Tag Archive for: left

Why the Left Hates Martin Luther King

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Leftists hate MLK because they care more about color of skin than content of character (Kendall Qualls)

“The Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) holiday ironically honors values despised by many on the left. King’s intellectual and moral challenge to judge people by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin, is in direct opposition to leftists’ narrative that judging people’s value begins with their skin color.

Keep in mind that many on the left never agreed with MLK’s nonviolent movement of protest in the 1960s. Stokely Carmichael, the originator of the black nationalist movement (Black Power) and the Black Panthers, once stated, “When you talk of Black power, you talk of building a movement that will smash everything Western civilization has created.” Many followers of this movement enrolled in colleges in the 1970s, earned doctoral degrees in African studies (or grievance studies), and now lead or have major influence in local, state, and federal agencies, academia, the arts, and media.

While the radicals were developing leadership roles, the majority of Americans accepted MLK’s vision of judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. Hence, many people would use the phrase, “I don’t see color” to confirm their buy-in of that vision. In fact, based on a Gallup poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans, black and white, rated race relations either good or very good back in 2002.”

Today’s Race Extremists Are Destroying Martin Luther King Jr.’s Legacy

Martin Luther King, Jr. would be shocked by the regression in America since he led the civil rights movement.

By: Scott Powell, The Federalist, January 15, 2024:l

Why do we celebrate a holiday honoring a man who was jailed 29 times and ultimately assassinated? What lessons can we learn from Martin Luther King, Jr. and from American society, much of which seems to have forgotten the contributions that led to bestowing on him a national holiday?

King, a powerful pastor and speaker, was both the catalyst for and the central figure in the civil rights movement that extended from 1955 to 1968. MLK’s sermons, speeches, and writings portray a man with an unusually discerning mind grounded in timeless truths. MLK was all about non-violent action to bring about racial and social healing through public debate and protest.

Hard to come to grips with today is how the power, healing, and truth of his message can be overshadowed by today’s divisive and demoralizing philosophies of critical race theory (CRT) and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). These divide rather than unite society. MLK stressed the importance of bringing people together through constructive dialogue and seeing all people as made in God’s image. In contrast, those who have recently claimed to hold the torch of civil rights, such as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, generally do so through militant action, malicious language, and confrontation.

The extremist identity politics movement in the United States is largely the progeny of BLM, an organization founded by Patrisse Cullors and Alicia Garza, who self-identify as Marxists. For those who relate identity politics to progress, a gnawing question still haunts: What good ever came out of Marxism? While some newcomers might idealistically presuppose their cause is about a socialist utopia, Marxist rule in practice has a sad history of delivering poverty, corruption, and mass death across diverse cultures.

Were it possible to resurrect and transport King into the present, he would be shocked by the regression that has taken place in America in the three generations since he led the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. He would reject the eclipse of the group, sexual, and ethnic identity paradigm over the individual merit and character-based approach for acceptance and advancement, whether in school admission or hiring and promotion in the workplace. King would condemn critical race theory because it perpetuates negative racial stereotypes against white people.

King recognized that the self-evident truth in the Declaration of Independence “that all men are created equal…with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” wasn’t realized in 1776, nor when the United Constitution was ratified some 14 years later. Nor was Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” proposition “that all men are created equal” fulfilled through the Civil War emancipation of slaves.

In King’s most famous “I have a dream” speech, delivered from the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. on August 28, 1963, he called America to rise up and fulfill its spiritual destiny. To the self-evident truth of all people having equal value, King added an equally timeless truth, that people “should not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

One of the timeless truths King referred to on numerous occasions was Paul’s letter to the Romans, in which he says, “Do not conform to the pattern of the world, but be transformed in the renewing of your mind.” King also drew on Thomas Jefferson’s statement, “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” He warned in a sermon as early as 1954, recorded in his book, Strength to Love, that “If Americans permit thought-control, business-control and freedom-control to continue, we shall surely move within the shadows of fascism.”

Seventy years later, we have moved way beyond shadows and now live in a matrix of fascism and communism that operate throughout most institutions within the United States under the camouflage of being woke, enlightened, and inclusive. Few American leaders have been as clearheaded about the dangers of groupthink as King. He reminds us of Emerson’s words: “Whoso would be a man must be a non-conformist.”

Drawing on Apostle Paul’s teachings, King implored that, “Any Christian who blindly accepts the opinions of the majority and in fear and timidity follows a path of expediency and social approval is a mental and spiritual slave.” King also commended those who went against the crowd, reminding us that, “The trailblazers in human, academic, scientific, and religious freedom have always been nonconformists…[so] in any cause that concerns the progress of mankind, put your faith in the nonconformist!”

King’s lesser-known speeches and sermons also provide prescient insight into our times. On numerous occasions, he quoted scripture about the need to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves,” arguing for people to adopt a tough mind and a tender heart. He expressed concern that the “prevalent tendency toward softmindedness is found in man’s unbelievable gullibility.” “Few people have the toughness of mind to judge critically and to discern the truth from the false, the fact from the fiction,” he noted.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘They Created An Industry’: How Leftists Gaslight Americans On Extremism

/in , , , , , , , /by

Democrats’ final pitch to Americans this November as the midterms approached couldn’t have been more clear: Republicans are “extremists” hellbent on destroying Democracy.

Joe Biden infamously declared that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic” at a September speech in Philadelphia. But 50 million Americans voted for Donald Trump in 2016 — 50 million Americans who, according to their president, are fringe “extremists.”

Interest in the word “extremism” is vastly more pronounced in Washington D.C. than in any state over the last year, according to Google Trends. On a scale of 0-100, DC stands at 100, with Vermont, Virginia and Maryland following at 22, 20 and 16, respectively. Swing states such as Ohio, Indiana and New Jersey have a relative interest in the word of 8, 7 and 8, respectively. In short, obsession with the problem of extremism is mainly a passion project of the D.C. elite.

Following the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center, Democrat lined up to support Roe v. Wade, and even enshrine it into law. Biden promised to codify Roe if Democrats took majorities in the midterms, and Vice President Kamala Harris lamented the potential overturning of Roe back in May.

But Roe v. Wade allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy, well into the second trimester, and most Americans support restrictions on abortion after the first trimester, which ends at 12 weeks. In fact, the Mississippi abortion law that sparked the Dobbs decision would not ban abortions until the 15th week of pregnancy.

Progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal called a Florida bill that bans explicit discussions of sex and gender in classrooms “extremist.” Jayapal is one of many Democrats who inaccurately dubbed this legislation the “Don’t Say Gay Bill,” although it nowhere prohibits individuals from saying the word “gay.” Despite Democrat claims of extremism, a majority of registered voters supported the legislation, and only 35% opposed it. Opposition to transgender surgery for children has also been dubbed “extremist” by LGBT activists, but a recent poll from McLaughlin and Associates finds that 65% of Americans think the transgender movement has gone too far in recommending such procedures to minors.

Brian Levin, who directs the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, told the Daily Caller that extremism can be defined as “a position that is … antithetical to our constitution and the processes of our democracies, particularly with regard to bigotry and discrimination,” but admitted that the word is often thrown around too lightly.

“Sometimes we label people extremist because we’re too lazy to debate them, but other times people are labeled extremists because they are,” Levin told the Caller, adding that political problems arise, “when we have people running for various types of critical office who are election deniers.”

Kyle Shideler, the director and senior analyst for homeland security and counterterrorism at the Center for Security Policy, said the term “extremist” is problematic from the start.

“I think we should discard the term altogether. If we need to talk about ideologies that potentially lead to violence, we need to talk about those ideologies on their own terms. So if we have concerns about Neo-Nazi groups, we should talk about neo-Nazism,” Shideler told the Caller. “Same thing if we’re concerned about anarchists like Antifa. You don’t need a blanket term to do it. We should identify groups and ideologies on their own terms.”

