place of work, begin paying taxes and saving for his pension fund. Anyone who does not fulfill these conditions will not be eligible for financial help and be returned to his country of origin.

Every Muslim must take part in a course to learn the local language, the history and anthem of the host country. He will have to pass a vocational course and pledge allegiance to his new country, its laws and values.

Bigamy and polygamy will be strictly outlawed and defined as a crime against women. Family violence and especially honor killings will be sufficient reason to return the entire family to its country of origin.

Female circumcision will be outlawed and anyone participating in this practice, whether parent of circumcisor, will be thrown out of Europe immediately.

Covering one's face will be forbidden and any woman caught with her face covered in the street will be sent back to her country of origin with her entire family. Selling face coverings will be against the law.

Public schools in which children of immigrants are enrolled will be under constant supervision to ensure that they are not educating in ways that cannot coexist with the values of the host country.

Newspapers, radio and television will be forums for free debate and open to discussions of religion and tradition, free of censorship of their written and spoken content, including caricatures.

The standard punishment for immigrant criminals will be a return to their land of origin.
The rules of political correctness will be abandoned and criticism of religions, all religions, will become legitimate and accepted.

An official body will be formed to check the purpose of organizations, their ideologies, their goals and the way they intend to try to reach them.

Only flags of the host country, the EU or organizations recognized by the government will be allowed.

Any opinion on social media that is in favor of Jihad will get the writer of said opinion a free ticket on a flight back to his country of origin. 

Every organization connected to Islamic terror, the Muslim Brotherhood and the like will be illegal.

Each country will encourage births by providing economic support to couples who show they identify with the ethos of the country in which they live.

Any immigrant who criticizes the above measures will be sent elsewhere, preferably to his country of origin, where he will feel more at home.

At the same time, the countries of Europe must begin investing in unemployment-ridden Islamic countries so that their citizens will be less motivated to emigrate to Europe.

The above measures may seem severe and anti-democratic, but it is simply hypocrisy to believe that a democracy must protect those who are against the very idea of democracy for ideological and religious reasons. Democracies must defend themselves and their citizens or they will simply disappear.  No democracy should turn into a prescription for cultural suicide, every democracy must express itself in such a way that the culture of those who created it can survive.

It will take only a short while for these measures to seem absolutely crucial to preserve European culture. Preventing the application of these measures will only increase the hatred of Europe's traditional societies for the immigrants, a hatred whose signs we can already see at the "Pegida" organization protests in Germany. The present situation is leading Europe to an explosion between Muslim immigrants and European society, an explosion which may destroy Europe. If determined steps are not taken to absorb the Muslim immigrants into European society the results may be destructive to the society, regimes and economies of the European countries.

A question that rises naturally is what is going on n the USA. There are those who claim that it has already embarked on a track similar to that of Europe, but that it lags 15 years behind Europe, so that if there is no change in the USA's attitude to Islamization, in another 15 years America will look just like Europe today.  Take this as a warning.


Mordechai Kedar

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16303#.VLqWmnuzchQ

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Supporting Journalists in the Front Line - Banafsheh Zand

by Banafsheh Zand

When journalists in the West are attacked or killed simply for doing their job, millions take to the streets; where is the support for the brave journalists and cartoonists in countries such as my motherland, Iran, where Islamist oligarchs reign? Where then is the support for the many pressmen, bloggers, and cartoonists on the front lines of the fight for the freedom of expression, and those who stand against the Islamist zealots?

On January 8, in Tehran, after the massacres in Paris at the Charlie Hebdo offices, journalists carrying flowers and candles gathered outside the building that had once housed the Association of Iranian journalists, to pay their respects to their slaughtered colleagues in Paris. The security forces of the current regime, however, ever fearful of any assembly, prevented them from gathering near the building that has been padlocked since the August 2009 raid by the regime’s security forces.

