Sarah Halimi case: Will truth lead to justice?

Commemoration of the Rafle du vel d’hiv

There was every reason to expect the July 16th commemoration of the Rafle du vel d’hiv to be limited to the usual concern for the dead. It does not take a gigantic soul to condemn retrospectively the arrest, deportation and extermination of more than 13,000 Parisian Jews, including over 4,000 children. Since 1995, when President Jacques Chirac placed responsibility for the irreparable crime on France, subsequent presidents have followed suit. But the Front National candidate Marine Le Pen dissents. During the presidential campaign she vehemently rejected this misguided repentance: France was in London, the Vichy government was not France. Her international anti-jihad supporters didn’t even notice let alone understand this reassertion of the founding values of the party she inherited from her father Jean-Marie Le Pen.

A dozen members of the Truth and Justice for Sarah Halimi committee, meeting a few days before the commemoration were resigned to the certainty that it would be restricted to the historical past. The Crif, they supposed, would maintain its lay-low institutional role and not make waves or in any way embarrass the president who, at this stage, had shown absolutely no interest in the case and its broader implications. One member suggested they wear white armbands, a knotted piece of torn sheet like the ones handed out at the recent demonstration of cyclists for Sarah.

The ceremony kicked off early in the morning on July 16th with a walk around the memorial garden guided by Serge Klarsfeld who has tirelessly unearthed and published information about the exterminated children one by one. For security reasons, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu did not accompany the small group. The Vel d’hiv ceremony was a striking contrast with the pomp and circumstance of the 14th of July parade with honored guest President Donald Trump, protected by the most imposing security detail known to man. The magnificence of French architecture, French style, French ceremony, the Champs Elysées, the mounted Garde Républicaine, combat planes with their red white and blue plumes, military cadence, well-rehearsed exactitude, the first ladies and their wardrobes (no one can compete with Melania Trump). The back-slapping shoulder-tapping good hearted-hugging friendship between the Trumps and the Macrons was almost comical…and almost sincere.

The site where the infamous winter velodrome stood until it was demolished in the mid-fifties is surrounded by nondescript buildings. The modest ceremony was held before a small audience under a pitched tent roof in the presence of a handful of survivors, a bouquet of children, a sprinkling of descendants of righteous gentiles. Brigitte Macron, contrary to what had been announced, did not attend. The commemoration, broadcast live by BFM TV, LCI and, of course, i24 news French channel, was followed by ample media commentary. As far as I could tell CNN Intl. did not cover or even mention the ceremony.

Rabbi Oliver Kaufman chanted El Mole Rachamim, Raphael Esrail recited the kaddish, followed by a minute of silence, the Marseillaise…but no Hatikvah. And then, Crif President Francis Kalifat stood upright and articulated forthrightly the message that Jews and non-Jews have been trying to communicate to French society and authorities over the past seventeen years. Yes, Jews and non-Jews. One of the ploys used to stifle this message is the constant repetition of “the Sarah Halimi murder has dismayed French Jews, the Jewish community is distressed by the failure to investigate the anti-Semitic motive of the suspect,” etc. as if it were a narrowly Jewish issue pushed by parochially Jewish worry warts and exploited to attract attention to their minority concerns.

Crif President Francis Kalifat

Francis Kalifat begins with a sober résumé of the facts. Seventy-five years ago, a special unit of the French police made up entirely of volunteers arrested thousands of Jews in Paris on orders from the Vichy government, “armed wing of the Nazi occupation.” Held for three days and three nights in the hell of the vélodrome d’hiver, dispatched to French internment camps, the men separated from their families, the mothers separated from their children, 13,152 Jews were turned over to the Nazis, 3894 children sent directly to the gas chambers. “What did they understand of their tragic destiny? What can we understand? The stinging question of the Shoah will forever haunt us.”

Honoring the contributions of Serge Klarsfeld, the CRIF Memory Commission, the righteous gentiles “spark of humanity in the Nazi night,” Kalifat pivoted on a citation from Vladimir Jankelevitch to focus sharply on the present day. “The extermination of the Jews was not a sudden flare up of violence; it was based on a philosophically elaborated, methodically prepared, systematically perpetrated doctrine.”

From Ilan Halimi to Sarah Halimi Jews are murdered in France today, he continued, because they are Jewish, and this new wave of anti-Semitic acts is the fruit of an articulated, shared, exacerbated ideology. We can no longer accept the excuse of madness. When a supposedly mad killer recites koranic verses as he tortures Sarah Halimi, knowing she is Jewish, and shouts allahu akhbar as he throws her to her death, we must hear this murderer expressing the antisemitism that rages in the heart of ‘radicalized sectors’ of our society.”

The president of the Crif, dismissed before the fact by many that assumed he would hold his tongue and protect his privileges, turned to the president and said the anti-Semitic motive should be included in the charges against the murderer of Sarah Halimi.

Taking care to mark the distinction between the state antisemitism that led to the Shoah and the state today that protects Jews, Francis Kalifat had harsh words for UNESCO resolutions that deny Jewish rights to our sacred sites and so doing amputate Christianity from its origins. To those who contest the presence of the Israeli Prime Minister, the president of the Crif responds that Israel is a haven for Shoah survivors and a rampart for Jews everywhere against a repetition of the tragic events commemorated here.

The fate of the Jews, concludes Kalifat, is intimately linked to the fate of French democracy endangered by fanatical obscurantist Islamism. Reaffirming the loyalty of French Jews to the Republic, he honors the presence of President Macron upholding the commitment to truth and justice established in 1995. [This echo of the demand for Truth and Justice for Sarah Halimi would imply that the République is faced with another moment of truth, more difficult than acknowledging past crimes.]

In a poignant illustration of the limits of noble discourse, Sarah Halimi’s brother William announces in an exclusive Times of Israel interview [http://www.timesofisrael.com/seeking-justice-brother-of-sarah-halimi-sees-warning-for-french-jews-in-grisly-slaying/] that he and his nieces are making Aliyah with their families this summer. In fact, Kobili Traoré was questioned on the 10th of June and charged simply with voluntary manslaughter and sequestration (of the Diara family). If and when he is released from the hospital, he will await trial in prison. From excerpts of the interrogation published in L’Express weekly (that had access to the notes) it is cleverly self-serving. What does the 27 year-old criminal have to say about the hard facts contained in the police report? The crushing blows and unspeakable acts unleashed on the defenseless woman for more than 30 minutes? A seemingly offhand admission: “It was horrible, I shouldn’t have done that.” Traoré denies that he held the Diara family hostage before breaking into the apartment next door and murdering Sarah Halimi. And he denies the anti-Semitic motive though admitting he knew she was Jewish from the way she dressed and because her sons wore the kippa. But he didn’t target her because she was Jewish. “It could have been anyone.” One bizarre detail speaks volumes on the nature of a new antisemitism that is, in fact, traditional Islamic Jew hatred. He claims he broke into the apartment but didn’t know where he was until he saw the “torah” and the “lady that woke up.” He says he told her to call the police “we’re going to be massacred.” And then beat her with all his might with the telephone and his fists. He doesn’t know what came over him. He threw her out the window. He doesn’t remember shouting allahu akhbar. He felt like he was in danger. The anxiety crisis started the day before. He smoked hashish, went to the mosque [reportedly the radical Omar mosque, rue Jean-Pierre Timbaud], argued with the caregiver of his handicapped sister, went to sleep, woke up at 3:30 am, went to the apartment of his good friends the Diaras. Halimi family counsel, Maîtres Buchinger and Goldnadel, observed that Traoré seems to have based his answers on what was being reported in the press.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

I come from Jerusalem, eternal capital of the Jewish state, with my wife Sarah who lost all her family in the Holocaust. The words of the Israeli Prime Minister fit hand in glove with the address of Francis Kalifat and smoothly introduced what would follow from “his friend” President Emmanuel Macron.