In June 2021, the Biden White House released a National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, which claimed that domestic terrorism comes from “racial or ethnically motivated violent extremists and networks whose racial, ethnic, or religious hatred leads them toward violence, as well as those whom they encourage to take violent action.”

The document not only decries “explicit” calls for violence against religious and ethnic minorities, but also words that are “less explicit, lurking in ideologies.” Chief among these ideologies are, according to the document, “conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation and misinformation.”

Shideler told the Caller that the government’s use of the term “extremism” blurs the line between speech that calls for violence and constitutionally protected speech, causing the government to censor speech which they claim is so extreme that it leads to violence.

“It’s a sort of bait and switch that’s been perpetuated, because they will use the term extremist and say not everyone who is an extremist is a terrorist and they have first amendment rights … But then they will turn around and say ‘oh there’s a rise in extremism.’ And so they dance between whether they’re talking about people who are actually engaged in criminality or people who hold certain ideas,” he added.

As an example, in July 2021 then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the White House was working with Facebook to determine which posts on the platform should be flagged for “disinformation” on the COVID-19 vaccine.

“We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation,” Psaki said, noting that “Facebook has repeatedly shown that they have the levers to promote quality information.”

“[The left] created a terminology, and then they created an industry,” Shideler told the Caller, “and they staffed that industry with certain academics who held a particular viewpoint.”

Levin told the Caller that people who spread extremist ideologies online but don’t necessarily call for violence still contribute to a negative environment.

“Those individuals are at least part of the ecosystem of extremism even if they’re not the bullseye center of it,” Levin said.

AUTHOR

SARAH WEAVER

Staff writer.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED VIDEO: Bidens Finally to Be Investigated

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here’s All the Left Wing Political Violence The Corporate Media Seems to Have Forgotten About

‘They’re On The Run’: Hospitals Caught Providing Sex Change Treatments To Minors Seem To Follow The Same Playbook

Free Speech Organizations Silent After Medical Groups Ask Biden DOJ To Prosecute Conservative Journalists

Republican States Move To Keep Major Trump-Era Border Policy Amid Surge In Illegal Immigration

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: It’s No Longer Just Left vs. Right

/in , , , , , /by

My father always liked to tell me: “Politics, a truly filthy business. But my, is it interesting.”

And he was right.

For those of us who live and work in the “swamp,” we get daily reminders of that reality. It’s easy to fall into a belief that politics is just a cycle.

For four or eight years, one side is in ascendance. One side influences the course of the nation and American lives, and then it’s the other side’s turn.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>

Not anymore.

To understand how things have changed, you need to understand what real life and death issues beneath the surface of American life compelled many Americans, for the first time since the Revolutionary War, to check the box in 2016 for someone who had nothing to do with Washington, D.C., or our political class.

The choice seemed unusual at the time—instead of a governor, general, senator, or congressman, a construction magnate with 14 seasons of a reality TV show behind him somehow had garnered 304 votes in the Electoral College, not to mention almost 63 million votes, in his first run for the White House.

But why?

To answer that, you need to read the autobiography of a man whose experience is crucial to understanding why voters felt compelled to make that kind of choice.

That man is J.D. Vance and the book is “Hillbilly Elegy.”

I don’t read biographies, auto- or otherwise, as I just don’t have the patience. But thanks to the recommendation of someone in the White House, I made an exception and read Vance’s story over one Thanksgiving weekend and it changed everything.

Why? Because Vance’s book fully explained the life and death issues that made such a choice even possible.

Ostensibly, the work was about Vance’s growing up in Ohio, a member of a working-class family from the Appalachian region of Kentucky in an environment of dashed dreams, drug abuse, and broken human beings.

For the full story, read Vance’s book. The deeper conclusion is that America became a land of opportunity and the world’s sole superpower because a promise was made and kept between its citizens and the political class. That promise was based upon a common belief: America is the freest and greatest nation on God’s Earth.

Both groups—citizens and the political class—believed in our being the “great experiment in democracy.” That if you worked hard, you would prosper. That you would be represented by a political class that would protect that prosperity and keep your family safe.

But then the compact was broken. Year after year, those who had built America were systematically betrayed. Jobs disappeared. Factories closed.

Our enemies and competitors—namely China—were given favorable deals. Drugs like fentanyl were “imported,” ravaging our communities. In exchange, more and more of the “elite” in Washington subscribed to an inexorable “managed decline” for America.

We have been able to surmount some of these issues in the time since then with a roaring economy until COVID-19 hit, jobs returning to America, and foreign policy successes such as smashing the ISIS caliphate.

But our political clashes now go much deeper and are more existential. They are rooted in issues that those who occupy the commanding heights of our media and our traditional political class have no interest in addressing.

These issues strike deeply at our social compact—the shared commitment to Anglo-American values, norms, customs, and traditions, available to Americans of any background—that give us common ground and make a modicum of a free, orderly, decent, and healthy political order even possible.

These same panjandrums of our media and political class, and the street thugs they have enabled, the rabble-rousers performing this dangerous political street theater in tearing down our statues and history, no longer are practicing politics as usual. They have been captured by the radicalism that has been bubbling under the surface of left-wing politics for decades.

That is how a rising generation of Americans subscribes to the most extreme policies, including:

  • Amnesty and citizenship for 11 million illegal aliens.
  • An aggressively unconstitutional and anti-Second Amendment confiscatory gun platform.
  • Open borders.
  • Nationalization of medicine and abolition of private health insurance.
  • Destruction not only of statues, but America’s history, customs, norms, and tradition.
  • Sanctioned harassment of fellow citizens until they publicly manifest agreement.
  • Erasure of America’s history as a force for good in the world, replacing it with a civics education mired in the 1619 Project narrative of America as founded on slavery.
  • Defunding our police or doing away with the idea of law enforcement altogether.

These policies will lead to anarchy and further loss of liberty in the freest country the world has ever seen.

We should keep this in mind if America is to remain America.

COMMENTARY BY

Sebastian Gorka

Sebastian Gorka, Ph.D., is former deputy assistant for strategy to President Trump, host of the nationally syndicated “America First,” and senior fellow for strategic affairs with Liberty University’s Falkirk Center. His latest book is “The War for America’s Soul.” Twitter: .

RELATED VIDEO: Trump: ‘Press Is Fueling the Riots More Than Biden’ — Joe ‘Doesn’t Know He’s Alive’ [Watch]

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Pledges Millions to Rebuild Kenosha After Looting, Arson

Liberal Media Alternate Between Denying and Excusing Rioters, Looters

What You Need to Know About Jacob Blake, Kyle Rittenhouse, and the Kenosha Violence

A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump-Hating Protesters, Deceit & Willful Blindness: Left’s lies about Immigration, Drugs & Terrorism

/in , , , , , , /by

On January 20, 2017, the very same day that President Donald J. Trump was inaugurated, protestors who opposed Trump’s election and his campaign promises took to the streets in Washington, DC and elsewhere. They falsely equated securing America’s borders and enforcing our immigration laws with bigotry and racism.

The protestors carried signs with a variety of slogans including a slogan favored by Hillary Clinton during her failed bid for the presidency, “Build bridges, not walls.”

Where were these protestors when Obama violated the Constitution, released hundreds of thousands of criminal aliens, commuted the sentences of record numbers of drug dealers and ignored the findings of the 9/11 Commission and imported millions of foreign workers to take Americans’ jobs?

Ironically, on that same day, the Justice Department issued a press release, “Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera Faces Charges in New York for Leading a Continuing Criminal Enterprise and other Drug-Related Charges.”

El Chapo was the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel that smuggled multi-ton quantities of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana into the United States and used extreme violence and corruption in order to achieve their criminal goals that included the smuggling of huge quantities of illegal drugs into the United States.

The press release contains links to the Detention Memo and the Indictment and begins with these two paragraphs:

The indictment alleges that between January 1989 and December 2014, Guzman Loera led a continuing criminal enterprise responsible for importing into the United States and distributing massive amounts of illegal narcotics and conspiring to murder persons who posed a threat to Guzman Loera’s narcotics enterprise.

