Iranians, Iraqis celebrate Soleimani’s death, thank Trump #TnxPOTUS4Soleimani

https://twitter.com/Shivar44045709/status/1213058230668189696?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1213058230668189696&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jihadwatch.org%2F2020%2F01%2Firanians-iraqis-celebrate-soleimanis-death-thank-trump-tnxpotus4soleimani

CNN is reporting about demonstrators in Iran mourning Soleimani and vowing revenge. CNN doesn’t tell you about the other Iranians, as well as Iraqis, who are celebrating the death of the man who was responsible for destroying the lives of so many of their people. See the hashtag #TnxPOTUS4Soleimani on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

SECOND U.S. Airstrikes North of Baghdad – Three Vehicle Convoy of Iran-backed Shia Militia Leaders…

2015: “Obama likes Soleimani, and admires his work,” says Arab Muslim countries should be “more like Iran”

Rose McGowan apologizes to Iran for killing of Soleimani, says “we are being held hostage by a terrorist regime”

Soleimani killing: Russians, Europeans enraged, Pompeo says “Americans in the region are much safer today”

Soleimani helped plan Benghazi jihad massacre of American diplomats UPDATE: 2016 commission found he didn’t

RELATED VIDEO: Greenfield, “Thank You President Trump For Eradicating Suleymani.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Did Ambassador to Ukraine Order State Dept. to Monitor Journalists/Trump Allies?

On this special edition of “Inside Judicial Watch” Amelia Koehn sits down with One America News Network Correspondent, Jack Posobiec, to discuss how former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine from the Obama Administration, Marie Yovanovitch, ordered the State Department to monitor conservative journalists, as well as Trump allies.

U.S. Continues To Dominate World In Legalizing Foreigners

So much virtue signaling. So little truth.

For three years now we’ve endured a deluge of media stories and Democrats on high horses hrumph-hrumphing us that limiting immigration is “not who we are” — which ignores the first half of the 20th century.

“Trump has waged an unrelenting assault on our values and our history as a nation of immigrants,” said Joe Biden, unveiling his plan on far more open immigration if he is elected. “It’s wrong, and it stops when Joe Biden is elected president.”

Not a word of what Biden said was true. And now we can see that the entire partisan picture painted by the media has been either wrong, or wildly out of context — which is no surprise to regular readers. And this comes from no less a source than PolitiFact, which is staffed by media members and therefore is relentlessly partisan in its pronouncements.

The United States legalizes nearly twice as many foreigners as the next three closest nations — combined. In fact, despite what you hear in Democratic debates and read in the pages of the New York Times, America is still the haven of the world, the bright shining city on a hill, and this is proven by the masses coming here…and by the number of foreigners legalized.

This revelation started when Republican Sen. Ron Johnson tweeted last Nov. 13 that, “The United States is the only nation that “grants legal permanent residency to more than a million people per year.”

For some reason, PolitiFact decided to fact-check this six weeks later. Maybe they had a quota to reach of showing they would do conservatives being right, too. Because it is hard to see why they would check this claim otherwise.

Here’s what they reported.

“According to Department of Homeland Security data from 2017, the most recent year available, the number of people who were given legal permanent residence in the U.S. was still over 1.1 million.”

They rated Johnson’s statement as true. Thanks, guys! But also in their reporting, they included these data points which give some great context as to the next three nations in line behind the U.S.:

“In 2018, Canada exceeded its goal of accepting 310,000 permanent residents by about 10,000. The target for 2019 was set at about 313,000, while 2020 is set at 340,000. (We’ll see if Canadians are down with that new, high level.)

Earlier this year, Australia limited its migration cap to accepting only 160,000 permanent new residents a year over the next four years, with its government emphasizing border protection.

New Zealand accepted 142,900 migrants in 2018, which their government considered a high number. Through May 2019, roughly 144,900 migrants arrived in the country this year.”

It’s ironic that it is English-speaking, Christian heritage, majority white Western countries — the very formula assailed by the political left as all that is evil in the world — that are doing most of the work taking in the world’s immigrants. But there it is.

And leading the way, by a blowout margin, remains the United States — under President Trump no less.

Is there one issue on which Democrats can run honestly?

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Iraqi TV says Iran’s Quds Force top dog Soleimani killed in US airstrike at Baghdad’s airport

In August 2018, Soleimani posted an image on Instagram of the White House exploding. His death, if confirmed, shows that the US is now serious about confronting the belligerence and aggression of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

On January 1, 2020, the Ayatollah Khamenei tweeted to Trump: “You can’t do anything.”

“Iraqi TV: Iran’s Gen. Soleimani killed in Baghdad strike,” by Qassim Abdul-Zahra, Associated Press, January 2, 2020:

Baghdad (AP) — Iraqi TV and three Iraqi officials said Friday that Gen. Qassim Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, has been killed in an airstrike at Baghdad’s international airport.

The officials said the strike also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces.

Their deaths are a potential turning point in the Middle East and are expected to draw severe retaliation from Iran and the forces it backs in the Middle East against Israel and American interests.

The PMF blamed the United States for an attack at Baghdad International Airport Friday….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran vows ‘harsh retaliation’ after US airstrike kills Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani – Fox News

In Iran, Economic Despair Leads to Political Rage

Suicide Bombings Worldwide in 2019: Signs of Decline following the Military Defeat of the Islamic State

Breaking: Hours After Trump’s Def. Sec. Warns Iran, Airstrike Devastates Iranian Leadership

Obama Hosted a Terrorist Connected to the Recent U.S. Embassy Attack at the White House

RELATED VIDEO: Top Iranian general killed in US air strike on Baghdad.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Iniquitous Indictments for Invented Infractions

Despite his remarkable success, Netanyahu has been ceaselessly assailed by his political adversaries. Indeed, it is perhaps his very success that has generated such raw rancor against him.