From beginning to end of the commemoration, honor was rendered to righteous gentiles, résistants, ordinary people who helped save Jews. [Though no mention was made of the large proportion of Jews in the résistance.] Adopting President Macron’s favorite triplet, Netanyahu declared, “the acts committed here 75 years ago brutally crushed the values of the French Republic, liberté, égalité, fraternité. There is courage in combat on the battlefield and the courage of ordinary families that saved the honor of France by protecting Jews. We honor Simone Veil, arrested by the French police in Nice and delivered up to the Nazis, a courageous survivor who reconstructed herself, like the Jewish people have reconstructed ourselves and established the state of Israel. Today the forces of radical Islam are trying to destroy the Jewish people, the Jewish state, and everyone on their path. They want to destroy Europe. Israel is the first target because they see it as a bastion of our shared values. France is a target, says Netanyahu, and he names the Jewish victims from Ilan Halimi to Sarah Halimi. [I wish this roster would begin with Sébastien Selam]. Your combat is ours against the zealots of radical Islam. We must not forget the past if we are to protect the future.

President Emmanuel Macron

The French president’s declaration harmonizes with what had been said before. Adopting the solemn but emotional tone he favors, he rejects attempts to backtrack on Jacques Chirac’s acknowledgment of French responsibility for the crimes of Vichy, dismissing, without naming Marine le Pen, the subtle distinctions of negationism. “Vichy was not all of France,” says the president, “but it was France.” Going one step further than his predecessors, Macron maintains that the Vichy government was not an ex nihilo aberration, not a parenthesis but the fruit of 3rd Republic antisemitism going back to the Dreyfus affair and persisting after the Nazi defeat. The administration, the elites, political leaders, journalists, collaborators, Darquier de Pellepooix, Céline’s Bagatelle pour un massacre, Pierre Laval “gave free rein to vices already at work in the 3rd Republic.” Savagery is forged first in the spirit. Hitler began with Mein Kampf. A nation is not humiliated by repentancethe admission of when and how it failed. The French president, too, paid tribute to the righteous gentiles and the résistance, our “national pride.” But this corruption of the spirit is present today. Racism and antisemitism lead to acts of extreme violence. The president lists Jewish victims of this antisemitism, from Ilan Halimi to Sarah Halimi, adding: “Despite the murderer’s denials, the court must shed light on the death of Sarah Halimi.” the admission of when and how it failed. The French president, too, paid tribute to the righteous gentiles and the résistance, our “national pride.” But this corruption of the spirit is present today. Racism and antisemitism lead to acts of extreme violence. The president lists Jewish victims of this antisemitism, from Ilan Halimi to Sarah Halimi, adding: “Despite the murderer’s denials, the court must shed light on the death of Sarah Halimi.” President Macron, too, named distinguished survivors of the Shoah—Simone Veil, Samuel Pisar, Elie Wiesel—and countless anonymous heroes who showed courage and humanity to the very end. Then he rose to lofty eloquence, rising to heights of humanity, inspiring citizens to enlist in the combat for goodness on every front, for refugees, against discrimination, for culture and education, against climate change, terrorism, obscurantism, the despair, discrimination, and second class citizenship that breeds hatred and the reinvention of antisemitism that is anti zionism,. He poetically evokes the children, victims of the rafle du vel d’hiv, that wanted to live, and were exterminated so cruelly. And he solemnly promises to make France a country where they would have wanted to live and where their memory will live forever.

End of ceremony, enter harsh reality

And here is the tragic reality. If the descendants of those children lived in France today, they might have to hide their kippot and Magen Davids, they might be harassed out of schools and neighborhoods, beaten up in the métro, accused of genocide against the Palestinians. If the descendants of those children lived in France today, the children hunted like animals by the French and exterminated by the Nazis, the children whose parents were forced to flee the Arab-Muslim countries, they might be assassinated at a Jewish school in Toulouse, their lives might be shattered by the savage murder of their grandmother in Paris in 2017. And who would be persecuting them? The descendants of immigrants and refugees from Arab-Muslim countries, the underprivileged victims of discrimination that President Macron vows to protect. By taking them out of their ghettos and giving them the social mixity that will soothe their souls. The tender consideration that put a Kobili Traoré in the apartment downstairs of Sarah Halimi. Without first making sure he had integrated the values of the Republic.

The French police did not pound on the door and drag Sarah Halimi from her home in the middle of the night. The police stood down, waiting interminably for reinforcements, while Kobili Traoré beat, smashed, and exterminated a defenseless Jewish woman.

The courage and lucidity to acknowledge the French crimes of the past falters in the face of French crimes of the present. Not all French, but some French. These allahu akhbar killers are French, born in France or welcomed as immigrants. Their genocidal hatred is not a parenthesis, it is ideological, scriptural, historic. When jihad violence is hypocritically minimized as hit or miss criminality, the present borrows from the shameful past.

A two-hour meeting at the Elysées

Apparently Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Macron went straight from the commemoration ceremony to a working session with their respective teams without even stopping for lunch. Two hours later, they emerged for a brief declaration to the press. Before outlining plans for an upcoming visit to Israel in a context of increased friendly high-tech startup cooperation on civilian and anti-terrorist enterprises, President Macron found it necessary to repeat the two-state solution platitudes dear to French foreign policy. Stop that nasty colonization and give us a Palestinian state tout de suite s’il vous plait, with Jerusalem as its capital.

On July 14th, three Arab Israelis came roaring out of the Temple Mount like missiles and fatally shot two Israeli policemen in the back.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Times of Israel.

Is President Trump’s Mideast policy a paradigm shift?

The president has worked on repairing America’s relationship with Israel and articulating the radical Islamist threat.  These gains may be rendered moot, however, if he endorses the ill-informed State Department report.

Ambassador Nikki Haley has been a breath of fresh air since taking up diplomatic residency at the United Nations.  Unlike her immediate predecessors, Haley has been unapologetic in asserting the role of the United States as a global leader.  Since beginning her tenure at the UN, she has helped lay to rest the Obama policy of “leading from behind” which for eight years served to compromise relationships with US allies and create a power vacuum that facilitated Russian and Chinese aggression, empowered Islamic radicalism, enabled the proliferation of terrorism, and assured the nuclearization of Iran. In addition, she has supported Israel without qualification and condemned the UN’s pervasive culture of anti-Semitism.

But is this restatement of priorities to be taken at face value, or does it signal a paradigm shift with respect to Mideast foreign policy?

Many hoped after the Six-Day War in 1967 that Israel could trade land for peace and achieve comity with her Arab neighbors.  However, any overtures were preempted a few months later at the Arab League Summit at Khartoum, which resolved that there would be no peace, no negotiations, and no recognition of Israel.  This consensus was fractured somewhat by the Camp David Treaty between Egypt and Israel, but most Arab-Muslim nations adhered to the “three no’s” until well into the 1990s.  Egyptians, too, have never acknowledged Israel as the ancient Jewish homeland.

The paradigm shifted in 1993 with the Oslo Accords, which effectively validated Palestinian Arab national identity.  Israel thereafter was expected to acknowledge the authenticity of a Palestinian narrative that denied Jewish history and promoted anti-Semitism.  The advent of Oslo gave rise to the slogan “two states for two peoples,” though only one of those peoples had a documented existence and connection to the land since antiquity. Whereas Jewish nationhood goes back 3,500 years and is corroborated by the historical, archeological and scriptural records, the Palestinian narrative is only about fifty years old and has no similar foundation.  It is a post-modern political designation predicated on revisionism and a repudiation of Jewish history.  Nonetheless, proponents of Oslo sanctified the myth with the expectation that Israel would do the same.

“Two states for two peoples” became the marching song of every US administration after Oslo, putting pressure on Israel to make unilateral concessions to an entity that continues to support terrorism and incite Jew-hatred. The Palestinian Authority was represented to be moderate –  and Israel was wrongly regarded as an occupying power, rewriting history and ignoring the influence of extreme Islamic religious doctrine.

The Palestinian Arabs have attempted to undercut Israel’s legitimacy by erasing her past, and the UN has enthusiastically assisted their efforts to write the Jews out of history.  Within the last year alone, UNESCO denied the Jews’ ancient connection to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, and the Security Council pronounced Israeli “settlements” in Judea and Samaria illegal, although they are built on historically Jewish land and their existence violates no international law.  The dissimulation continued with UNESCO’s recent declaration that Machpelah, the Cave of the Patriarchs, is an endangered “Palestinian heritage site” – despite its Jewish provenance and the fact that Hevron was a Jewish city (one of the “four holy cities”) until the Arab riots of 1929.