Guzman Loera is also charged with using firearms in relation to his drug trafficking and money laundering relating to the bulk smuggling from the United States to Mexico of more than $14 billion in cash proceeds from narcotics sales throughout the United States and Canada. As part of this investigation, nearly 200,000 kilograms of cocaine linked to the Sinaloa Cartel have been seized. The indictment seeks forfeiture of more than $14 billion in drug proceeds and illicit profits.

Leaders of Drug Trafficking Organizations, alien smuggling rings and terrorists seeking to enter the United States surreptitiously could not devise a better slogan than “Build bridges not walls” to promote their criminal interests.

Perhaps, given the numerous reports about tunnels under the U.S./Mexican border, the open borders/immigration anarchists should amend their signs to read, “Build bridges and tunnels not walls.”

That slogan must really resonate with El Chapo the leader of the violent Sinaloa Mexican Drug Trafficking Organization that, not unlike other such cartels, required the ability to cross the U.S./Mexican border to not only transport their drugs but their “employees” into the United States as well.

These cartel “employees” are primarily aliens who enter the United States illegally.  Among them as noted in the criminal indictment, are “sicarios,” or hit men who carried out hundreds of acts of violence, including murders, assaults, kidnappings, assassinations and acts of torture at the direction of the defendants.

Often the victims of the violence are members of the ethnic immigrant communities in which these thugs operate.

The majority of violent crime in the United States has a nexus to the use and/or trafficking in narcotics and dangerous drugs.  The proceeds of the drug trade enriches the drug cartels and street gangs.  This fast flow of money also enriches terror organizations around the world.

All too often those who become addicted to drugs have bleak futures.  Tragically, often these addicts are teenagers.

The magnitude of the quantity of drugs smuggled into the United States across the U.S./Mexican border and through other means (in the holds of ships and in the cargo holds of airliners and in the baggage and secreted on passengers of airliners) is, in the aggregate, truly staggering.

El Chapo is being prosecuted in the Eastern District of New York because of the magnitude of his wholesale operations in New York City.  The Sinaloa Cartel also operated in Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles and throughout parts of Arizona.

The magnitude and scope of the violence used by the Sinaloa Cartel was staggering and the press release noted that thousands of individuals were killed in Mexico to eliminate those who got in their way.

They killed law enforcement officials and others to intimidate those who would compete against this criminal organization or cooperate with law enforcement.  Many of the victims were beheaded as an intimidation tactic.

This investigation was conducted by courageous law enforcement officers in Colombia, Mexico, the United States and elsewhere.  In the United States the investigation was pursued by the multi-agency Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) that includes agents of the DEA, FBI, ICE, ATF as well as members of local and state police departments.

Having spent the final ten years of my career with the INS assigned to OCDETF I am extremely familiar with the effectiveness of the multiagency task force approach to the investigation and dismantling of late-scale narcotics trafficking organizations and just how critical border security and effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws, from within the interior of the United States, are to the success of these law enforcement efforts.

Incredibly, however, when Donald Trump promised to build a wall to secure the border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico to prevent criminals, terrorists and drugs from entering the United States, the globalists, aided and abetted by dishonest journalists, created the false narrative equating Trump’s goals and the goals of Americans who demand that our borders be secured against illegal entry with racism.

Securing our borders against illegal entry is not to be equated with preventing all aliens from entering the United States, only those aliens who violate our laws.

The doors on our homes have locks that can be unlatched not only so that we can enter our own homes, but so that we can selectively open our doors to those who wish to visit us.  However sensible people lock their doors to prevent the entry of burglars and those who might pose a threat to their safety.

This is comparable to the mission of the inspections process conducted at ports of entry by the more than 20,000 inspectors of CBP (Customs and Border Protection) the same agency that employs approximately 20,000 Border Patrol agents to attempt to interdict those aliens who seek to avoid the inspections process by running our borders.

Determinations as to the admissibility of aliens seeking entry into the United States is guided not by race, religion or ethnicity as politicians, pundits and pollsters falsely claim, but by the provisions of Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens.

Jimmy Carter created the Orwellian term “Undocumented Immigrant” to describe illegal aliens that has, over time, enabled immigration anarchists to con many Americans into believing that deporting illegal aliens actually refers to deporting all “immigrants.”

For the sake of clarity, the difference between and immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

However, while the protestors demonstrate and engage in free speech, they need to be mindful that a one-sided conversation is not a conversation.

When news organizations provide only one side of the debate and, indeed, create a false narrative under the guise of the First Amendment, they are doing a huge disservice to their profession and to America and Americans.

How many of the protestors who demanded that we “build bridges not walls” would have participated in the demonstration carrying those signs, if the organizations, faculty members of universities and teachers in our nation’s schools would truly honor the First Amendment by ending “Safe Spaces” and encouraging and fostering honest and open debates to provide Americans with a vital but increasingly rare commodity:  The Truth?

It is unfathomable that hundreds of thousands of people, many of them parents, would protest on behalf of El Chapo and others engaged in the drug trade to facilitate the trafficking or narcotics in the United States and the violent crimes and malevolent transnational gangs associated with the drug trade.  Yet, unwittingly, this is precisely what they are doing.

It is equally likely that the numbers of such protestors would have been greatly reduced if the media and our politicians had honestly reported on the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission when reporting on the threat of terrorism and its nexus to failures of the immigration system.

Yet there they were, demanding that our borders be left vulnerable and our immigration laws not be enforced.

“Free speech” does not protect individuals who falsely cry, “Fire!” in a crowded theater to spark a stampede.

Memo to professors, journalists, pollsters and politicians: It is time for honest speech.

Immigration anarchists are responsible for undermining the civil rights of every American

/in , , , , , , /by

Immigration anarchists have repeatedly drawn false analogies between their efforts to block the enforcement of immigration laws and the heroic action of those whose hard-fought efforts for decades provided black Americans with civil rights, but at great cost.

These anarchists emulate Jimmy Carter, creator of the Orwellian term ‘Undocumented Immigrant’ by referring to advocates for fair and effective immigration law enforcement as being “Anti-Immigrant.”  This despicable tactic is now being used to falsely attack Senator Jeff Sessions, the nominee for Attorney General, accuse his support for such effective enforcement of our immigration laws as running contrary to civil rights and being against immigrants.

These anarchists refuse to concede what should be obvious, while aliens illegally present in the United States are entitled to human rights and due process, they are not entitled to broad civil rights protections.  It is an outrageous contradiction in concepts to claim that aliens whose mere presence represents a violation of law should be provided with opportunities equal to those provided to American citizens and lawful immigrants.

In reality, immigration anarchists are, themselves, responsible for undermining the civil rights of Americans, particularly American minorities who suffer the greatest harm because of the failures of our government to enforce the immigration laws.  Those immigration anarchists also are responsible for undermining the civil rights of lawful immigrants.

For the sake of clarity and to prevent any potential misunderstandings, illegal aliens, not unlike others, are entitled to human rights and are properly entitled to due process when accused of committing crimes.  There are two reasons why due process must be devoid of consideration as to the immigration status of the accused.  First of all, it is a matter of fairness and justice.

Creating a lower standard for convicting illegal aliens for committing crimes would undermine the judicial system.

Additionally, unscrupulous prosecutors who simply wanted a “quick kill” would be encouraged to seek the conviction of illegal aliens who did not actually commit the crime.  This is immoral and unjust.  Secondly, under such circumstances, law enforcement authorities would stop looking for the actual criminal who would therefore remain at large and continue to pose a threat.

Civil rights laws were initially enacted to address the wrongs visited upon black Americans beginning with slavery and then segregation.

Today those laws are focused on providing citizens, irrespective of race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual identity or orientation, with equal protection under our laws and equal opportunities, thereby enabling them to be full participants in the communities where they live and throughout our nation.