Israel – “a land that devours its inhabitants.” Numbers 13:32.


I would have preferred to have devoted this week’s column to some other topic—such as the ascendance of blatant anti-Semitism around the globe, or the heightening tension between the US and Iran, or the emerging “understanding” with Hamas for “calm” in Gaza. After all, in the recent past, I have focused several times on the topic of the pernicious pursuit and persecution of Benjamin Netanyahu by his political antagonists in a determined—almost desperate—effort to unseat him by means other than the ballot box—which, infuriatingly, has eluded them for over a decade- see: here, here,  here, here,  here and most recently, here.

Dramatic request

But Netanyahu’s dramatic ten minute address on Wednesday evening (January 1, 2020), in which he announced his intention to request parliamentary immunity from the charges to be brought against him for alleged breach of trust and bribery, is sufficiently significant to put other matters on the backburner—at least temporarily. (Reports on the assassination of Qasem Soleiman were just coming in as this article was being prepared for submission.)

As I have set out, in considerable detail, my own grave reservations as to the indictments against Netanyahu, which largely coincide with those of an impressive array of internationally renowned legal experts, I will attempt to avoid restating them here, while urging readers to peruse them once again by means of the hyperlinks provided in the opening paragraph of this column.

Instead, I will focus on Netanyahu’s assertions as to the injustice of the charges brought against him, and the inherent justice of this request for immunity.

In the opening two minutes of his address, he briefly enumerated the extraordinary achievements Israel had attained in the last decade under his premiership, and outlined future challenges facing the country and, which under his leadership, would be successfully met.

Halfway into the third minute, he turned to the allegations against him, pointing out that the whole rationale behind the idea of granting elected parliamentarians immunity was to protect them from biased politically motived legal action. In this regard, Netanyahu underscored that he had been true to his pledge not to advance new legislation to provide him immunity, but that his request was based entirely on the existing law.

The rationale for immunity

He explained: The [existing] Immunity Law is meant to protect incumbent representatives, elected by the public,  from trumped up charges, and from politically motivated indictments, which are intended to undermine the will of the people. This law is meant to ensure that people’s representatives can serve the people according to the will of the people”.
He paused and added, with emphasis: “I said the will of the people, not the will of the bureaucrats”, promising that, once he had completed his stint as prime minister, he “would appear in court to shatter the baseless allegations against me”.

Netanyahu then invoked the words of the President, Reuven Rivlin, who has had an overtly contentious relationship with Netanyahu, and who, arguably because of that relationship, has become the epitome of moderation and respectability for the Center-Left in Israel.Citing from an address by Rivlin at a recent conference, Netanyahu read out: “The legislators created far reaching immunity in order to protect representatives elected by the public…If the prosecutors and investigative authorities decided, because of political reasons , to neutralize a Member of Knesset, they could open an investigation against him—and things like that have happed in the past. People were subjected to criminal investigations and indictments were handed down against them—and there is grave concern that this was done by the authorities with the intention of preventing them from serving as ministers….

Rivlin: Politically biased investigations launched in past

Significantly, Rivlin articulated very similar views, long before the prospect of any indictments against Netanyahu emerged.

Indeed, interviewed while still in his former capacity of Knesset Speaker, he expressed the identical rationale for parliamentary immunity for elected legislators:

We must remember what the logic behind [the idea] of immunity is; what the substantive reason was, which brought the founders of the Knesset…to create over-arching immunity, immunity that is unassailable, for each and every Knesset Member. [It was] the desire to protect publicly elected representatives from the ability of the authorities to bully and intimidate them”.

He explained:

For if someone is elected to the Knesset and an investigation is opened against him, despite the fact that there are no grounds to do so, despite the fact that the suspicions against him are so remote, yet the Prosecutor’s Office or the investigative bodies decide that there is some political need to neutralize him, they will initiate an investigation against him.”

Rivlin declared solemnly:

And things like that have happened here in the State of Israel! Investigations were launched against Knesset Members…”

Here the interviewer interjected:

Despite the fact that there were no ]incriminating] facts or evidence?”

Rivlin responded emphatically:

Indeed! Of course! But beyond that, [unsubstantiated] indictments were handed down or alleged suspects were subjected to criminal investigation under caution in cases where there was grave concern that the authorities did that with the intention of preventing them from becoming government ministers…”

Recriminations resonate

Basing himself on Rivlin’s arguments, Netanyahu declared: “Sadly, this is what happened in my case. Trumped up charges, selective enforcement, extorting state witnesses with threats, witness tampering, a flood of illegal and biased leaks and continual [media] brainwashing to incite against me, and to conduct a kangaroo court by manipulating public opinion.”

I must confess that Netanyahu’s shrill recriminations regarding the odds stacked against him and the motivations of the forces ranged against him resonate strongly with me.

As I have pointed out previously – see for example here— to anyone but a rabid “Bibiphobe”, they appear transparently contrived, indeed, a thinly veiled attempt at a legalistic coup, creating a deep sense of unease that Israel’s legal establishment is being exploited for patent political ends—i.e. that unelected elites are using their positions of influence and authority to bring about political outcomes that do not correspond with—even contradict—the election results…

This, of course, describes exactly the circumstances for which parliamentary immunity was created and in which invoking it is justified.

Indeed, there are plausible reports validating most, if not all, of Netanyahu’s claims of selective prosecutions, extortion of state witnesses and attempted witness tampering –see for example here, here, here, here, and here. Indeed, it seems that the police investigation was so flawed and “over-zealous ”that it drew sharp condemnation from the Head of the Israel Bar Association, prompting the Attorney General Mandelblit to order a probe into how the police had conducted the questioning of witnesses. However, it appears that a gag order was placed on the findings of the probe, prompting yet further censure and misgivings from the Head of the Bar Association.