When President Trump and Jared Kushner met with Mahmoud Abbas to discuss prospects for peace, supporters of Israel questioned whether this White House was falling down the same rabbit hole as prior administrations. These meetings, however, turned out to be a departure from business as usual in their criticism of the PA’s anti-Semitic incitement and funding of terror.  Neither the President nor Kushner came away demanding that Israel stop building on traditional Jewish lands or offer more one-sided concessions. Instead, Abbas was told to stop making payments to terrorists, a demand consistent with current legislation (Senate Bill 3414, the “Taylor Force Act”) that proposes cutting off US funding if the PA continues paying stipends to terrorist families.

And in the UN, Ambassador Haley continues to denounce the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic actions of the Security Council and UNESCO.

For the first time since Oslo, Israel is not being pressured by an American president to make unrequited concessions, or unfairly blamed for the Palestinian quagmire. President Trump seems to understand that: (a) hostility toward Israel constitutes a rejection of Jewish sovereignty anywhere – not just in “disputed territories,” but in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and throughout the Jewish homeland; and (b) this rejectionism is a matter of doctrine, not negotiating strategy.

Whereas the Obama administration ignored the Jews’ unbroken connection to their homeland and seemed to embrace the revisionist tale that Israel is a colonial state created as a guilt response to the Holocaust, the Trump White House presumes Jewish historicity and criticizes Palestinian leadership. This president recognizes that Palestinian rejectionism is dogmatic, and has said he will not impose any solution on Israel.  Moreover, he is not blindly pushing Israel to accept a two-state solution for which there is no historical precedent.

Perhaps the time has come for Washington to proclaim the two-state solution unworkable and acknowledge that real peace requires a fundamental change in how the Arab-Muslim world regards the Jews. The White House should also publicly affirm the historical basis of Jewish national claims, and, by extension, Israel’s legitimacy.

There never was a country called “Palestine,” though there was jihadist conquest in the Land of Israel and subjugation of the Jews, thereafter accorded the status of dhimmis (subjugated) under Sharia. Hostility to Jewish autonomy did not arise from the competing claims of an ancient indigenous population, but from generations of anti-Jewish degradation in Islamic society.

The most significant expression of jihadist chauvinism was the usurpation of the Temple Mount – the holiest site in Judaism – claimed to constitute the third holiest site in Islam, despite not being mentioned in the Quran. Indeed, there is no historical or scriptural support for Muslim claims to Jerusalem or the Temple Mount, appropriated pursuant to the tradition of Islamicizing the sacred places of subjugated peoples.

The UN has a poor record of safeguarding Jewish landmarks, as exemplified by its failure to prevent the destruction of ancient synagogues and cemeteries during Jordan’s illegal occupation of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

The doctrinal repudiation of Jewish history is not solely the province of Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and ISIS, but reflects the ideology of the PA as well.  Abbas demonstrated this several years ago when he said the PA would never recognize a Jewish State and reiterated the “no recognition vote” of Fatah’s Revolutionary Council, which at its fifth convention in 2010 affirmed its “rejection of the so-called Jewish state, or any other formula that could achieve this goal.”  Though the PA claims to be moderate, its rejectionism has the same theological foundation that motivates radical Islamists, who hold that because the Jews were subjugated and their homeland subsumed into “dar al-Islam,” they are forever precluded from reclaiming their sovereignty.

Barack Obama rewarded PA duplicity by keeping American aid flowing and demanding that Israel freeze construction in Judea and Samaria.  In contrast, Trump’s administration has discussed cutting off funding if the PA continues supporting terrorism, and has refrained from demanding that Israel cease building on Jewish soil.

What isn’t clear is the administration’s position regarding overtures from other Arab countries.  The Saudis and Sunni states would certainly benefit from Israeli action against Iran’s nuclear program, but that does not guarantee their interest in genuine peace.  Although the Saudis have offered their own peace initiative, it calls for Israel to withdraw from ancestral Jewish land (including Jerusalem) and relocate millions of “refugees” within its borders, thus diluting the Jewish population.  Moreover, critics note that it would supplant bilateral negotiations and effectuate an imposed resolution.

There is also concern about whether the president agrees with the State Department’s shocking annual Report on Terrorism, which blames Israeli policies for inciting Palestinian terrorism, and whether the report accurately reflects the views of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.  If these are in fact Tillerson’s views, the administration should disavow them.

The president has worked on repairing America’s relationship with Israel and articulating the radical Islamist threat. These gains may be rendered moot, however, if he endorses the ill-informed State Department report and believes that a terror war which began a century ago can be justified retrospectively as a response to modern-day policy. On the other hand, if his outlook is more consistent with that of Ambassador Haley, it might indeed signal a shift in policy and indicate an awareness of the consequences of American inaction or misdirection.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Israel National News.

How My 40th Wedding Anniversary Relates to Race in America

Sunday, July 23, 2017, was Mary and my 40th wedding anniversary. We celebrated at our favorite sushi restaurant. I enjoyed sashimi (raw fish without rice). Over 40 years ago, I brought this outspoken hippie blonde home to meet my black parents. Dad was a Methodist minister. I instructed Mary not to speak, confident she would say something to offend them.

Entering my parent’s home, Mary asked what is that horrible smell? I said that is dinner. Mom was cooking my favorite hog maws and chitterlings.

Dad was the pastor of our all black community’s Methodist Church. His eldest son dating a white girl was embarrassing.

Upon meeting me, Mary’s grandma said, “Lloyd is nice, But couldn’t you have found a nice white boy to marry?” As fate would have it, Mary’s grandma later succumbed to Alzheimer’s disease. The only family member she recognized was me. Excited, she would yell, “LLOYD” and give me a hug.

God really did right by me, gifting me with Mary; my greatest fan. I can honestly say I would not be who I am today had I married anyone else. I wrote and recorded a song to Mary many moons ago titled, “When I Look In Your Eyes.” The lyrics of the song are truer today than when I wrote them 30 years ago.

My parents were married for 45 years before mom passed away. I asked my now 89 year old dad how to make a marriage last. Dad said there always has to be one of you thinking correctly and praying. Dad said sometimes it was him and other times it was my mom.

Mary has always been super supportive of my endeavors; acting, my paintings, music career, writing and etc. Forty years ago, Natalie Reed, an extremely bright, beautiful and classy lady driving a pink Cadillac showed up at our home to present Mary with an opportunity to sell Mary Kay Cosmetics. Mary was hooked, became a beauty consultant and Natalie was her mentor.

The company had a sales contest in which beauty consultants had to make 10 presentations (shows) in a week. Mary entered the contest. I blew the whole thing off as her silly little make-up project.

Mary quickly booked her 10 shows, but women began canceling. Mary desperately re-booked shows. Plus, our car broke down. Still, Mary stayed laser focused on winning the contest. Finally, it dawned on me. This is a really big deal to her. I began doing whatever I could to help.

There were hundreds of beauty consultants and company big wigs at the banquet to announce the winner of the contest. My heart nearly exploded out of my chest when the sales director at the podium said the award for highest sales of the entire freaking region goes to Mary Parker Marcus. With great pride I thought, “Yeah, that’s my wife.”

I learned the importance of giving back to my wonderful supportive wife.

This month, we are relocating from Florida to a tiny town in West Virginia to be closer to our parents. West Virginia is not my favorite choice, but it will make Mary happy. And that is good enough for me.

On the day of my 40th wedding anniversary I received an email from a Leftist named Edward. He gave his full name, but I will not expose him. Edward began his email with “You are an a**. You sir are a vile piece of s***!” Edward then went into a passionate vitriolic rant against me, Trump and Jesus.

Normally, I laugh and delete hateful emails. But for some reason, I felt a bit sorry for Edward and responded to his email. Obviously, he is in pain and out of his mind with rage from consuming fake news regarding conservatism, Trump and Christianity.

I thought, “Why does this guy hate me so much?” In a nutshell, my writings are about spreading the truth to empower people. I tell fellow blacks that they are blessed to be born in the greatest land of opportunity on the planet. I tell them to forget the victim nonsense and simply pursue their dreams.

Over 40 years ago when I met Mary, interracial dating was taboo. We were verbally assaulted by blacks and physically attacked by whites on a hand full of occasions. In a surprise attack in a family restaurant, a white guy smashed a beer bottle over my head and ran out of the restaurant. He was later prosecuted.

Today, interracial couples hardly receive a second glance. Despite the insidious hate-generating lies of Black Lives Matter and fake news media, we have come a long ways baby in regards to race relations. Americans electing Obama for two terms should have ended Leftists’ lie that America will always be a hellhole of racism; scheming 24/7 how to keep blacks down.