Sanctimonious and hypocritical mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” portray themselves as heroic figures, perhaps on par with the “Freedom Riders” who, decades ago, at great personal risk, fought to end racial discrimination and segregation in the South.

Make no mistake, those Freedom Riders were heroes who should be lauded and remembered for their morality, courage and achievements.

Mayors of Sanctuary Cities, however, are anything but heroes.  They are betrayers.  Betrayers of the Constitution, betrayers of their oaths of office, betrayers of national security and public safety and betrayers of their constituents.

Such rogue politicians act against the best interests of their constituents and those who reside in, or visit their cities by turning their jurisdictions into magnets for aliens who are illegally present in the United States.  Among those illegal aliens are those who have serious criminal histories, have outstanding arrest warrants in the United States or in other countries or may be international terrorists or supporters of terrorism.  These aliens may have entered the United States without inspection or entered through ports of entry but went on to otherwise violate our immigration laws that, it must be noted, are completely and utterly blind as to race, religion or ethnicity.

Such rogue politicians act against the best interests of those who reside in, or visit their cities, because they are turning their jurisdictions into magnets for aliens who are illegally present in the United States.  Among those illegal aliens are those who have serious criminal histories, have outstanding arrest warrants in the United States or in other countries or may be international terrorists or supporters of terrorism.  These aliens may have entered the United States without inspection or entered through ports of entry but went on to otherwise violate our immigration laws that, it must be noted, are completely and utterly blind as to race, religion or ethnicity.

The ultimate “hate crime” involves acts of violence committed against members of a community because of factors such as race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.  Transnational gangs often target their victims because of such factors.  Failures of immigration law enforcement have enabled such violent gangs to flourish across the United States.

Beyond undermining national security and public safety, Sanctuary Cities additionally attract massive numbers of illegal aliens who have no legal authority to work in the United States yet are able to secure illegal employment, thereby displacing American workers.

This includes American teenagers – often American minority teenagers, who find themselves unable to find a job, creating for them the conundrum of not being able to get a job without a resume but not being able to assemble a resume without first getting a job.

Furthermore, labor is a commodity.  Flooding the labor pool with foreign workers, suppresses the value of labor.  Consequently, even Americans and lawful immigrants who don’t lose their jobs to illegal aliens likely face wage suppression because of them.

It is more than mere coincidence that the division of the Civil Rights Commission that deals with discriminatory employment practices is referred to as the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.

Employment, in point of fact, provides opportunities to those who are able to work.

Opportunities to be self-sufficient, opportunities to succeed and advance and prosper all revolve around the ability to be gainfully employed.

Blocking qualified workers from job opportunities deprives them essential and fundamental opportunities to be successful.

Politicians who comply with the demands of campaign contributors and others who exert pressure on them to flood America with cheap and compliant foreign labor to displace American workers and suppress wages.

The destruction of the middle class is not an “unintended consequence” but the goal of their duplicitous conduct.

A news report on how job losses create multiple stresses quoted Michael McKee, a psychologist at the Center for Integrative Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic who articulated his concerns about how the possible loss of financial ability to support oneself and family my lead to a loss of self-respect and the respect of others.  Thus leading to the loss of identity, security and daily structure, ultimately leading to people who lose meaning and hope.

A study published a couple of years ago found that poverty stresses the brain so much that it’s like losing 13 IQ points.

Prior to the Second World War the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws was vested primarily within the Labor Department to make certain that Americans would not have to compete with foreign workers for jobs.  This is how America created the largest and most upwardly mobile middle class of all countries on this planet at the time, thus creating the “American Dream.”

Civil rights laws also enforced in conjunction with our immigration laws to make certain that employers treat all employees equally including aliens provided that the aliens in question are authorized by law to be employed in the United States.  Indeed, even where the employer sanctions provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended segregation and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, discriminatory employment practices were prohibited to insure, equal employment opportunities.  Over time these laws were amended to protect additional groups of protected workers and even include aliens who are authorized to work in the United States.

In fact, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has posted the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) on its website.  Among the provisions of IRCA was a massive amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens and the provision that, for the very first time, deemed the knowing employment of illegal aliens to be a violation of law.

The EEOC has a vested interest and, indeed, jurisdiction, in cases involving allegations of Employment Discrimination.

Not only does the EEOC have jurisdiction when Americans claim employment discrimination, but it also has jurisdiction if an allegation is made that an alien, authorized to work in the United States seeking employment, suffered discrimination during the hiring process by an overly zealous employer who went beyond the requirements of preparing the Form I-9 to verify the identity and eligibility of an alien applying for a job or if an alien, authorized to work in the United States, faced discriminatory policies by his/her employer.

However, all of the laws and regulations that have been promulgated to end workplace discrimination are undone by the veritable army of foreign workers who have displaced beleaguered American workers.

Think of how many politicians running for office promise to help “create jobs” and to “bring back jobs to America.”

Whether politicians are running for political office on the local, state or federal level.  Whether they seek to become a member of the city council, mayors or governors.  Even if they are candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate or even the Presidency of the United States, they all make that same  promise about jobs and “getting Americans back to work.”

Failures of the immigration system make those promises largely meaningless when American workers are displaced by aliens.

For open borders/immigration anarchists, failures of the immigration system are to be engineered and then celebrated.

In reality, those failures are devastating to America and Americans and undermine the letter and spirit of our civil rights laws.

If immigration anarchists want to point to those responsible for undermining civil rights, they should stand in front of a mirror and point at themselves.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sanctuary Cities Pose a Danger to Our USA

Austin Mayor Colluded with Obama to Accept Refugees Despite Governor Halting Program

‘Sanctuary Cities’ vs National Security and Public Safety

/in , , , , /by

Why ‘sanctuary city’ mayors should be given an MVP Award by ISIS and drug cartels.

The lunacy of the immigration executive orders and other actions of the Obama administration to block the enforcement of our immigration laws and immigration anarchy will be brought to a screeching halt on the day that Donald Trump replaces Mr. Obama in the Oval Office.

However the “Immigration All-Clear” will not be sounded across the United States in cities and states that have been declared “Sanctuaries” by the mayors and governors who have created a false and very dangerous narrative that equates immigration law enforcement with racism and bigotry.

This insidious false claim has been heartily embraced by the demonstrators who are rampaging across the United States to protest the election of Donald Trump and his promises to secure the U.S./Mexican border and enforce our immigration laws.

This is the false narrative that has enabled mayors of so-called “Sanctuary Cities” to foist this lunacy on the residents of their cities and was the focus of my article, “Terrorism, Enclaves and Sanctuary Cities: How sanctuary cities facilitate the growth of terror enclaves in America.”

The challenge for the Trump administration and for all Americans, is to eliminate these enclaves of lawlessness.

Sanctuary cities are highly attractive to illegal aliens and the criminals, fugitives and likely terrorists among them who entered the United States by evading the inspections process conducted at ports of entry by the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors and are vulnerable to arrest and removal (deportation).

Sanctuary cities, however, certainly do not provide “sanctuary” for the residents of those cities who, all too often, fall victim to the crimes committed by these criminal aliens.  However, what is generally not understood is that Sanctuary Cities endanger every person in the United States, no matter where they live.

Terrorists would most likely seek to set up shop in sanctuary cities to evade detection and arrest.

They can use the security provided by such “leaders” as Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel and New York’s Bill de Blasio as a staging area for attacks they might carry out in the cities where they live or in other cities they could easily travel to on the day of an attack.

While politicians from both parties often claim that the “Immigration system is broken” as a way of justifying their positions of advocacy for massive amnesty programs and the creation of these dangerous “sanctuaries” for criminals, fugitives and terrorists, in reality, this is “Immigration Failure — By Design.”

America’s borders and immigration laws are our first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorists, transnational criminals, fugitives from justice and those foreign nationals who would displace American workers wrecking havoc on the lives of those Americans and their families when they lose their jobs and their paychecks.