The accumulated picture from all these reports of investigative malfeasance seems to fit exactly the scenario which Rivlin specified to justify invoking parliamentary immunity.

“Appropriate criteria for criminal prosecution not met…”

But it seems that not only the practical conduct of the investigation and the motivations behind it are disturbingly suspect, but so are the very conceptual foundations on which it is founded.

This was powerfully conveyed by prominent legal expert, Professor Alan Dershowitz in  a piece written almost exactly a year ago, in the far-left daily, Haaretz, entitled Voters, Not the Police or the Courts, Should Decide Netanyahu’s Future.

According to Dershowitz:

The issue at the center of these investigations seems trivial against the background of the existential crises Israel is facing…The first probe, also known as Case 1000, involves gifts of cigars and champagne Netanyahu received from close friends…I strongly believe that the appropriate criteria for criminal prosecution have not been met in the cigar and champagne case against Netanyahu… The other investigations (dubbed 2000 and 4000) pose even greater dangers to democratic governance and civil liberties… In both cases, the prime minister is essentially being investigated for allegedly trying to push the media – with long histories of attacking him and his family – to be fairer.”

He continued:

“…what we are left with is an exploration of motives… [which] are not the kinds of questions that prosecutors and police should be empowered to ask elected officials and media moguls as a part of a criminal investigation…The relationship between politics and the media – and between politicians and publishers – is too nuanced, subtle and complex to be subject to the heavy hand of criminal law…police and prosecutors should not intrude on this complex, messy and nuanced relationship between politics and the media, except in cases of clear and unambiguous financial corruption well beyond what is alleged in the current cases… to criminalize these political differences is to endanger democracy and freedom of the press..”

Flimsy case vs impressive achievements

I disagree with Alan Dershowitz on much regarding Israel, but I identify almost completely with his analysis of the indictments filed against Netanyahu. Indeed, not only do the substance of the indictments appear “trivial” compared to the challenges Israel faces, but also seem trivial against the background of the giant strides with which Israel has progressed under Netanyahu.

As readers of this column will recall, I have had many criticisms of Netanyahu in the past. Indeed, there have been several important things that he did not do, but should have; and things that he did do, but should not have.

As for the former, he has not dealt with the lawlessness of the Bedouin in the South, with the illegal Arab construction across the country; he has not adequately beefed up Israel’s public diplomacy, nor has he sufficiently reformed Israel’s legal establishment, which is now attempting to remove him from office before he can…

With regard to the latter, he unadvisedly froze Jewish construction in Judea-Samaria, released thousands of convicted terrorists and undertook the unfortunate attempt at rapprochement with Erdogan’s Turkey—including paying humiliating compensation to the casualties on the Mavi Marmara, injured when trying to disembowel Israeli commandoes enforcing a legal quarantine of Gaza.

Of course, Netanyahu—like every mortal on the planet—is not irreplaceable or unblemished, but his record indicates that he is by far the most capable candidate to lead Israel in these challenging times.

A transformative leader

Indeed, despite any criticism of him, it is undeniable that, in many ways, he has been a truly transformative leader.

On his watch, Israel joined the prestigious group of OECD countries, and has become a  major energy exporter—things almost inconceivable before his incumbency.

Under his stewardship, Israel has become one of the best performing economies in the world — with GDP per capita breaching the $40,000 mark for the first time ever in 2017, up sharply by almost 45% since 2009, when he was first re-elected after losing power in 1999.

He has drastically reduced Palestinian terror from the horrific levels he “inherited” from the Rabin-Peres era — and, despite occasional flare-ups, he has largely managed to contain it to hardly perceptible proportions — certainly nowhere near the grisly scale that prevailed under his predecessors.

In terms of foreign policy, he has produced remarkable success. He managed to wait out the inclement incumbency of Barack Obama, emerging largely unscathed — despite the undisguised antipathy between the two men.

His views on Iran and its perilous nuclear ambitions have been embraced by the Trump administration. He has managed to initiate far-reaching changes in Middle East politics, with increasingly amicable — albeit, as yet, only semi-overt — relations with important Arab states, inconceivable several years ago, while sidelining — or at least, significantly reducing — the centrality of the intractable “Palestinian problem”.

He has overseen Israel’s “pivot” eastwards, and burgeoning relationships with the ascendant economies of India and China, increasingly offsetting Israel’s commercial dependence on the oft less-than-benign EU. He also has scored remarkable diplomatic successes in Africa and South America.

Moreover, notwithstanding difficulties with western European countries, he has fostered increasingly warm relations and understanding with those in central and eastern Europe, driving a wedge into the otherwise widespread European animus towards Israel…

“A country that devours its inhabitants?”

Yet, despite his remarkable success, Netanyahu has been ceaselessly assailed by his political adversaries, ever since he was first elected in 1996. Indeed, it is perhaps his very success that has generated such raw rancor against him.  Thus, despairing of removing him via the ballot box, his political rivals and adversarial civil society elites have had to turn to the law to do so—mounting what Netanyahu has accurately dubbed a legalistic coup.

It is an initiative that is likely to backfire.

For one thing is beyond doubt: No good result can come out of these indictments.

If Netanyahu is found guilty, roughly half the Israeli public will feel that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice—and the already tenuous public trust in Israel’s arms of law and order with be undermined even further.

On the other hand, if he is acquitted, roughly half (the other half) of the Israeli public will feel that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice—and the already tenuous faith in Israel’s system of law and order will be eroded even further.

Among the biggest losers will be those who launched this ill-considered initiative in the first place. The mistrust it will generate in them, will certainly be well merited.

© All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s Controversial Speech About the Dangers of Modern Feminism — English subtitles

This video is a list of good and at this point, courageous observations. But misses the big point. And that is that Feminism has been hijacked, if it wasn’t created in the first place for this purpose, by Marxists as a weapon of attack on Western culture, peoples and thought overall.