Meanwhile, Mary and I enjoyed a fabulous 40th wedding anniversary.

Communism’s attack on America never died — It just changed tactics

The U.S. is undergoing a cultural revolution similar to the one in England and Europe. If you believe our Democracy as outlined in the U.S. Constitution cannot be destroyed by the insidious cultural attack on our core values enshrined in the Hebrew Bible and the Christianity that is embodied in those Biblical moral codes you are mistaken.

The West thought they had defeated Communism with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Nothing could be further from the truth. What changed was the Left’s tactics.

Ms Melanie Phillips clearly points out:

“What they [leaders in the West] never understood – at least, most of them – was that the left-wing war to destroy the west had not in fact ended but merely shifted its strategy. Instead of the workers seizing control of the levers of the economy, the left would now seize control of the levers of the culture – the universities, media, civil service, churches, the legal profession – and subvert them from within”.

“Its aim was to undermine and weaken the normative values of the west and then flip them, so that what was transgressive became normative while what was normative became ostracized as transgressive. That way the west would be destroyed and would be transformed into… quite what was never very clear, but some kind of new world order”.

“The institutions at which this cultural revolution took particular aim were the family and the education system – the principal means though which a culture replicates itself”.

Read this important article by Ms Phillips a brilliant journalist, speaker and author…

THE TORY JACOBINS

The reason why conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic have lost their way so badly in recent years is that they never understood, and paid scant attention to, the culture wars. In Britain, this has now led some of them to come out as warriors on the wrong side.

Conservatism is not an ideology but an attitude of mind. It involves identifying and holding onto what is most valuable and defending it against erosion or attack. In the 18th century this was embodied in the thinking of Edmund Burke, widely considered to be the philosophical godfather of conservative thought, when he defended freedom and human rights against the barbarism of the French Revolution.

In the 20th century, conservatives knew what they were defending and against whom. They were defending liberty and democracy against Soviet communism. When the Soviet Union collapsed, they assumed their fox had been shot since everyone seemed to have accepted capitalism.

What they never understood – at least, most of them – was that the left-wing war to destroy the west had not in fact ended but merely shifted its strategy. Instead of the workers seizing control of the levers of the economy, the left would now seize control of the levers of the culture – the universities, media, civil service, churches, the legal profession – and subvert them from within.

Its aim was to undermine and weaken the normative values of the west and then flip them, so that what was transgressive became normative while what was normative became ostracised as transgressive. That way the west would be destroyed and would be transformed into… quite what was never very clear, but some kind of new world order.

The institutions at which this cultural revolution took particular aim were the family and the education system – the principal means though which a culture replicates itself.

Read more.

A Tale of Two Cities: Houston vs Chicago

Thanks and a tip o’ the hat to Frank for this analysis.

Tale of 2 Cities

 City CHICAGO, IL HOUSTON, TX
Population 2.7 million 2.15 million
Median HH Income $38,600 $37,000
% African-American 38.9% 24%
% Hispanic 29.9% 44%
% Asian 5.5% 6%
% Non-Hispanic White 28.7% 26%

Pretty similar until

City Chicago, IL Houston, TX
Concealed Carry – Legal No Yes
# of Gun Stores None 184 Dedicated gun stores plus 1500 – legal places to buy guns–Wal-Mart, K-mart, sporting goods, etc.
Homicides, 2012 500 207
Homicides per 100K 38.4 9.6
Av. January high temp (F) 31 63

Conclusion: Cold weather causes murders. This is due to global warming.

Would Baby Charlie Have Gotten Death Sentence if Not a White Male?

Would baby Charlie have gotten his death sentence were he not a white boy? It may seem an odd question, but there’s a good reason to pose it.

The poor child at issue is Charlie Gard, a British infant thus far denied medical treatment by the U.K. government — even though his parents can pay for it themselves. So much for death panels being a myth.

Charlie has a serious genetic condition called mitochondrial depletion syndrome, which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage. The details of it aren’t important here, however. What’s significant is that the boy’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, have raised $1.7 million via crowd-funding and can pay for travel and treatment themselves; this would allow them to bring Charlie to the U.S. for a novel therapy offered by a Dr. Michio Hirano.

“Would” is the operative word because the British medical establishment, bureaucracy and courts have, again, thus far said “No, you may not seek further treatment for your son. It doesn’t matter that you’re paying the piper; we’re calling the tune and say he must be allowed to die with ‘dignity’” (as if these statists have even the foggiest idea what that is).

And we’ll have to wait to see if it matters that, according to Dr. Hirano, the new therapy would give Charlie an 11 to 56 percent chance of meaningful improvement, which, even under Common Core math, is far better than the zero percent chance offered by Oceania. (Note: British authorities just recently granted Charlie an 11-day “stay of execution,” so to speak, so that Hirano can travel to the U.K. to evaluate him.) But on to my opening, eyebrow-and-doubts-raising question.

To illustrate why I ask it, here’s a little background. It was revealed in 2014 that British authorities had ignored Pakistani Muslim child sex-trafficking rings for 16 years — even though the perpetrators were responsible for the abuse (and sometimes torture) of at least 1400 girls, some as young as 12. In fact, when complaints were made, the girls were often dismissed as tramps to justify the inaction.

Of course, they were only white girls.

And this abuse is still occurring, we hear.

The reason for turning this blind eye has been absolutely established: The authorities, from police to bureaucrats to social workers, were afraid that pursuing Muslim criminals would get them branded “racist.”

In fact, some of the girls who went to the police “were told they were being racist,” reported The Federalist. And a Home Office researcher attempting to blow the whistle was warned by a colleague that she “must never [again] refer to Asian men” (“Asian” references Muslims in the U.K.). She also was forced into diversity indoctrination to raise her “awareness of ethnic issues.”

You see, better to allow young girls to be raped and brutalized than to, as one British politician put it, “rock the multicultural community boat.”

That is, in today’s (formerly) Great Britain — one of the more politically correct places on Earth.

Now back to poor Charlie. Would the powers-that-be have denied the opportunity for life if he were, let’s say, a Muslim female?

I believe the likely answer is no. They’d be too afraid of accusations of racism (yes, I know “Muslim” isn’t a race, but leftists use “racism” as synonymous with “bigotry”); they’d be worried about their reputations and careers. Their whole mindset would be different. Remember, again, the U.K. is a place where the rape of little white girls is preferable to the implicating of swarthy men.

Yet it’s not just fears of labeling, but also something far darker. In today’s world of identity politics — where we hear about mythical “white privilege,” “dead white males,” “the problem of whiteness” college courses, and prohibitions against whites expressing opinions — white males are lowest on the totem pole. They get the most grief and blame and the least consideration and charity — and compassion. Hey, given group voting patterns, Charlie could grow up to be a Tory or, perish the thought, even a Brexit supporter.

To be clear, I’m not saying the biases in question here are generally conscious. They are mainly, if not completely, those unconscious biases (you know, those things you leftists ever warn about but always get wrong). Man has a great capacity for rationalization, and Charlie’s grim-reaper judges have no doubt convinced themselves they’re acting in the “best interests of the child.” And were the baby a Muslim female, I suspect they would’ve rendered the opposite decision and deferred to the parents without prodding, again convincing themselves of their righteousness.

To those taking offense at my speculation, realize it’s similar to when activists respond to the shooting of a black criminal by claiming it wouldn’t have happened had the miscreant been white. The only difference is that they’re wrong — police are actually more likely to shoot white criminals than black ones — while my suspicion has a basis in today’s social reality.

And this reality is that with the current group spoils system, race and sex can determine one’s chance of enjoying college scholarships, good jobs, justice in court and, perhaps even, life itself.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLE: How Britain’s Surrender to the UN Led to Charlie Gard’s Fate

In God’s Good Time: A Review of ‘Dunkirk’

Brad Miner reviews Christopher Nolan’s war saga. It’s the best film of 2017 (and among the best war films ever made) because it understands that character is key.

I recall being stunned and impressed when I read, at some point after the fact, that the mobilization of rescue boats on the Hudson River on 9/11 evacuated nearly half-a-million people from Lower Manhattan to New Jersey – on Coast Guard vessels, of course, but also on private yachts, tugs. and barges – an operation larger than the exodus of British troops from Dunkirk in 1940.