A quick review of a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)- Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 would quickly dispel the bogus claim that equates the enforcement of our immigration laws with racism.

That section of law enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness.

Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies are to be excluded as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed and aliens who would likely become public charges.

It is vital to note that our immigration laws make absolutely no distinction in any way, shape of form as to the race, religion or ethnicity of any alien.

The Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) is a multi-agency federal task force that operates under the aegis of the FBI.  While, as might be expected, the FBI contributes the greatest number of enforcement personnel to that effort, the second largest contingent of agents assigned to the JTTF are special agents of  Immigration and Customs Enforcement / Homeland Security Investigations (ICE/HSI).

The majority of international terrorists also commit immigration law violations including visa fraud, immigration benefit fraud and a list of other crimes which include immigration law violations.

To provide you with such an example, consider my commentary, “Immigration Fraud Linked To San Bernardino Jihadist’s Family: Alleged supplier of material support now also charged with marriage fraud.”

This quote from the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel” identifies the nexus between systemic failures of the immigration system and vulnerability to terror attacks in the United States.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

That quote also underscores the importance of enforcing our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and how failures of such efforts create deadly vulnerabilities for the United States.  This concern was the focus of my recent article, “Immigration and the Terrorist Threat: How our leaders are spawning catastrophe.”

As an INS agent I investigated and arrested aliens from countries from around the world.  My colleagues and I did not single out violators of immigration laws on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity.

For about three years I was assigned as the Marine Intelligence Officer for the INS New York District Office.  I was responsible for joining members of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs in boarding ships in and around the New York City area to search for contraband, stow-ways and ship-jumpers (crew members who absconded and failed to return to their vessels before they departed from the United States.)

While such vessels provided individuals from many countries the opportunity to gain illegal access to the United States, the majority of crew members who went “missing” were citizens of Greece.

As part of my duties I was responsible for tracking down those aliens wherever they lived and worked and took the into custody to arrange for their deportation from the United States.

Members of the Greek community frequently complained to me that the INS was only concerned about Greeks.

When I worked on several investigations concerning organized crime, we often heard members of the Italian immigrant community complain that we were targeting Italians.

When we partnered with the Public Morals Division of the NYPD to raid brothels to shut down those locations in China Town, local resident grumbled about how unfair this was to the Asian community.

In reality the “targeting” that we did at the INS involved law violators irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity.

Period.

However, because of the utterly false and irresponsible Orwellian narrative created by the open borders immigration anarchists, incredibly, many gullible and misinformed Americans have been conned into believing that opposing fair and effective enforcement of our immigration laws is an act of heroism and a way of fighting prejudice and bigotry.

On November 14, 2016 NPR reported, “Mayor Rahm Emanuel: ‘Chicago Always Will Be A Sanctuary City’.”

That report began with the following paragraphs:

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel added his voice to the chorus of big-city mayors who say theirs will remain “sanctuary cities” in response to President-elect Donald Trump’s hard-line positions on illegal immigration.

Surrounded by immigration activists, business leaders and state and federal lawmakers, Emanuel sought to reduce the fear of immigrants living in this country without authorization.

“To all those who are, after Tuesday’s election, very nervous and filled with anxiety … you are safe in Chicago, you are secure in Chicago and you are supported in Chicago,” said Emanuel at a news conference called to publicize the expansion of mental health services for people anxious over the election results.

“Chicago has in the past been a sanctuary city. … It always will be a sanctuary city,” the mayor said.

His comments come on the heels of Trump’s appearance Sunday on CBS’s 60 Minutes, in which the president-elect promised to deport all immigrants with criminal records.

You would imagine that the mayor of any town would be thrilled to have criminal aliens deported to end the concern of recidivism and keep the residents of those cities safe.

Many mayors do see things that way and support cooperative efforts between their police departments and ICE.

However, the mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” and the governors of Sanctuary States have “done the math” and have, unbelievably decided that achieving political objectives is far more important than protecting innocent lives and the security of our nation.

Such politicians must not find “sanctuary” in the voting booth come their election day.

RELATED ARTICLE: In 2006, These Democrats Still in Office Voted to Build a Wall

EDITORS NOTE: This column first appeared on FrontPage Magazine.

Robbie Travers: No Home on the Left for Opponents of Islamism

/in , , , /by

A journalist and law student explains his feeling the British left has ostracized opponents of Islamism after Corbyn’s election as Labour leader.

Robbie Travers is the executive director at Agora, non-partisan think tank for young people aged of 15-28 and junior media management at the Human Security Centre, a non-profit foreign policy think tank based in London. He is a second year student of law at Edinburgh University.

He graciously agreed to speak with Clarion Project Dialogue Coordinator Elliot Friedland about the struggle against Islamism on the British left.

Clarion Project: Why do you think certain sections of the left have struggled to robustly combat the problems of Islamism? 

Robbie Travers: There are a variety of reasons for the left’s troubling inability to combat Islamism or enter an honest dialogue on problems amongst Islamic groups.

These include the racism of low expectations, which is sadly a regular feature of the left’s discussions surrounding Islam.

Because Islamic people face prejudice in the West, many on the left often adopt an approached best simplified by the following formula: “since they must protect or defend minorities, and Muslims are a minority in the west, they consequently must protect Muslims.” This regressive trend of supporting and apologizing for the regressive elements of the religion of a minority is common.

This line of argument fails to wash though, as not discussing issues and failing to challenge authoritarian and theocratic views and individuals is not “protecting Muslims,” it’s eroding their relations with wider society and undermining the platform that moderate Muslims and Islamic reformers have to stay upon.

Many argue that since these people are oppressed, their terrorism may not be justifiable, but it is understandable. This, however, stands at odds with their mantra that Islamism isn’t properly part of Islam. So oppressing Muslims, apparently, enrages groups that aren’t “true Muslims” (note the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy) who then often kill Muslims, all to oppose the killing of Muslims?

If you are confused by the left’s complex and heavily contradictory narrative, don’t worry most voters are, and hence they no longer consider the left’s opinion as accurate or viable on Islamism.

Stop The War Gaza March, London (Photo: © Creative Commons, David Holt)

Stop The War Gaza March, London (Photo: © Creative Commons, David Holt)

Another reason is that because Islamism stands against the (western) patriarchy and the current system of capitalist and free societies, many feel that the enemy of their enemy is their friend, even when their friends tend to be theocratic totalitarian cults that despise many of the freedoms these individuals take for granted. The deployment of this argument can be seen as particularly prevalent amongst young activists and intersectionalists often chanting that since the West, which symbolizes the dominance of Western White-Cis-Hetero-Male ruling classes, and patriarchy, is the ultimate evil.

Anything which challenges this dastardly hegemony, since the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore, must be cheered and rooted for.

Cheering for movements and ideology despite not thinking of the consequences and full beliefs of these consequences has seen pro-LGBT groups defend IS and apologize for Hamas, women’s groups turning their back on democrats and Islamic feminists across the MENA in favor of apologizing for regimes that abuse them like Iran, and defending symbols of misogyny like the Burqa.

Senses of self-loathing and “white guilt” created by identify politics can be blamed for this inability to tackle Islamism too. Often when discussing Islam, you will encounter those who say “But Christianity is bad too,” and trade in various platitudes about Islam, such as “If all Muslims are terrorists, why aren’t we dead yet.” No-one of any credibility is asserting this, and to fight against straw men rather than the actual argument is a tactic of those unable to answer the decent, fair questions about problems with radicalization.

And if the left refuse to answer those questions coherently, the far right most certainly will answer the questions. And nobody of any substantial reason wants to see the far right with the exclusive ability to answer any questions.

The left have lost their way, large chunks of the Left no longer represent the working classes they purport to represent, and actually employ snobbery – being repulsed by the anti-immigration, socially conservative, anti-welfare working person who despises terrorism and is suspicious of Islamism. Most working class people have little time for those arguing about how the West is just as evil or IS, or that we have significant issues or problems that are comparable to the genocides committed by IS.