When journalists in the West are attacked or killed simply for doing their job, millions take to the streets; where is the support for the brave journalists and cartoonists in countries such as my motherland, Iran, where Islamist oligarchs reign? Where then is the support for the many pressmen, bloggers, and cartoonists on the front lines of the fight for the freedom of expression, and those who stand against the Islamist zealots? In Saudi Arabia last week, the 30-year-old blogger Raif Badaw, received 50 lashes in the public square outside the mosque after midday prayers.  

“Very severely,” the lashing order says. This Friday, he is to get 50 more. And the Friday after that, 50 more. And the Friday after that, 50 more – until a 1000 lashes is reached.  It will take 20 weeks, or nearly half a year. If he lives. He has no medical assistance. Where is the outcry over that? His “crime” was to write blogs thoughts such as: “My commitment is… to reject any repression in the name of religion… a goal we will reach in a peaceful and law-abiding way.” How come their stories remain so foreign to the global news outlets? The Saudi court called it “insulting Islam.” Where are the marches over that?

My father, Siamak Pourzand, was one of Iran’s most celebrated journalists, whose career spanned 60 years. For speaking out against the mullahs in Iran, he spent long years in and out of Tehran’s horrendous Evin prison. In April 2011, he was murdered by the regime’s agents, who threw him off the sixth-floor balcony of the apartment where he lived. He was home on a medical furlough from prison.

Although the regime claimed it was suicide, our family and friends -- and probably everyone -- knew better. According to the Iranian regime’s sharia-law driven courts, my father was guilty of “acting against the security of the regime.” Although he never spoke against its religion, Islam, he courageously took issue with its objectionable, if not indefensible, violations of civil and human rights. So members of Iran’s regime claimed he was a “combatant against God” -- a “crime” punishable by execution – and a threat to their Islamic revolution.

When for many years I tried to get the international media to expose the injustices being done to him and other Iranian journalists, there was no interest. I mistakenly believed that if Vaclav Havel, Natan Sharansky, and Nelson Mandela, had -- as had my father -- confronted the monstrousness of their governments, using their imprisonment and suffering as a way of exposing the systems they confronted, then his case too could become “cause” that could that make more visible information concerning the Islamist regime’s unspeakable human rights violations.

Now, when I hear and read the musings of media, journalists, and contributors who cover issues the world over, often they are not even familiar with a topic. They often end up at best causing confusion, and at worst, getting everything wrong. Yet many writers and analysts who often do know their topic, especially on matters related to the Middle East or Iran, are relegated to the “biased” pile, presumably on the assumption -- usually false -- that writers unfamiliar with the facts are not biased.

Why then are Westerners suspicious of their own Judeo-Christian politicians and officials, but give so much leeway to tyrants who, in the name of Allah, have perfected all levels of propaganda and economic acrobatics to remain in power?

In countering the extremists, the West may well need to listen to Middle Easterners who have stood up to the Islamists, not merely to those who often whitewash the realities staring them in the face.  It is important to hear from those who have been raised in victimized countries, as they are the ones who can offer the best tools and details, before it gets repackaged for tourists, the media, and Westerners who are counted on to eat whatever is put on their plate. It is those Middle Easterners who are able to deconstruct realities of life under fundamentalists, without abridging the information. Those of us who have relocated to the West and respect Western values, who have fled the tyrants and fanatics who claim to “liberate” our countries, are often marginalized at best, while business interests, paid lobbyists, and other agents of influence are welcomed, catered to, and befriended. Others, who are able to decode events in a way more accurate, but not as economically “convenient” or helpful politically, are politely muzzled, if not shown the door. 

The West can no longer afford to ignore allies and treat their problems as “localized.” Where Islamism is concerned, nothing is ever just regional. It’s mandate is without time, without borders, and is eternal, to be exported by the word and by the sword.

It those the journalists, bloggers, and cartoonists from the front lines such as those so diligently documented by Reporters Without Borders -- who at least should be heeded -- that is if there is any honest interest in trying to make sure that last week’s slaughters of journalists in Europe will not happen again.

Banafsheh Zand

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/supporting_journalists_in_the_front_line.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.