To understand how this works, watch pretty much anything produced by Netflix. Communists have been steadily hijacking and re-purposing every legend, myth and story of the West, understanding the power of a narrative far better than we, and re-purposing these stories to incept the communist dialectic negation of all things Western.

The Gay Jesus story is a top of the heap example. But we see it in and through everything like a virus hijacks a healthy cell.

To be blunt, she, like most people who understand what is going on, in a way become controlled opposition. Because they see a tactic but not the strategy. This means they can be negated easily because they do not point the light quite in the right direction.

Feminism is one of many institutions if you will, that has been re-purposed. Much of the Catholic Church, entire Churches like the Unitarian are nothing but a Lenin’s beard.

Reform Jewish temples, most of major media, all now are agencies of re-purposing existing truths to force a Neo-Marxist agenda.

I used to ask why various groups, African-Americans, Feminist etc. etc. did not make their own legends and stories but instead had to create Ghostbusters 3 and ruin our own existing cannon.

The answer is obvious now. Because the purpose was not to create new legends with politically correct plots and characters, it was literally made to destroy our own. Not to make a good movie, but to ruin good movies of the past. To Winston Smith the culture. Put the classics and genius of the past into the incinerator and replace it with the new horrible and unwatchable replacements but push the ‘right’ message.

We were never at war with Oceana.

We have always been at war with Oceana.

RELATED TWEET:

https://twitter.com/imamofpeace/status/1212325132447825920?s=11

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column and video posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: From CNN’s New Years Day C*cks and Drag Queen Mermaid to Teen Vogues’ Pushing Prostitution

EDITORS NOTE: This is the third in our Decadent Democrats series. Click here for our first column and here for our second column.


The depravity of Democrats, and those who support them, began 2020 with a bang, no pun intended.

Homosexuality as the New Democrat Normal

The Daily Caller’s  media reporter Shelby Talkott in an article titled C*cks, Shots And A Drag Queen Mermaid: Here’s How CNN Rang In The New Year simply posted this self explanatory video:

Shelby Talkott wrote:

CNN rang in the new year with its co-hosts taking tequila shots and talking about “the biggest cock in Hollywood” while a correspondent jumped into a rum bath with a drag queen mermaid.

Co-hosts Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen got ready for 2020 by downing shots of tequila during CNN’s live coverage of New Year’s Eve in Times Square on December 31. At one point, the two recalled when Cooper’s mom Gloria Vanderbilt asked at Cohen’s “‘Watch What Happens Live” Bravo program if he planned to ask her “who has the biggest cock in Hollywood.”

Read more.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper is a homosexual so discussing c*cks makes perfect sense to him/her/it but it is harmful to everyone else’s sensibilities.

Homosexuality is deeply embedded in the polities and politics of the Democrat Party. The liberal media, like CNN, is working overtime to normalize these behaviors.

A New Years eve fundraising email from Equality Democrats calls all Republicans “transphobic” (a new bulling term) stating,

“For decades, LGBT+ Americans have fought for equal rights. And in just 3 years, Trump’s administration has reversed a large part of that hard-earned progress.

They said transgender soldiers have a “disqualifying psychological and physical” condition for military service.

He confirmed hundreds of homophobic judges to our highest courts, called for the Senate to block the Equality Act, and banned transgender Americans from homeless shelters.

We’re not letting Trump trample on our rights any longer: We’re taking the future into our own hands and electing leaders who will never fail to fight for the LGBT+ community.

A Pete’s Mission [Equality Democrats] New Years Day fundraising email states:

LGBT+ Americans are under attack. And Pete Buttigieg refuses to stay silent about the war Trump has launched on our community

For decades, LGBT+ Americans have fought for equal rights.

And in just 3 years, Trump’s administration has reversed a large part of that hard-earned progress.

He confirmed hundreds of homophobic judges to our highest courts, called for the Senate to block the Equality Act, and banned transgender Americans from homeless shelters.

We’re not letting Trump trample on our rights any longer: We’re taking the future into our own hands and electing leaders who will never fail to fight for the LGBT+ community.

The Sexualization of America’s Underage Boys and Girls

This overt sexualization of Americans, especially our youth, is nothing new. For example, an April, 2019 op-ed titled Why Sex Work Is Real Work “I do not believe it is right or just that people who exchange sexual services for money are criminalized and I am not for what I do. by Dr. Tlaleng Mofokeng,  founder of Nalane for Reproductive Justice, wrote:

So, what exactly is sex work? Not all sex workers engage in penetrative sex, though, undeniably, that is a big part of sex work. Sex-worker services between consenting adults may include companionship, intimacy, nonsexual role playing, dancing, escorting, and stripping. These roles are often pre-determined, and all parties should be comfortable with them. Many workers take on multiple roles with their clients, and some may get more physical while other interactions that may have started off as sexual could evolve into emotional and psychological bonding.

But not all “sex work” is between “consenting adults.”

Many times it involves underage boys and girls. Vlad Tepes Blog published the following video that talks about Pakistani “grooming gangs” who turned tens of thousands of underage girls into prostitutes:

The Clarion Project warned about using children for sex work in a column titled UK Sex Grooming Gangs Victimize 19,000 Children in 2019 stating:

Despite the publicity given to UK’s Pakistani sex grooming gangs since 2012, close to 19,000 children have been victimized by UK sex grooming gangs in 2019.

The number represents a 3,300 increase from five years ago.

In a report by the Independent, activists say the true number is much higher, as many of these crimes go unreported. After underage girls are groomed using drugs and alcohol, many are reluctant to go to the authorities as their groomers convince them that due to the illegality of the substances, the victims themselves will be punished.

The exploitation has been widely known to local government officials, social workers and law enforcement officials for over a decade. However, for fear of being called racists, authorities took no steps to prevent the horrific abuse of young, white British girls.