I thought: the Can-Do Spirit lives! Many thought it dead, but, if so, it was resurrected on that sunny Tuesday: light briefly breaking through on one of our darkest days.

And that light and that spirit shine vividly in Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk, by far the best film of 2017.

The brief history: At the end of May 1940, more than 300,000 retreating British, Canadian, French, and Belgian forces had their backs against the English Channel with the German army driving in on them. Because of the maritime geography, getting most British Navy ships close to shore was impossible. Besides, the Admiralty had made the terrible, if necessary, decision to hold back the main naval force.

The situation in Dunkirk seemed so grim that those ships had to be held in reserve against a likely German invasion of Great Britain. . .if the soldiers awaiting evacuation were lost.

Notwithstanding that, as one character in Dunkirk says, “We have to get our Army back!”

So the decision was made to mount what seems in retrospect – thoughprospectively – a kind of reverse D-Day. But the only rescue flotilla that can be launched to the coast of Northern France this time is mostly comprised of private vessels.

Except for its structural conceits, Dunkirk is similar to many fine war films, such as Saving Private Ryan (1998), A Bridge Too Far (1977), and The Longest Day (1962) – epics, yes, but films that understand that no matter how grand the scope or electrifying the action, character is key – characters brought to life by fine actors.

The cast of Dunkirk is as good as in any film of its kind, with familiar stars (Kenneth Branagh, 56, and Tom Hardy, 39, are two) and newcomers (for instance, Fionn Whitehead, 20, and Barry Keoghan, 24), in an ensemble that suggests how the raw courage of youth must, in the successful prosecution of a war, be complemented by the steely determination of experience.

Click here to read the rest of Mr. Miner’s review . . .

 

Facebook censor: ‘When I can save someone from seeing something, I find that really good’

“Holocaust denial, incitement of hatred, as well as racist and anti-Semitic speech are all illegal under German law.”

Holocaust denial is a fairly straightforward concept, as is anti-Semitic speech, but “incitement of hatred” and “racist” speech are much less clearly definable concepts. Who gets to decide what is “incitement of hatred” and “racism”? Why, the nameless Facebook censors profiled in this article, all of whom no doubt have a far-Left point of view.

For years, Islamic and Leftist groups have insisted that any analysis of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite violence and hatred was itself “incitement of hatred.” Now the other shoe has dropped: Facebook and other hard-Left social media outlets are blocking what they consider to be “incitement of hatred,” with no notice, no appeal, and no recourse.

Consequently, referrals from Facebook to Jihad Watch dropped by 90% in mid-February, and never recovered. Reporting on jihad activity is not in any genuine sense “incitement of hatred,” but the Left says it is, and so that is the end of the matter.

Meanwhile, Facebook has repeatedly assured the Pakistani government that it will enforce Sharia blasphemy laws:

Many people will no doubt respond to this article that it doesn’t matter: they avoid Facebook, and everyone else should as well. That’s fine, but Facebook still has a massive international clientele, giving it extraordinary power over the means of communication. And it is, under the guise of policing “hate speech,” steadily choking out all voices that don’t toe the far-Left line.

This is extremely important, as the freedom of speech is indispensable to the freedom of society in general. But since the Left controls so much of the means of communication, it has gotten scant notice. Most people do not realize how far advanced the war against the freedom of speech really is. I lay it all out in my new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies).

“‘No more faith in humanity’: A day in the life of Berlin Facebook moderators,” The Local, July 11, 2017 (thanks to M.):

For the first time, Facebook opened up its Berlin centre for deleting hateful or violent content, providing journalists with a glimpse into the workers’ everyday dealings with decapitation videos, racist propaganda and child pornography.

“I still remember the first beheading video – I turned it off, went outside and wept a little bit,” said one female employee.

But she said that this was her only breakdown, because the first time she was unprepared.

“Now we’re so used to it, that it’s not so horrible anymore,” the 28-year-old explained.

This was the first time that journalists were allowed to speak with three workers at Facebook’s deletion centre, though they were not allowed to give their names so as to protect their identities.

In total, 650 people work in this multifaceted operation to examine and delete posts which could be considered illegal, or against Facebook’s own rules.

They alert Facebook when they believe that someone could harm themselves or others. These workers have already been able to prevent suicides through subsequent contact with police, they say.

One of their least stressful tasks is also to verify the authenticity of accounts.

Facebook is now facing increased pressure from the German government to crack down on hate speech, after the Bundestag (German parliament) recently passed a law to fine social media companies up to €50 million for not swiftly removing illegal content.

The legislation – one of the toughest in the world – came amid a rise in racist content posted online, often in response to the refugee crisis, which has brought in around one million asylum seekers since 2015.

Holocaust denial, incitement of hatred, as well as racist and anti-Semitic speech are all illegal under German law.

But opponents of the so-called “hate speech law” have cautioned that the fines could stifle free speech, with social networks opting to delete rather than thoroughly vet content out of fear of being punished. Facebook itself condemned the law before its passage for allowing the state to “pass on its own failures and responsibilities to private companies”….

“We feel good about what we do. When I can save someone from seeing something through my work, then I find that really good,” she said, adding that if she had kids, she also would not want them to stumble upon certain content….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Orban: “Europe must regain sovereignty from the Soros empire,’ build border wall to stop ‘Muslimized Europe’

Minneapolis: Muslim cop who shot unarmed woman was fast-tracked onto police force

I Shared Trump’s Annoyance at Jeff Sessions

Everyone is having a cow over Trump criticizing AG Jeff Sessions for removing himself from the absurd FBI investigation that Trump stole the election by scheming with the Russians.  Clearly, Sessions was clueless as to what the Trump Administration continues to deal with. Out of their minds with rage over Trump defeating Hillary and dismantling Obama’s tyrannical legacy, Leftists have launched civil war on Trump and his voters. No tactic is too low, dishonest or too evil.

Sessions stepping down from the FBI Trump/Russian FBI investigation was the equivalent of bringing an olive branch to a gunfight. Sessions did not win any goodwill from Leftists for his unnecessary and unwise decision to step aside. Quite the opposite. Leftists saw Sessions recusing himself as a sign of weakness, blood it the water.

Trump had every right to be annoyed, as was I. It is extremely crucial that Trump surround himself with warriors who understand what he and We the People are up against.

Don’t get me wrong. I like and respect Sessions. He is a good man. However, by stepping aside from the FBI investigation Sessions behaved like a typical Republican, trying to show Leftists who want him politically dead that he is an honorable Republican. Meanwhile, Democrats and fake news media are plotting 24/7 and pulling every dirty gutter trick in the book to remove our president.

Fake news media tried to pressure Sessions into resigning, claiming it is impossible for Sessions to continue after the president has expressed a lack of confidence in him. Fake news media are enemies of We the People and the Trump Administration. Therefore, their call for Sessions to quit is yet another dirty trick; an opportunity to further their ongoing narrative that the Trump Administration is a mess. Remember, Leftists’ goal is to flood the airways with negatives about Trump 24/7.

Thank God, Sessions did not fall for it. Sessions says he has no intention of resigning. I pray this is a sign that Sessions finally gets it, realizing the deceitful anti-Trump scoundrels we must defeat.

The Special Council investigating Trump has gotten out of hand. Robert Mueller has a small army of Obama and Clinton supportive anti-Trump lawyers wearing latex gloves.  They are giving Trump’s business dealings with Russia a deep anal exam going back ten years. Are we expected to believe the absurd allegation that Trump began colluding with Russia ten years ago to steal the election? Mueller’s anti-Trump lawyers will thrust their investigative arms deep into the caverns of Trump’s business for however long it takes to find something to remove him from the Oval Office.

Considering that no human being is perfect, it is likely Mueller’s hit squad will find a nugget of something to blow up as an excuse to impeach Trump.

Why aren’t Republicans standing up for our president, righteously raising heck over this never ending unprecedented intrusion into his business affairs. Meanwhile, these same Leftist lawyers who are performing a deep probe into Trump’s business practices supported Obama keeping his college transcripts a secret. Why isn’t Trump’s DOJ shutting this overreaching nonsense down; saying enough is enough; stop this insanity?

I suspect many in the GOP are still never-Trump or still don’t get it. Remarkably, some Republicans still naively believe they will not be trashed by fake news media if they can prove they are fair-minded good guys who seek to work with the democrats. Meanwhile, democrats and fake news media interpret Republicans extending olive branches as weakness to be exploited; an opportunity to plunge a dagger into Trump and Republicans’ political hearts.