Hence the left risk drifting onto obscurity on the issue as their perceived base no longer sees the left as representative of their stance against terror.

Following from this, there is a determined arrogance amongst Progressives that an Islamist is just like them and isn’t actually motivated by the Koran, but rather has legitimate grievances with the West and current global order, and this somehow means we should understand that they are victims.

This fetishization of victimhood and diminishment of actual victims means that the left have no compelling ability to simply, and crisply condemn the terror attack and the ideology that motivated it, rather than blaming the victims for the attacks.

McEwan Hall, Edinburgh University. (Photo: © Creative Commons Dun_Deagh)

McEwan Hall, Edinburgh University. (Photo: © Creative Commons Dun_Deagh)

Clarion: You are currently a second year student at the University of Edinburgh. How do people on campus relate to the issue of Islamist extremism?

Travers: Edinburgh has seriously improved, but has a long way to progress. It must be stated that the majority of students are tired of flailing narratives, and we are seeing a desire for dialogue. Edinburgh now has an official “Israeli Engagement Society,” which aims to engage people in dialogue over such important topics. This would not have happened in previous years.

However, there was an attempt to stop the society from forming by voting individually, in which many members of Student Justice for Palestine tried to stop our group from existing. It is a worrying trend that some members of said group would seek to limit the rights of pro-Israeli students to recognition. They want one rule for themselves and another rule for others.

Often there is a bizarre position encountered on campus which argues Islamist extremism should not be seen as a threat, going along with anti-semitism, and the idea that Islamism is caused by the Western world. There is a worrying trend that somehow the 2003 invasion of Iraq is seen as a Pandora’s Box and the root of all subsequent evil, like the creation of IS. It is seen as a symbol of colonialism, and how the West needles in affairs of others too often. Many occupying this position however, when challenged, provide no answers on how to challenge either Islamic theocracies or terrorist organizations.

There is an idea that somehow Islamism and Islam are completely unconnected. There is also an incredibly paternalistic attitude that Islam must be protected from criticism. Students who will criticize the Vatican, or Judaism freely, will often feel scared to criticize Islam. There are also concerns about the “Safe space” policy which is designed to protect people from harmful and offensive speech. The problem, however, is when you exist in an environment in which people cannot discuss Islam or issues with the faith without others taking offence, and often taking offence because someone may take offence, you shut down the discussion.

Secular activist Maryam Namazie speaks at Goldsmiths University in London. She was heckled at the talk by opponents from the Islamic society who sought to prevent her from speaking in a speech widely reported in the British media. (Photo: Screenshot from video)

Secular activist Maryam Namazie speaks at Goldsmiths University in London. She was heckled at the talk by opponents from the Islamic society who sought to prevent her from speaking in a speech widely reported in the British media. (Photo: Screenshot from video)

Clarion: Why do you support UK airstrikes against targets in Syria?

Travers: UK airstrikes in Iraq and Syria still have a remarkable 0 civilian casualties figure, which is a tribute to the precision strikes of our RAF and Brimstone missile technology. We are not slaughtering people as often posited, we are saving lives by striking strategic targets and ensuring civilians are not killed. This is what an accurate and precise military operation does and is not comparable to ISIS tactics. It’s also having a real effect, reducing IS territory in Iraq and Syria and hence reducing their ability to spread their genocidal rule.

The longer we allow their state to thrive in Iraq and Syria, the longer we allow a hostile terrorist training facility, which areas of Iraq and Syria function as, we endanger our civilians, and put the lives of Iraqis at risk. We are also providing essential support for groups fighting for our values on the ground, like Kurds.

Striking against ISIS also helps us tackle a group complicating the Syrian Civil War, so that if we can begin reducing IS territory dramatically; we can also highlight the crimes of Assad, and works towards the removal of the butcher of 85% of Syria’s population!

An RAF tornado fighter-bomber.

An RAF tornado fighter-bomber.

Clarion: You’ve spoken before about the need to revive liberalism to adequately tackle Islamism? What do you mean by that and why is it necessary?

Travers: We need to be as passionate about fundamental freedoms, about education, and discussion as Islamists are about spreading their theocracy. We need to start defeating fascism with freedom, for example educating women and empowering them across the globe to run businesses, control their reproductive cycles, and countering radicalization with education.

We also should continue cross faith and international partnerships with schools, to show that Muslims, Christians and Jews that other faiths are not the enemy, and work on reducing the ability for an extremist narrative to take hold at a young age.

Clarion: You left the Labour party after the election of Jeremy Corbyn. Where do you see a political home for left wingers who oppose Islamism? 

Travers: Nowhere. Isn’t that genuinely such a sad statement to have to make?

But we are homeless, politically homeless due to the right and left spectrum both having flaws.  The only people that are aided by the left failing to have a decent discussion on Islam is the right, and that includes the far right, and Islamists, as Muslims will be alienated by society and driven to extremism as the far right offer answers that are based on simplistic hatred and prejudice.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mohammed Nazam: Music Does What Talking Can’t

Hassan Radwan: From Faith to Faithless and Back Again

Free Speech Forever: Ex-Al Jazeera Bureau Chief Mohamed Fahmy

Omer Aziz: Why I am Offended by the Saudi Grant to Yale

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Robbie Travers. (Photo: © Robbie Travers)

The Left’s Embrace of Islamic Rape by Jamie Glazov [+Videos]

/in , , , , , /by

As the disturbing reports pour in about the New Year’s Eve Muslim sex assaults in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Finland and other European countries, it has become clear that the new Utopian Multicultural Europe that the Left has worked so hard to build is now here. Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker’s response to the assaults under her watch has been to reprimand the victims, suggesting that they had asked for it. She has vowed to make sure that women will change their behavior, so that they don’t provoke Muslims to sexually assault them again. There will now be published “online guidelines” for women to read so they can prepare themselves. One wonders if it will be the burqa or the niqab that will be the solution of choice.

These eerie developments are, of course, completely in line with why Naomi Wolf finds the hijab “sexy” and why Oslo Professor of Anthropology Dr. Unni Wikan’s solution for the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women is not for the rapists to be punished, but for Norwegian women to “take their share of responsibility” for the rapes because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. Norwegian women, she has counseled, “must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

We are also now aware that German police fired water cannons at German protesters in Cologne who gathered to protest the rapes and sexual assaults committed by the Muslim refugees. Right, it is not the Muslim migrants who committed sex assaults that are being shot at with water cannons, but those who feel that what they did violates women’s rights and western values.

In response to this new horrifying European reality, in which if you are a kuffar female who is raped it means you asked for it, Frontpagemag.com is running my article “How Vittorio Arrigoni Went to Gaza Hoping to Die” from PJMedia’s April 18, 2011 issue. The article unveils the death wish in the heart of the Left and in the impulses of its fellow travelers. In so doing, it crystallizes the pathological mindset of the progressive elites running Western Europe today and why they have created the toxic and suicidal circumstances in which their own women are now victims of mass sexual assaults by followers of a totalitarian and misogynist ideology — and why they, the elites, are shaming the victims and taking the side of the perpetrators.

When one grasps that the yearnings of Western Europe’s rulers today are the same yearnings that Vittorio Arrigoni indulged, the whole picture becomes transparently clear.

Read the article HERE.

RELATED ARTICLE: Daniel Greenfield Moment: The Muslim Brotherhood is a Bigger Threat than ISIS

RELATED VIDEOS:

Woman being Dragged Screaming into Subway by Muslims (via PamelaGeller.com):

Muslim hits woman near subway station (via PamelaGeller.com):

Team Left vs Team Right

/in , , , /by

Here’s a quick run down on the two opposing forces in the USA.