Welcoming Illegal Aliens

The Democrats fully embrace open borders and sanctuary cities. In America we have witnessed drug cartels turn to human trafficking of women and children for profit. 

In a Daily Caller article titled Here Are The Most Heinous Criminals Deported By ICE In 2019  by Jason Hopkins, immigration and  politics reporter, on multiple criminals deported by ICE including:

Arturo Lopez-Mendez — Alleged Child Rapist

Arturo Lopez-Mendez, a Mexican national, was deported by ICE in June on charges in his home country relating to the gruesome rape of a 7-year-old girl.

[ … ]

Juan Ramon Avila-Leon — Convicted Child Molester

Juan Ramon Avila-Leon, a Mexican national, was deported by ICE in September following his conviction of child molestation. And thanks to the work of Border Patrol, he was apprehended before he could illegally re-enter the U.S. just weeks later.

CONCLUSION

The Democratic Party is totally committed to replace love with sex, replace the traditional family with single family homes and replacing the biological fact of male and female with dozens of “preferred pronouns.” The Democrats are all in on open borders, sanctuary cities, giving voting rights and benefits to illegal aliens.

The difference between the party of JFK and today’s Democrats is like between light and darkness. Between good and pure evil.

November 3rd, 2020 will be critical in determining if America continues down the road toward more decadence and debauchery or returns to cultural norms.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Dangers of Elite Groupthink

Political correctness enabled Muslim grooming gangs to rape hundreds of white girls for more than a decade

Alexis de Tocqueville, “How Americans Understand the Equality of the Sexes,” 1840

RELATED VIDEO: Stephen Hicks – How Failed Marxist Predictions Led to the Postmodern Left.

VIDEO: Massive pro 2nd amendment demo planned for January 20, 2020, in Virginia

Posted by Eeyore

MASSIVE MILITIA MOVEMENT!! 2ND AMENDMENT RALLY VIRGINIA!! PLEASE BE PREPARED! (Warning 1/20/2020)

RELATED ARTICLES:

VIDEO: Fairfax County Virginia 2nd Amendment Sanctuary County Speech — Civil War

25 Companies Cave to Anti-2nd Amendment Extremists — Scorepages Updated

Candidate for Los Angeles County Sheriff Supports 2nd Amendment, wants politics out of law enforcement

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Baghdad Embassy Siege: Did the Iranian Mullahs Think Donald Trump Would React Like Jimmy Carter?

My latest in PJ Media:

The Islamic Republic of Iran, facing demonstrations at home that threaten its very existence and more in Iraq that threaten that country’s Shi’ite proxy government, is resorting to a tested and true strategy. Fox News reports that “crowds of angry Iraqis protesting America’s recent airstrikes against an Iran-backed militia have laid siege to the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad Tuesday, chanting ‘Down, Down USA!’ and storming through a main gate, prompting troops to fire back tear gas in response.”

President Trump tweeted: “Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified!”

Whether the pro-Iranian Shi’ite regime will take any serious steps to protect the embassy is an open question, and the Iranian mullahs may be assuming that Trump will talk tough and then let the whole thing blow over. After all, as The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran explains in detail, there is a significant precedent for this that occurred right at the time the Islamic Republic was founded.

On January 16, 1979, a tearful Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and his family left Iran after being betrayed and abandoned by Jimmy Carter. Two weeks later, on February 1, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, returned to Iran after fourteen years of exile and set out to establish the Islamic Republic of Iran. Khomeini had made abundantly clear that the Islamic Republic would consider the United States a mortal enemy when he enabled the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979. American diplomats would be held hostage for well over a year.

The immediate pretext for the invasion of the Embassy was Jimmy Carter’s reluctant decision to allow the gravely ill Shah to enter the United States on October 23, 1979, for medical treatment. Carter asked his advisers, “What are you guys going to advise me to do if they overrun our embassy and take our people hostage?” Nonetheless, he had no plan when a group calling itself Muslim Students Following the Imam’s Line (that is, Khomeini’s line) entered the embassy compound and took hostage the skeleton staff of sixty-six that was still serving there after the fall of the Shah.

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Brooklyn: Muslim Community Patrol rejects peace agreement with Bloods gang

Australia: Muslim drug dealer forces friend to bark like dog and recite Islamic prayer, then stabs him seven times

Italy: Nigerian mafia working with jihadists, forcing girls as young as 12 into prostitution

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

How Colleges Dupe Parents and Taxpayers

Colleges have been around for centuries. College students have also been around for centuries. Yet, college administrators assume that today’s students have needs that were unknown to their predecessors. Those needs include diversity and equity personnel, with massive budgets to accommodate.

According to Minding the Campus, Penn State University’s Office of Vice Provost for Educational Equity employs 66 staff members. The University of Michigan currently employs a diversity staff of 93 full-time diversity administrators, officers, directors, vice provosts, deans, consultants, specialists, investigators, managers, executive assistants, administrative assistants, analysts, and coordinators. Amherst College, with a student body of 1,800 students employs 19 diversity people.

Top college diversity bureaucrats earn six-figure salaries, in some cases approaching $500,000 per year. In the case of the University of Michigan, a quarter (26) of their diversity officers earn annual salaries of more than $100,000. If you add generous fringe benefits and other expenses, you could easily be talking about $13 million a year in diversity costs. The Economist reports that University of California at Berkeley has 175 diversity bureaucrats.

Diversity officials are a growing part of a college bureaucracy structure that outnumbers faculty by 2 to 2.5, depending on the college. According to “The Campus Diversity Swarm,” an article from Mark Pulliam, a contributing editor at Law and Liberty, which appeared in the City Journal, diversity people assist in the cultivation of imaginary grievances of an ever-growing number of “oppressed” groups.


Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. Defend your principles before it is too late. Find out more now >>


Pulliam writes:

The mission of campus diversity officers is self-perpetuating. Affirmative action (i.e., racial and ethnic preferences in admissions) leads to grievance studies. Increased recognition of LGBTQ rights requires ever-greater accommodation by the rest of the student body.

Protecting “vulnerable” groups from “hate speech” and “microaggressions” requires speech codes and bias-response teams (staffed by diversocrats). Complaints must be investigated and adjudicated (by diversocrats). Fighting “toxic masculinity” and combating an imaginary epidemic of campus sexual assault necessitate consent protocols, training, and hearing procedures—more work for an always-growing diversocrat cadre. Each newly recognized problem leads to a call for more programs and staffing.

Campus diversity people have developed their own professional organization, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. They hold annual conferences, the last one in Philadelphia. The NADOHE has developed standards for professional practice and a political agenda, plus a Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, which is published by the American Psychological Association.

One wonders just how far spineless college administrators will go when it comes to caving in to the demands of campus snowflakes who have been taught that they must be protected against words, events, and deeds that do not fully conform to their extremely limited, narrow-minded beliefs built on sheer delusion.

Generosity demands that we forgive these precious snowflakes and hope that they eventually grow up. The real problem is with people assumed to be grown-ups—college professors and administrators—who serve their self-interest by tolerating and giving aid and comfort to our aberrant youth.

Unless the cycle of promoting and nursing imaginary grievances is ended, diversity bureaucracies will take over our colleges and universities, supplanting altogether the goal of higher education.

“Diversity” is the highest goal of students and professors who openly detest those with whom they disagree. These people support the very antithesis of higher education with their withering attacks on free speech.

Both in and out of academia, the content of a man’s character is no longer as important as the color of his skin, his sex, his sexual preferences, or his political loyalties. That’s a vision that spells tragedy for our nation.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Walter E. Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and a professor of economics at George Mason University. Twitter: .


A Note for our Readers:

As progressives on the far Left continue to push for greater government control under the disguise of “free stuff,” our lawmakers need conservative research and solutions to guide them towards promoting your principles instead.

That is why we’re asking conservatives to unite around the key values of limited government, individual liberty, traditional American values, and a strong national defense by making a special year-end gift to The Heritage Foundation before December 31.

Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. The Left won’t pull any punches. They stand ready to trade the principles of the American founding for the toxic European socialism that has failed so many times before.

That is why finishing this year strong is so critical. The Heritage Foundation is challenging you to rise up and claim more victories for conservative values as we battle socialism in 2020.

LEARN MORE NOW >>


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

The Top 4 Issues America Will Face in 2020

As we head into the new year and the kickoff to the Roaring Twenties 2.0 (and they will roar), policymakers will be faced with some incredibly important decisions.

Several issues will take center stage, ones with the potential to significantly shape our future, from immigration reform to college-loan debt.

Certainly, one of the biggest will be the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. Although the outcome is nearly certain—there aren’t enough Senate votes to remove the president from office—the issue will steal the air from other issues until the trial is concluded.

Post-trial, here are some issues likely to dominate 2020. Each represents a fork in the road, and the direction the nation chooses will be critical.


Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. Defend your principles before it is too late. Find out more now >>


• Immigration: Trump could roll out a new immigration plan as we head toward the elections. In addition to trying to secure more funding for desperately needed border security, a part of the plan could include another attempt at creating a merit-based legal immigration system, rather than one that’s based primarily on family ties.

A system that favors applicants with desirable job skills would shift legal immigration’s focus from being centered on the desires of immigrants to being centered on the needs of the American people and our economy.

A merit-based system also more easily allows “patriotic assimilation,” creating a more unified nation, rather than one divided into special-interest groups based on where we came from.

• Election integrity: With the 2020 elections coming, citizens must be assured that the electoral process for federal, state and local elections is fair.

Although many on the left deny it, voter fraud exists. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has noted that voter fraud is a clearly documented part of our nation’s history.

Unfortunately, politicians and advocacy groups on the left continue to fight laws that require an ID to vote. They’ve even sued states that have tried to purge voter rolls of people registered in multiple jurisdictions who could vote more than once in an election.

Moreover, the push to eliminate the Electoral College would increase the influence of large urban centers at the expense of small states and rural areas, striking at our constitutional structure that balances the rule of the majority with protections for minority interests and state governments.

• Education: Politicians have floated proposals of free college tuition for all and loan forgiveness for everyone carrying college debt.

They are characterized as “investments in our future,” but the reality is, they would be a suffocating financial burden on every taxpayer, especially middle- and lower-income citizens. There’s also an inherent unfairness to forcing Americans who couldn’t afford to go to college themselves to pay off the loans of those who could.

One also has to question what kind of return taxpayers would get for their “investment.” Many colleges are indoctrinating students into a socialist, “America is evil” ideology, and often students graduate unprepared for a career and unable to pay off the enormous college debt they accumulated. Forty percent of those who start college don’t even finish within six years.

Despite these issues, because federal loan money is handed out with little scrutiny as to students’ ability to pay it back, colleges have had free rein to raise prices at rates often double that of inflation. In addition, more than 1 million people default on their loans annually, leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab.

“Free” college tuition would only make things worse.

• China: Under the brutal governance of the Chinese Communist Party, China presents a combination of risks our nation has never before faced.

Chinese authorities direct attacks on our government cyber networks, steal the intellectual property of our companies, and threaten the travel of ships and planes in and over international waters.

The authoritarian regime is also spending enormous amounts of money to build up its offensive military machine.

As U.S. policymakers start to pay more attention to China’s threats, we can expect to see more recommendations for rebuilding America’s military to keep China’s in check.

Moreover, while the national security threat is very real, because so many raw materials and finished goods come from China, the U.S. will continue attempting to build more positive trade relations with the country.

Besides being good for Americans economically, a better trade relationship also serves as a deterrent to Chinese aggression, since there’s little incentive to attack a major market for its goods.