Far too many people supposedly on our side do not appear to realize that we are in a battle for the heart and soul of America; patriots vs Leftists. Thank God, Trump understands this reality and is willing to fight pedal to the metal. This is why he was annoyed by Sessions stepping down, surrendering ground to our enemies. His cabinet needs to stop playing footsie with our enemies and get with the program. You give Leftists an inch and they will take a mile.

We the People elected Trump to do battle with anti-America Leftists. Despite fake news polls, we remain firmly in Trump’s corner, ready for battle. We are prayed up. We trust God and have kept our powder dry. Let’s roll Mr President.

Transgenderism: The Big Absurdity

Voltaire wrote, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

When I was growing up it was very clear that a male was a male and a female was a female. Sexual identity was based upon your biological sex at birth. Science defined your sex based upon your chromosomes at the time of conception.

Wikipedia notes sexual differences in humans as follows,

“A baby’s genetic sex is determined at the time of conception. When the baby is conceived, a chromosome from the sperm cell, either X or Y, fuses with the X chromosome in the egg cell, determining whether the baby will be genetically female (XX) or male (XY). To be genetically female, one needs to be (XX), whereas to be a genetic male, (XY) is needed.”

Science prevailed, today science is being ignored to create a new class of protected individuals who define their own “gender.” Gender is not genetic sex. Gender is defined as.

The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

Transgenderism is the “big absurdity.”

Transgenderism and homosexuality are absurdities that have lead to individuals committing atrocities upon themselves, their families and society.

But don’t tell that to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the primary sponsor of the The Teaching Transgender Toolkit (TTT) website. The TTT website states:

The Teaching Transgender Toolkit is a detailed collection of best practices, lesson plans and resources for those who wish to facilitate trainings about transgender people, identities and experiences. The first of its kind, this book translates the authors’ decades of experience leading transgender-related trainings and educational best practices into a guide that can be used by trainers of all levels to provide accurate and effective trainings. Whether you are a novice who has never led a training before, or you are an expert trainer or an expert on transgender identities, the Teaching Transgender Toolkit has something for you!

To become a transgender you need a tool kit.

One has to “train” to become a transgender.

One cannot change their genetic sex, however there are those, like TTT’s sponsors Planned Parenthood, Out for Health a Project of Planned Parenthood and Education, Training and Research (ETR), whose sole purpose is to “teach” boys and girls to believe they are neither a boy or a girl.

In an April 2016 column titled “Transgenderism: Misogyny Writ Large” Judith Reisman, Ph.D, writes:

Adopting “gender uncertainty” policies that permit access to vulnerable women and girls provides predators with greater access to victims. Predators can enter the private spaces of opposite-sex students without detection if they reject their birth sex or dress in opposite-sex clothing. And with the force of law protecting “transgender” students and staff, one is unlikely to report a cross-dressed person for fear of being accused of discrimination. Catch 22. Gotcha!

Read more.

Dr. Reisman warned, “Remember, the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights’ “PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY” reports that elementary and secondary students do mimic what they learn, becoming perpetrators. We must revisit the fallout of the obscene sexual revolution in sex ed and pornography. Was it the road to sexual liberation or the road to sexual slavery?”

Thomas D. Williams, PhD, in an August 2016 column titled “Physicians Decry Pseudo-Science of Transgenderism, ‘Absurd’ to Say Anyone is Born Into ‘Wrong Body’” wrote:

The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) has released a position paper denouncing popular approaches to transgender, declaring that the current protocol is founded upon “unscientific gender ideology,” which lacks any basis in real evidence.

The physicians argue that the assumption that gender dysphoria (GD)—a psychological condition in which people experience a marked incongruence between their experienced gender and their biological sex—is innate contradicts all relevant data and is based on ideology rather than science.

Studies have shown, the authors contend, that the “perspective of an ‘innate gender identity’ arising from prenatally ‘feminized’ or ‘masculinized’ brains trapped in the wrong body is in fact an ideological belief that has no basis in rigorous science.”

“GD is a problem that resides in the mind not in the body. Children with GD do not have a disordered body—even though they feel as if they do,” the doctors note. “Likewise, although many men with GD express the belief that they are a ‘feminine essence’ trapped in a male body, this belief has no scientific basis.”

Transgenderism is a function of nurture not nature.

Whether its a parent, friend, colleague, public school teacher, professor, religion or government that is promoting transgenderism it leads the individual to question their sex when there is no scientific basis for doing so.

Today we are seeing played out what Voltaire wrote, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Camille Paglia: ‘Transgender Propagandists’ Committing ‘Child Abuse’

Rocklin Is Roiling after Trans School Lesson

I Was a Transgender Soldier. Gender Dysphoria Poses Real Problems for Military.

Minnesota Is Pushing Gender Identity Debate on Kindergartners

Pomona College Allegedly Knew of LGBT Director’s Anti-White, Anti-Heterosexual Tweets before Hiring Him

Target paints a bull’s-eye on women – www.washingtontimes.com

Man arrested for placing video camera in Target bathroom

10 Examples of Men Abusing Target’s Dangerous Policy

‘Transgender’ male arrested for taking pictures of woman in Target changing room

“Transgenderism: Misogyny Writ Large” – Judith Reisman, Ph.D

Top Twenty Sexual Crimes Committed at Target Stores – www.breitbart.com

Top Twenty-Five Stories Proving Target’s Pro-Transgender Bathroom Policy
Is Dangerous to Women and Children

Sex Offender Tries to Film Woman in Target, So She Films Him as He Runs Away: Viral Video

RESOURCES:

Help for Those Struggling with Sex-Change Regret – www.sexchangeregret.com

INCIDENTS ON RECORD: 

Compiled List of Predators in Women’s Facilities

The Jewashing of George Soros

Anti Semite George Soros is the moving force behind  –‘MoveOn.org‘ and J Street that was embraced by the Obama administration and is an ardent Democrat supporter.

Who George Soros is is less important than the question—-why do so many Democrats support him? and why does he support them?

The Jewashing of George Soros

Millions of Jews are anti-Semitic for calling out an anti-Semite.

July 21, 2017

Daniel Greenfield

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

George Soros hates Jews.

He collaborated with the Nazis during the Holocaust and insisted that helping confiscate property from Jews brought him no guilt. “There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets that if I weren’t there of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would.” He described the season of these horrors as “the most exciting time of my life.”

Soros grew up in a “Jewish, anti-Semitic home”. He called his mother a “typical Jewish anti-Semite” who hated his first wife because she was “too Jewish”. After undergoing psychoanalysis, he was able to understand that his shame was rooted in his Jewishness. He had a special contempt for Jewish philanthropies after a failed attempt to defraud a Jewish charity in London.

He was booed when he undermined the presentation of an award to a Holocaust survivor by comparing Israeli Jews to Nazis. Elie Wiesel had declared in disgust, “I heard what happened. If I’d been there—and you can quote me—I would have walked out.”

That same year, Soros blamed the Israeli government for a “resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe”. He might have been more honest if he took responsibility considering his funding of groups that traffic in anti-Semitic smears. And his own anti-Semitic allegations that “attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby’s success in suppressing divergent views.”

Soros has defended Hamas and Hezbollah who have called for the extermination of the Jews. He championed the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt despite or because of its support for Hitler. Yusuf al-Qaradawi had claimed that Hitler had been sent by Allah to punish the Jews. “Allah willing,” the Brotherhood’s spiritual leader said, “the next time will be at the hands of the believers (Muslims).”

There’s no denying that George Soros is a warped and twisted man. Especially when it comes to the Jews. But he’s also the money man behind a great deal of leftist activism. Especially anti-Israel activism.

And so he must be defended.

An editorial at New York Times by a figure linked to the +972 anti-Israel hate site decries “Israel’s War Against George Soros”. That’s right up there with Poland’s war on Nazi Germany.

What does this war consist of? Has Israel sent drones to the Soros estate? Did Mossad agents drag George out of his featherbed to face the justice of those injured through his actions?

No.

The “war” consisted of one statement. The Israeli Foreign Ministry condemned Soros for “continuously undermining Israel’s democratically elected governments,” and backing hate groups “that defame the Jewish state and seek to deny it the right to defend itself.” Not only is it true, but it’s underwhelming.