Ayn Rand wrote a short nineteen page paper asking: What is the basic issue facing the world today? Rand, in her paper makes the case that, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:

  • Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
  • Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

What’s Left

/in , , , /by

The Oscar-winning actress Natalie Portman said that she would not use her platform of fame or share her strong leftist opinions inappropriately; therefore, she granted an interview to Steven Galloway, The Hollywood Reporter. Thus begins a peek into a leftist’s psychology. (No sunspecs required.) 

Portman identified herself as being “quite leftist,” meaning that she is yet another person of Jewish heritage who has withdrawn from her birthright, and follows a distinct set of assumptions held by others – also described as “groupthink.”  When asked if she feels uncomfortable about her Jewishness while in France, she offered a brief “Yes,” before deflecting to comment about “the danger of being a Muslim in many places.”   The identity of whom the Muslims fear was conveniently not broached – it is their own rage and violence, products of their perception of Muslim supremacism.

France is considered the most dangerous country for Jews today and the Muslims the “main instigators of global anti-Semitism.”  France’s Jews, 0.75 percent of the population, live in constant peril.  Anti-Semitism has increased by 400 percent since the summer of 2014; 40 percent of violent crimes are committed by Muslims against Jews.  Although French officials have deployed about 20,000 soldiers to guard the Jewish businesses and schools, crimes persist, such as:

  •  the boy who, returning home for Sabbath dinner, was accosted and pummeled by four men with iron pipes – his eye socket damaged, shoes stolen, cell phone intentionally trampled so he could not call for help.
  •  the 17 year-old girl who was  pepper-sprayed and told, “Dirty Jewess, inshallah (Allah willing)  you will die”;
  •  the Jewish mother who, while seated on a park bench, was attacked and beaten by three men;
  •  the young couple who was robbed in their apartment, the woman raped, her boyfriend restrained;
  •  the firebombs thrown at a Jewish community center in Toulouse, another at a synagogue;
  •  the three solders standing guard outside Nice’s Jewish center who were attacked and injured by a man wielding a knife;
  •  the anti-Semitic riots in Sarcelles (Paris suburb, “Little Jerusalem”), with slogans of death and slaughter.

These and others were carried out against Jews by Muslims, but Portman’s leftism precludes her identifying the criminals and their behavior.

As noted in The Religion of Peace online, close to 26,000 terrorist attacks were committed in the name of Islam since 9/11, and a recent article by Giulio Meotti cites 100,000 Christians per year.  All other religions combined do not equal the terrorwrought by Islam and no other religion requires the suffix “phobia” to bully others into silence lest they be accused of harboring “irrational fear” when the fear is perfectly rational.

No other religion demands respect while committing the most abhorrent crimes – and this is because Islam is a political, militaristic ideology couched in religion. Their mandate is to conquer and govern all others: immigrate (to a non-Muslim country), populate (increase and demand accommodation), and eliminate (city becomes Muslim), according to the Muslim Brotherhood’s 100-year plan of 1982.  About 62 percent of the Quran curses unbelievers or calls for violence, yet, when once sharia is established as law, their own are also controlled harshly.  In fact, Iran has been systematically purging (genocide) its own Arab population.

Surely, Portman should have noticed the preponderance of armed French soldiers on Paris streets, where once there were accordionists, flower sellers and romance.  France’s oldest and second-largest city, Marseille, founded in 600 BC by Greek sailors, was once considered the European Capital of Culture, but is now ranked as Europe’s most dangerous city, having a 30 to 40 percent Muslim population. Portman and the Left will deny the cause of the violence and the climate of fear that turned the once-charming, coastal city into a no-go zone, where French law is irrelevant. In fact, the Left denies the existence of no-go zones.

Since the Left adheres to a mantra of multiculturalism and equality of people and religions, Portman calls “endangered Muslims” those who amass weapons, invade, and destroy.  While one faction continues to attack Israelis and Jews at every opportunity, another faction is slaughtering Christians, beheading, burning, kidnapping, raping, and selling women and children into slavery.  Islam is the only group that continues the slave trade.  While Hitler and Nazism were responsible for about 60 million deaths, and Stalin and Communism about 80 million, Islam’s legacy over 1400 years approaches 400 million.  The Left and mainstream media remain silent, and Portman proves that she is indeed on the Left by denying Islam’s gory history.

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call all Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule, some quite graphic.  Aloof from historical context, they proudly regard themselves as part of the eternal and unchanging word of Allah.

Portman has generously, but presumptuously, forgiven Dior fashion designer John Galliano for his several public anti-Semitic rants, yet denounces Prime Minister Netanyahu as racist for noting the growing Arab vote – that could credibly destroy the Jewish people’s only homeland.  Blindly loyal to her destructive liberal doctrine, she prefers Palestinians have a home that was never theirs at the peril of Jews in the home that had been theirs for centuries. The Left prefers that Israel again cede land to those who already have a land mass one thousand times Israel’s size, and may be mobilized to slaughter Jews at the mere sound of a bugle.  The Left is silent when Israelis are attacked from air, earth, and beneath the earth, but speak out for the rights of those who have Natalie Portman in their sight.

The pretty and talented Natalie Portman knows little about her own heritage and displays a shocking amount of ignorance of the facts, and her arrogance for defending the leftist fiction is indefensible. The irony is that her personal life is unacceptable to those she defends.  Under Palestinian rule, Sharia, she would be stoned or beheaded for being of Jewish descent, a woman, outspoken, supporting same-sex marriage, believing in educating females, wearing “immodest” clothing, and having a child out of wedlock.  She and her family are at risk now in France, in Israel, and in the United States, and the source is Islam.  Sadly, our Leftist academia are no longer teaching their students to think and reason, and Natalie Portman is of that generation.

If we add together the Islamists in our midst, the remorseless willfully blind, and the ignorant by indoctrination, I fear for what’s left.

Rage over Robin Williams Emmy tribute including “racist” joke about oppression of Muslim women

/in , , , /by

What race is the oppression of Muslim women again? I keep forgetting. In any case, are women oppressed in Iran? Certainly, but do not speak of it: to do so would be “racist.” This is the number that Leftists and Islamic supremacists have done on the popular culture: any reference, even a joke, to Sharia-related oppression or jihad violence is immediately denounced by the programmed and dutiful as “racist.” This is the same impulse that led the teenager who stumbled upon the Fort Dix jihad plot to hesitate about reporting it to police — he was afraid it might be “racist” to do so. The comfortable, self-righteous Leftists who are denouncing the Emmys today will be congratulating themselves on not being “racist” right up to the moment that the knife sawing through their throat brings an abrupt end to their conscious thoughts.

EDITORS NOTE: Below is the full video of Robin Williams’ impromptu “pink scarf (hijab)” performance courtesy of Bravo TV’s Inside the Actor’s Studio:

“Robin Williams Emmys tribute led by Billy Crystal criticised for including ‘racist’ joke about Muslim woman,” by Jenn Selby, the Independent, August 26, 2014 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

Williams racist tweets

For a larger view click on the image.

“He could be funny anywhere. We were such close friends,” Billy Crystal said of Robin Williams in a special tribute to the comedian aired midway through the Emmy Awards ceremony in Los Angeles last night (25 August).

“He made us laugh. Hard. Every time you saw him – on television, movies, nightclubs, arenas, hospitals, homeless shelters for our troops overseas. And even in a dying girl’s living room for her last wish, he made us laugh. Big time.

“I spent many happy hours with Robin on stage,” he continued. “The brilliance was astounding. The relentless energy was kind of thrilling. I used to think if I could just put a saddle on him and stay on him for eight seconds I was going to do OK.

“It is very hard to talk about him in the past because he was so present in all of our lives. For almost 40 years he was the brightest star in the comedy galaxy.

“While some of the brightest of our celestial bodies are actually extinct now, their energy long since cooled, but miraculously, because they float in the heavens so far away from us now, their beautiful light will continue to shine on us forever.