What we do about any one of these issues in 2020—China, electoral integrity, education, or immigration—could represent a major turning point for America.

From safeguarding the right to vote to protecting the nation from foreign aggression to deciding whether more taxpayer money is the solution to rising college debt, the new year will certainly provide several opportunities to make pivotal decisions about America’s future.

Originally published by The Washington Times

COMMENTARY BY

Kay C. James is president of The Heritage Foundation. James formerly served as director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and as Virginia’s secretary of health and human resources. She is also the founder and president of The Gloucester Institute. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Newly-Elected Democrats Let Their Masks Slip, Revealing The Fascists Beneath

The Left Ignores the ‘Wrong’ Kind of Anti-Semitism

5 Predictions of What Could Happen in Foreign Policy in 2020

How Colleges Dupe Parents and Taxpayers

RELATED VIDEO: California officials refusing to turn over signatures in recall effort against Gov. Gavin Newsom.


A Note for our Readers:

As progressives on the far Left continue to push for greater government control under the disguise of “free stuff,” our lawmakers need conservative research and solutions to guide them towards promoting your principles instead.

That is why we’re asking conservatives to unite around the key values of limited government, individual liberty, traditional American values, and a strong national defense by making a special year-end gift to The Heritage Foundation before December 31.

Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. The Left won’t pull any punches. They stand ready to trade the principles of the American founding for the toxic European socialism that has failed so many times before.

That is why finishing this year strong is so critical. The Heritage Foundation is challenging you to rise up and claim more victories for conservative values as we battle socialism in 2020.

LEARN MORE NOW >>


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

Rep. Green: Impeachment ‘Genesis’ Was Before Election

Monday on MSNBC’s All In, Rep. Al Green admitted that the “genesis” of Donald Trump’s impeachment began well before he was elected President in 2016.

Green was asked to respond to the argument of the right that “the Democrats wanted to impeach Donald Trump from day one, they cast about looking for a set of facts they could plausibly use to do it, and all of it was pretextual and reverse-engineered to get to this point. Exhibit one is Al Green, who’s been calling for the man’s impeachment for two years now.”

Well, the genesis of impeachment — to be very candid with you — was when the president was running for office and he had members of his own party to talk about his unfitness to hold office,” Green conceded. “The persons who were running against him, Mr. Romney spoke of his not being fit to hold office. Mr. Cruz made statements about it…”

And there you have it: Democrats intended from the beginning to impeach Trump, and years of fruitless investigations into purported Russian collusion and Ukrainian corruption were merely pretexts.


Al Green

0 Known Connections

During an August 23, 2018 appearance on Democracy Now!, Green said that President Trump could be impeached without having committed a crime: “I think it’s becoming increasingly clear that the president will have two options: One, he can resign from office, or, two, he can face impeachment. Impeachment is something that the Framers of the Constitution provided for a time such as this and a president such as Trump … [who] is alleged to have committed certain offenses that are onerous to the Constitution and that harm society.”

At a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation meeting in September 2018, Green revisited the theme of impeaching President Trump:

“The people who say, ‘What law did he break? What rule did he break?,’ they are perpetrating upon you a belief that is totally inaccurate. You decide that you are not going to be nice to suspects when you arrest them, you tell police, ‘You don’t have to be nice,’ … and ban children on the border of color, you produce a policy that separates them from their parents…. Now, this might be debatable, [but] for me, when I add all of this together, I find that I have a person who is placing his bigotry into policy that is harmful to our society, and for that, he ought to be impeached.”

To learn more about Al Green, click on the profile link HERE.


Search our constantly growing database of the left and its Agendas.


EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

I Went to a Socialism Conference. Here Are My 6 Observations.

While you were enjoying your Fourth of July weekend, I was attending a national conference on socialism.

Why? Because socialism is having its moment on the left.

Since there’s often confusion as to what socialism really is, I decided to attend the Socialism 2019 conference at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend.

The conference, which had the tag line “No Borders, No Bosses, No Binaries,” contained a cross-section of the most pertinent hard-left thought in America. Among the sponsors were the Democratic Socialists of America and Jacobin, a quarterly socialist magazine.


Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. Defend your principles before it is too late. Find out more now >>


The walls of the various conference rooms were adorned with posters of Karl Marx and various depictions of socialist thinkers and causes.

Most of the conference attendees appeared to be white, but identity politics were a major theme throughout—especially in regard to gender.

At the registration desk, attendees were given the option of attaching a “preferred pronoun” sticker on their name tags.

In addition, the multiple-occupancy men’s and women’s restrooms were relabeled as “gender neutral,” and men and women were using both. Interestingly enough, the signs above the doors were still labeled with the traditional “men’s” and “women’s” signs until they were covered over with home-made labels.

One of the paper labels read: “This bathroom has been liberated from the gender binary!”

While the panelists and attendees were certainly radical, and often expressed contempt for the Democratic Party establishment, it was nevertheless clear how seamlessly they blended traditional Marxist thought with the agenda of what’s becoming the mainstream left.

They did so by weaving their views with the identity politics that now dominate on college campuses and in the media and popular entertainment. The culture war is being used as a launching point for genuinely socialist ideas, many of which are re-emerging in the 21st century.

Here are six takeaways from the conference:

1. Serious About Socialism

A common line from those on the modern left is that they embrace “democratic socialism,” rather than the brutal, totalitarian socialism of the former Soviet Union or modern North Korea and Venezuela. Sweden is usually cited as their guide for what it means in practice, though the reality is that these best-case situations show the limits of socialism, not its success.

It’s odd, too, for those who insist that “diversity is our strength” to point to the culturally homogeneous Nordic countries as ideal models anyway.

It’s clear, however, that while many socialists insist that their ideas don’t align with or condone authoritarian societies, their actual ideology—certainly that of those speaking at the conference—is in no sense distinct.