Even by the low fake news standards of today’s extremist media, you expect something more from a headline screaming “Israel’s War Against George Soros” than a single restrained criticism.

Read more.

Illinois Bishop Calls Out Gay Lobby by Rodney Pelletier

SPRINGFIELD, Il. (ChurchMilitant.com) -Bishop Thomas Paprocki, head of the diocese of Springfield, Illinois, is calling out the gay lobby in the Church.

In a decree dated June 12, 2017, and titled, “Decree Regarding Same-sex ‘Marriage’ and Related Pastoral Issues,” Paprocki declared that clergy or representatives of the diocese cannot bless so-called same-sex unions or provide church facilities or objects for events connected to gay weddings. He further asserted that people in same-sex sexual relationships cannot present themselves for Holy Communion, serve any ministerial role in a parish, and if they die unrepentant, they cannot have Catholic funerals.

After being attacked by many self-proclaimed Catholics, including popular homosexualist Jesuit Fr. James Martin, Paprocki doubled down, clearing up confusion cast by Martin.

In his July 9 letter, Paprocki noted, “The fact that there would be such an outcry against this decree is quite astounding and shows how strong the LGBT lobby is both in the secular world, as well as within the church.”

He noted the decree is “totally consistent with Catholic teaching about the sacraments and the understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman that has prevailed for millennia in all of society, not just in the church.”

The bishop also addresses the criticisms of Fr. Martin, saying “he gets a lot wrong.”

Paprocki noted there is a difference in church law between people who commit sins of a private nature, like those who use birth control and those who are “manifest sinners” who give “public scandal” such as those who have public, legal status in same-sex marriages.

He addressed other situations in which “manifest sinners” cannot present themselves for Holy Communion without repentance and reception of the sacrament of Confession such as:

  • Those who have had sexual relations outside of marriage, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual
  • Those who have had an abortion or have assisted in performing or procuring an abortion
  • Those politicians and judges who helped to make same-sex marriage legal and who aid and abet abortion, for example, by voting for taxpayer funding of abortion
  • Those who use artificial contraception
  • Those who miss Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, unless it would be impossible due to a grave cause such as serious illness

In response to Paprocki’s letter, Bp. Patrick McGrath, the pro-homosexual head of the diocese of San Jose, California, wrote, “We will not refuse sacraments or Christian Burial to anyone who requests them in good faith.” It goes on, “Finally, let us remember and be guided by the words of Pope Francis, ‘The Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.'”

Paprocki is one of the only U.S. Catholic bishops to express the existence of a “gay lobby” in the Church and to issue directives to priests and diocesan representatives to have nothing to do same-sex weddings.

He finishes his letter by affirming, “The truths of the Faith revealed by Our Lord in Scripture and Tradition are not always easy to accept, especially in a world that seeks to make all truth subjective. The fact is that some truths are objective and unalterable.”

Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

Like our work? Support us with a donation.

ABOUT RODNEY PELLETIER

Rodney Pelletier

Rodney Pelletier is a staff writer for ChurchMilitant.com.

Follow Rodney on Twitter: @RodPelletier

The Establishment Hugh Hewitt Mindset Destroys Conservatism

I listen to Hugh Hewitt every day, and was a guest on his nationally syndicated radio program a few years ago. He’s smart, well-informed and one of the best interviewers I’ve ever heard — and I’ve conducted literally thousands of interviews over the course of 25 years in journalism. And maybe his greatest feat is managing to be a football optimist despite being a Cleveland Browns fan.

But Hugh Hewitt and the establishment mindset he brings represents exactly what is wrong in Washington, D.C. today.

He is totally missing what is happening in the country, and just as importantly needs to happen in Washington, because, I think, he is too close. He is the establishment in mindset in that, of course, politicians do whatever needs to be done to get a win in the “W” column and look toward the next election.

Along the way of following this path, the Republican Party has indeed won the levers of control in D.C. — the House, the Senate, the White House and perhaps the Supreme Court — and at the same time gone a long way to losing its soul. Does the Republican Party represent conservative, traditional, Constitutional principles, or does it represent the continuation of Republican politicians’ futures and power in D.C.?

The Hugh Hewitt Mindset lists sharply towards the latter.

What is the Hugh Hewitt Mindset?

Essentially this mindset accepts swimming in the moral, ethical and principle-less cesspool that is current-day Washington, rather than living and leading by the morals, ethics and principles that could begin decontaminating the cesspool.

Yes, it is a lofty goal, and only ever partially achievable.

But the Hugh Hewitt Mindset actively works to puncture holes in the decontamination vessels sent to Washington to serve in Congress.

The Hugh Hewitt Mindset excoriates principled conservatives such as Sens. Mike Lee and Rand Paul who have stood by their beliefs even when taking a beating by the mainstream liberal media, to which Hewitt is dangerously cozy. The Hugh Hewitt Mindset castigates Sen. Ted Cruz for the government shutdown in 2013 and warns of the impending doom it would cause the party — and was proven totally wrong when Republicans swept to massive gains in 2014.

The Hugh Hewitt Mindset tears into the House Freedom Caucus, which tried valiantly to stick to the promises its members made to voters — that is, pour in a modicum of decontaminate —  because in Washington it is totally expected to tell voters one thing and then do something else once elected. The Hugh Hewitt Mindset has no problem with Republicans promising strong conservative principles during campaigns, as long as those principles can be jettisoned to get a W for the Rs.

On the flip side, the Hugh Hewitt Mindset has seemingly no problem with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell running quite conservatively at home in Kentucky (also Rand Paul’s state) when McConnell seeks votes, then governing quite establishment-like in D.C. and tossing aside his conservatism whenever that works better. The Hugh Hewitt Mindset knows this is just the way things are, understands “everybody” does it  — Republicans and Democrats in their respective ways — and accepts that. Gracious comfort is given to McConnell’s duplicity because McConnell can sometimes be effective in the cesspool. But in the end, he only adds contamination to the sludge in the system.

How the Mindset works

Hewitt writes a regular column for the Washington Post — and now has a show on MSNBC — because the Mindset makes him solidly establishment and so broadly acceptable in establishment circles in the media.

Indeed, Hewitt has an unwarranted love affair with the mainstream media. I appreciate many of the journalists he has on, but his obeisance to them is unbecoming, unnecessary and telling. He’s a terrific interviewer and asks many of the right questions and followups, but he legitimizes the most bias mainstream journalists (Glenn Thrush jumps to mind) to his audience of listeners on the conservative Salem Radio Network.

In his most recent Washington Post column, the full Hugh Hewitt Mindset was on display.

Hewitt slammed the “Wall Street Journal ideologues” because they think taxpayers in states that levy state income taxes should not get to deduct those from their federal taxes. The Journal writers understand that, fiscally, such deductions result in federal taxpayers living in states without income taxes — mostly red states — subsidizing the others. Why should Texas and Florida taxpayers be subsidizing the massively irresponsible spending in California and Illinois?

The Hugh Hewitt Mindset? “F.A. Hayek doesn’t vote in large numbers. Blue-state voters with Republican congressmen do.” Snarky, D.C. arrogant, and totally missing the principles of the “ideologues.” Another word for ideology might be principles. Instead, need a W for the Rs.

He writes: “The GOP lacks policy victories, thanks to imprudent Freedom Caucus members and scared moderates.” See? The Freedom Caucus with its foundational conservative principles would not throw them all away and go back on promises to voters regarding repealing Obamacare. They’re the problem. What are scared moderates? Those are incumbents who, if they have principles are far removed from the Founders’, and who would be frightened of losing re-election if they voted for the repeal and replace bill. He understands them.

The Hugh Hewitt Mindset prescription? “Odds of success increase if the parties go big at the start by removing the sequester’s limits on defense spending and adding immigration reform to the deal: appropriations for President Trump’s wall paired with legalization of the law-abiding, undocumented population but no path to citizenship. A truly ambitious “go big” option could also include a settlement of the judicial confirmation wars, because the more moving parts, the better the chances of success. McConnell, Ryan and Democratic leaders Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) could get together with a half-dozen of the smartest members from both parties to work on an expedited basis and go big.”