“And the glow will be so bright it will warm your heart and will make your eyes glisten and you will think to yourselves, ‘Robin Williams. What a concept.’”

And for the most part, the audience at home and in the Nokia Theatre crowd appeared visibly moved by the segment.

That is until the honour ended in a series of clips of the comedian in action, cracking jokes during televised interviews and in stand-up.

In particular, it included a short snippet of a stand-up performance during which Williams borrows a pink scarf from an audience member in the front row and wraps its round his head to simulate a Hijab, or Islamic headscarf.

“I would like to welcome you to Iran… Help me!” he cries.

Viewers participating over Twitter were quick to criticise the inclusion of the joke as “racist”:

After that, people who’d never heard of Robin Williams would think he’s Billy Crystal’s racist friend who was on a lot of talk shows?
Eric Harvey (@marathonpacks) August 26, 2014

Williamsracist2

Click on image for a larger view.

The Williams Emmys tribute followed a shorter honour to the late comedian at the MTV VMAs on Sunday (24 August).

The VMAs tribute was also branded “offensive”, this time down to the lack of care fans felt had gone into the short pictorial montage.

“It would have been less insulting to do nothing,” one Twitter follower wrote.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim groups demand mandatory retraining of all federal, state, local law enforcement officials who may have learned truth about jihad
Tennessee imam who called Jews and Christians “filthy” uses ban on Foley video to argue for blasphemy laws
Ohio: School on lockdown after Muslim threatens to murder children over Israel-Hamas conflict
Boston Marathon jihad murderer’s sister charged in NYC bomb threat

France’s united front of Jew hatred

/in , , , , /by

Parts of the French left have no problems participating in anti-Semitic demonstrations demanding that Jews be kicked out of France. The Socialist government is less than pleased.

PARIS. What happened in the streets of Paris on the 26th of January? On the eve of Shoah Remembrance Day, a significant contingent of demonstrators marching in the Jour de Colère [Day of Rage] howled “Jews, get out of France” and other vicious anti-Semitic slogans.

The best coverage of the march I have seen begins with a display of Islamic Jew hatred on the Champs Elysées in October 2012. Then, scenes of wild Dieudonné fans mocking the Shoah alternate with choice excerpts from the Day of Rage, illustrating converging branches of Jew hatred packed into a cocktail of contemptuous destructive rage.

One week later, on February 2nd, a far larger crowd marched peacefully for five hours with absolutely no violence, anti-Semitism, or disrespect for the République. The Manif’ pour tous [Everyone’s protest march] is a movement created last year in an attempt to block the passage of the mariage pour tous [marriage for everyone] Bill. Though the Hollande government tried desperately to link the two movements, the difference is visible to the naked eye and confirmed by closer examination of the people, the discourse, and the outcome.

The Left, which is never more than a heartbeat away from the barricades, adores street protests… when it is in the Opposition. Today, an embattled government with nothing to show for its first 18 months in office but a tawdry politico-sexual scandal at the summit is tut-tutting about “baseless” demonstrations. The JDC [Jour de Colère] is, apparently, the brainchild of Béatrice Bourges, a dissident of the MPT [Manif’ pour Tous]. Exasperated with the failure to prevent passage of the same-sex marriage law, Bourges created an aggressive Printemps Français [French Spring] faction that engaged in battles with the police, easily used by the government to discredit the squeaky clean MPT movement that had mobilized at least half a million. Having failed to take over leadership of the MPT, Bourges sought new allies and new forms of action.

Ten days before the Day of Rage, in a debate with Pierre Cassen of the anti-Islamization site Riposte Laïque, Béatrice Bourges presented her analysis of same-sex marriage and parenthood, by adoption and eventually artificial insemination and womb rental, as part of a global project of “transhumanism.” The plan is to create a New Man hors sol [without national identity] and hors sexe [without sexual identity], a slave of an oligarchy determined to rule the world by turning people into featureless units of production and consumption. Her choice of villains and vocabulary ring with the familiar string of adjectives often associated, in times of trouble, with Jews: “stateless cosmopolitan unscrupulous money-grubbing demons of finance …”

Cassen announced he would not participate in the Day of Rage after Dieudonné encouraged his followers to join the troops. Bourges countered, helter skelter, that Dieudonné himself wouldn’t attend, the best way to discourage his acolytes was to ignore them, but it doesn’t matter if they do come because this is the Day for all the rhymes and reasons of Rage, no one should be excluded. Expressed rage, she said, is less prone to violence than repressed rage. These and other predictions about attendance—“it will be a tsunami”– and results—“the government has feet of clay, a few good blows and it will topple”– turned out to be equally inaccurate. I have not found on the Jour de Colère or Printemps Français any statement sites of disapproval of the anti-Semitic slogans, chants, and signs.

Though Béatrice Bourges is believed to be a central figure in the JDC organization, the movement adopted the anonymous Facebook-twitter image ascribed to the “Arab Spring.” Another “Arab Spring” prop, the “Hollande dégage” [Hollande, bug off] slogan, picked up from one of the participating groups, goes back to Tunisia’s “Jasmine Revolution” and subsequent uprisings in Libya, Egypt, etc. “Day of rage” is associated with a Palestinian practice of periodic organized violence against Israel. Aside from the strange Middle East echoes, these borrowings perpetuate the idea that we are living under a dictatorship that must be overthrown. (Similar echoes were found in the Occupy Wall Street movement.)

This justified accusations that the protest movement is aimed at destroying the République. But nothing can hide the Left’s paternity of a movement that coalesces dark forces from all extremes of the political spectrum. It would be impossible within the limits of this article to give an idea of the pot pourri of participating groups listed on the Jour de Colère site. Splinters, split-offs, offshoots of multiple varieties–anti-Islamization, Muslims against gender theory, anti-globalization, anti-population replacement, Catholic fundamentalists, old fashioned neo-Nazis, small businessmen, freelancers, nationalists, royalists, farmers… An undercurrent of the Jew hatred that emerged on the Day of Rage can be discerned here and there: the campaign to keep children home from school to protest gender theory indoctrination in kindergartens was organized by Farida Belghoul, one of the pioneers of the “beur” [second generation Maghrebi] movement spawned on the Left. She is now allied with arch anti-Semite Alain Soral. Media Press, a JDC-friendly site links to articles such as “Is Manuel Valls the Interior Minister of France or Israel?”

Will the coalition of united rage, fired by the weakness of the French government, find Jew hatred as its common denominator? The danger is real. Socialist deputy Julien Dray declared that an important faction of the Day of Rage demonstration intended to march into the rue des Rosiers in the heart of the Jewish Marais. Sammy Ghozlan, president of the BNVCA [Bureau national de vigilance contre l’antisémitisme] warns that when the law catches up with Dieudonné and puts him in handcuffs, it could trigger a “Crystal Day.”

Is there room for the hope that many French people, disgusted with overt Jew hatred, will withdraw from the hastily concocted coalition? It only took fourteen years for the guttural shouts of “Kill the Jews” that have been ringing out in pro-Palestinian, anti-war, pro-Hamas and go-jihad marches to reach the ears of French media. And for the government to recognize that anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism is a danger to the République.

Epilogue

The Manif’ pour Tous is another story and the government didn’t know what to do about it. Spokespersons and friendly media pumped out the talking points as tens of thousands marched in bright winter sunshine: This protest is based on wild rumors. Reproductive boosters—PMA [artificial insemination] for lesbian couples and GPA [womb rental] for males—do not figure in the Family Affairs Bill slated for March. The “ABC of Equality,” experimented in hundreds of kindergartens, is not “gender theory,” it’s just about abolishing stereotypes. Mariage pour tous is the law of the land; it is undemocratic to demonstrate against it.

It didn’t work.

Monday morning the Interior Minister, followed quickly by the Prime Minister, promised they would not allow deputies from the majority to attach PMA and GPA amendments to the Bill.

By late afternoon the government announced that the controversial Bill is postponed … indefinitely.