So basically, get a few really smart people in a backroom, wheel and deal out of the prying eyes of voters and the rest of Congress, make sure lots of people willing to trade their votes for bridges to nowhere get what they want, and then roll out some mammoth piece of porkified legislation covering a thousand political miles. Great idea. Always goes well. And in the end, we would have moved leftward even as Republicans controlled everything. Not an unusual outcome in the mindset.

G.K. Chesterton understood this problem when he wrote in, What’s Wrong with the World: “Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf.”

So if, say, members of the Freedom Caucus were to vote no on such a leviathan bill because they, on principle, oppose legalizing 12 million people who came here illegally — and they promised their voters they would not — the Hugh Hewitt Mindset gives them a sharp smack upside the head and blames them for not being prudent team players and dumping their promises and beliefs. They’re the problem!

The Mindset vs. principles

This is why Republicans are having such a devastatingly difficult time getting anything done, despite having all the power. They are a party divided between the dominating Hugh Hewitt Mindset and a minority holding to foundational principles.

The Democratic Party mostly wants to do stuff to help people — or buy votes, depending on your level of cynicism. But it has very few actual principles, and none that fall within the tradition of the Founders. It’s why Democrats joyfully celebrated a leader who wanted to “fundamentally transform” America. He was the first black President — fine, but not a principle. And he despised the Constitution as a “charter of negative liberties.” That fairly represents a lot of that Party — but not most Americans by a long shot.

But this absence of founding principles puts the Democratic Party on much more comfortable ground in D.C.

The Republican Party remains the repository of long-standing, bedrock American principles such as individual rights, freedom of religion and speech, limited government and capitalism. That formula of understanding that built this nation into the greatest in history is nested within the Republican Party, but rarely acted on.

But when Republicans stand up for those principles, and in doing so endanger some piece of legislation that the establishment leadership desires, they are pilloried by the Hugh Hewitt Mindset. Compromise is a necessity in legislating, but that does not mean burying principles. If this mindset pushes more politicians into compromising principles and campaign promises, or into elevating those who are ever more willing to, then the Republican Party will lose its soul. And if the Republican Party does, where are the foundational American principles to live? Do they ultimately vanish?

19th century theologian and philosopher Tryon Edwards wrote: “Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another — too often ending in the loss of both.”

This is the path of the Hugh Hewitt Mindset.

Yes, I’m using Hewitt as a proxy to represent establishment thinking in D.C. and everywhere else it is to be found.

In Washington, there are no “self-evident truths.” There is winning. There is power and influence. There is re-election. And there is access to power and influence. The Hugh Hewitt Mindset abets the continuation of this sludgy, bad-for-America mindset, which means the continuation of the decline of America.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

Glitz and Silhouettes: An Odyssey to Melania Trump’s Fashion Style

Melania Trump is consistently in the spotlight when it comes to international headlines. As she joins President Trump throughout the trip, her stylish attires catch the public’s attention at every turn. While Donald Trump turns the media crazy while meeting world leaders around the globe, Melania continues to faze the fashion sphere with diplomatic fashion statements.

From high octane glamour, the first lady utilizes the sophisticated reinventions of model-political fashion styles. Ever since moving into the White House, Melania never fails in “dressing to impress.” She became one of the most active first ladies who dresses perfectly for every occasion.

Here are some of Melania Trump’s best first-lady fashion ticks.

Monochromes and Flow

Image result for Melania Trump's

A black and white go-to is mainstream for Melania Trump’s style. In fact, her stylist noted the color choices don’t usually change.“It’s black and white, but at least it’s not the bad blue and red that everyone wears.” She has a penchant for neutral and monochromatic colors.

The all-black or all-white ensemble brings the glitz and elegance of the first-lady just like what she wears in their state visit to Israel. Melania dressed in a white tiered fringe flapper dress by Michael Kors. She also has Gatsby vibes paired with a python Christian Louboutin pumps. She also manages to pull off a conservative all-black outfit during the pontiff meeting.

The first lady also likes wearing signature neutral silhouette dresses showing her curves. Last month, she donned a peplum silhouette by Roland Mouret upon welcoming South Korean President Moon Jae. During 2017 Ford’s Theatre Gala, Melania shows glitz through a  Monique Lhuillier designed champagne-colored dress draped in front.

Prints and Plain

Image result for Melania Trump's

She usually follows trends in the summer by wearing printed dresses. During the annual Bastille Day military parade on the Avenue des Champs-Élysées in Paris, she wore Valentino floral dress. Along with Trump, she attended the second day of G20 summit in Germany wearing a tan summer print dress paired with a Bottega Veneta cashmere coat.

Upon the arrival of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the White House, Melania donned a bright summer print dress by Emilio Pucci. Floral statements also dominate her preferences.

For formal state visits, she usually has a pop of plain colors. After wearing prints for recent occasions, the first lady wore a patriotic red dress by Dior. Melania also donned a white and blue dress for dinner at Le Jules Verne Restaurant together with Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron.

Suits and Dress Coats

Image result for Melania Trump's

The contemporary “power suits” paired with pants or skirts is a trend for politicians. Melania likes to enrobe coat dress. She loves a classic -but-modern belt statement as well. She blends the belts with her coat dresses. The feminine and empowered look gives her an avenue for high-fashion aesthetic.

She also finds this type of outfit versatile for everyday diplomatic errands because the style has deep pockets and jacket edges. Melania doesn’t like to carry handbags, so only put her essential in the pockets.

As a modern first-lady, Melania reinvents diplomatic fashion statements. Together with patterned shoes and punch up accessories, she continues to spice the up the airport runways and hotel lobbies.

Takeaway

From flowing gowns, neutral silhouettes, colorful prints, to tailored suits, Melania manages to pull-off glamorous model-political styles. She transformed into a fine first lady after she moved to the White House wearing simple tank tops and trousers which you can find in online fashion destinations like Seed Heritage.

The former model showcased her fashion sense with different fashion statements and elegant pieces from top designers. Despite the criticisms, Melania stays true to her diplomatic fashion statements from the very beginning. Her powerful way of showing her style tell us that there’s more to watch out for in the coming years.

EDITORS NOTE: Leslie Wyman is a blogger and fashion enthusiast. For two years, she lived in the USA. She is very fond of reading war novels such as Birdsong, the Ghost Road, and the Quiet American. Leslie is also very particular in keeping tabs on online fashion destinations which keeps her updated with exclusive promotions and latest style news.

On Sex Robots: Dehumanizing Sin

Some disassembly required.

David Warren: Some seek satisfaction in robot “love,” but automating sex is wrong. We are facing a new “crisis”: an attempt to dehumanize sin. Fortunately, it can’t be done. 

I don’t know who was surprised, but I wasn’t, to read in some electronic tabloid that sex robots can be programmed for rape. Appalled, perhaps – I am often appalled – but hardly surprised. And not being surprised, the quality of one’s outrage is spoilt. One must pretend to be shocked – as people have been doing for as long as they have been having bad sex.

Or so one might say, roguishly. There is a gap – a wide and deep canyon – between what we like to think is common, and what is. The notion of radical evil having been suppressed, in modern “education,” it is now a rift valley.

“How dare you suggest a woman would lie about something like that!”

This is an actual quote I recall (with confidence, word for word) from the critic of a column I once wrote on family court proceedings. I had suggested that it was unwise of the authorities to assume the truth of all female accusations. And vice versa, too, I had noted: men often lie. The human race is generally capable of bearing false witness, and the ability crosses all sexual, racial, and other demographic lines.

True, I had called my critic “Honey,” but that was in a moment of exasperation she had inspired. More circumspectly I tried to explain how law is supposed to work. How it is supposed to entertain the possibility that the accused may be innocent, of the crime specifically alleged. How the law should at least pretend to be blind to just those factors that she, in her feminist enthusiasm, imagined to be crucial.

Give up on principles like that, and the world will become rather as we find it, today: high-tech and crazy.

She said, too, that men treat women like robots. Well, I can remember saying, they must be robots, if they never lie.

Click here to read the rest of David Warren’s column . . .

David Warren

David Warren is a former editor of the Idler magazine and columnist with the Ottawa Citizen. He has extensive experience in the Near and Far East. His blog, Essays in Idleness, is now to be found at: davidwarrenonline.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: First peek inside Chinese sex robot factory making ‘human-like’ dolls set to ‘GO GLOBAL’

RELATED VIDEO: Top 10 Memorable Female Robots in Movies and TV

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from the film Ex Machina.