Of the panels I attended, all featured speakers who made paeans to traditional communist theories quoted Marx, and bought into the ideology that formed the basis of those regimes.

Mainstream politicians may dance around the meaning of the word “socialist,” but the intellectuals and activists who attended Socialism 2019 could have few doubts about the fact that Marxism formed the core of their beliefs.

Some sought to dodge the issue. One was David Duhalde, the former political director of Our Revolution, an activist group that supports Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and that was an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.

Duhalde said that Sanders is a creation of the socialist movement—having had direct ties to the Socialist Party of America in his youth—but hasn’t maintained an official connection to socialist political organizations throughout his political career.

Sanders’ position, according to Duhalde, is “anti-totalitarian” and that he favors a model based on “neither Moscow, nor the United States, at least in this formation.”

It’s a convenient way of condemning capitalist-oriented societies while avoiding connections to obviously tyrannical ones.

It was also difficult to mistake the sea of red shirts and posters of Marx that adorned the walls at the conference—or the occasional use of the word “comrades”—as anything other than an embrace of genuine socialism, but with a uniquely modern twist.

2. Gender and Identity Politics Are Ascendant

Transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and abolishing traditional family structures were huge issues at Socialism 2019.

One panel, “Social Reproduction Theory and Gender Liberation,” addressed how the traditional family structure reinforced capitalism and contended that the answer was to simply abolish families.

Corrie Westing, a self-described “queer socialist feminist activist based in Chicago working as a home-birth midwife,” argued that traditional family structures propped up oppression and that the modern transgender movement plays a critical part in achieving true “reproductive justice.”

Society is in a moment of “tremendous political crisis,” one that “really demands a Marxism that’s up to the par of explaining why our socialist project is leading to ending oppression,” she said, “and we need a Marxism that can win generations of folks that can be radicalized by this moment.”

That has broad implications for feminism, according to Westing, who said that it’s important to fight for transgender rights as essential to the whole feminist project—seemingly in a direct shot at transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, who at a Heritage Foundation event in January argued that sex is biological, not a societal construct, and that transgenderism is at odds with a genuine feminism.

She contended that economics is the basis of what she called “heteronormativity.”

Pregnancy becomes a tool of oppression, she said, as women who get pregnant and then engage in child rearing are taken out of the workforce at prime productive ages and then are taken care of by an economic provider.

Thus, the gender binary is reinforced, Westing said.

She insisted that the answer to such problems is to “abolish the family.” The way to get to that point, she said, is by “getting rid of capitalism” and reorganizing society around what she called “queer social reproduction.”

“When we’re talking about revolution, we’re really connecting the issues of gender justice as integral to economic and social justice,” Westing said.

She then quoted a writer, Sophie Lewis, who in a new book, “Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family,” embraced “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.”

3. Open Borders Is Becoming a Litmus Test

It’s perhaps not surprising that socialists embrace open borders. After all, that’s becoming a much more mainstream position on the left in general.

The AFL-CIO used to support immigration restrictions until it flipped in 2000 and called for illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship.

As recently as 2015, Sanders rejected the idea of open borders as a ploy to impoverish Americans.

But Justin Akers-Chacon, a socialist activist, argued on a panel, “A Socialist Case for Open Borders,” that open borders are not only a socialist idea, but vital to the movement.

Akers-Chacon said that while capital has moved freely between the United States and Central and South America, labor has been contained and restricted.

He said that while working-class people have difficulty moving across borders, high-skilled labor and “the 1%” are able to move freely to other countries.

South of the border, especially in Mexico and Honduras, Akers-Chacon said, there’s a stronger “class-consciousness, as part of cultural and historical memory exists in the working class.”

“My experiences in Mexico and my experiences working with immigrant workers, and my experiences with people from different parts of this region, socialist politics are much more deeply rooted,” he said.

That has implications for the labor movement.

Despite past attempts to exclude immigrants, Akers-Chacon said, it’s important for organized labor to embrace them. He didn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

For instance, he said one of the biggest benefits of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was that there was a brief boost in union membership amid a more general decline in unionism.

Besides simply boosting unions, the influx “changed the whole AFL-CIO position on immigrants, [which was] still backwards, restrictive, anti-immigrant,” Akers-Chacon said.

“So, there’s a correlation between expanding rights for immigrants and the growth, and confidence, and militancy of the labor movement as a whole,” he said.

4. ‘Clickbait’ Communism Is Being Used to Propagandize Young Americans

The magazine Teen Vogue has come under fire recently for flattering profiles of Karl Marx and promoting prostitution as a career choice, among other controversial pieces.

It would be easy to write these articles off as mere “clickbait,” but it’s clear that the far-left nature of its editorials—and its attempt to reach young people with these views—is genuine.

Teen Vogue hosted a panel at Socialism 2019, “System Change, Not Climate Change: Youth Climate Activists in Conversation with Teen Vogue.”

The panel moderator was Lucy Diavolo, news and politics editor at the publication, who is transgender.

“I know there’s maybe a contradiction in inviting Teen Vogue to a socialism conference … especially because the youth spinoff brand is a magazine so associated with capitalist excess,” Diavolo said. “If you’re not familiar with our work, I encourage you to read Teen Vogue’s coverage of social justice issues, capitalism, revolutionary theory, and Karl Marx, or you can check out the right-wing op-eds that accuse me of ‘clickbait communism’ and teaching your daughters Marxism and revolution.”

The panel attendees responded enthusiastically.

“Suffice to say, the barbarians are beyond the gates. We are in the tower,” Diavolo boasted.

5. The Green Movement Is Red

It’s perhaps no surprise that an openly socialist member of Congress is pushing for the Green New Deal—which would essentially turn the U.S. into a command-and-control economy reminiscent of the Soviet Union.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti recently said, according to The Washington Post: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”

“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for president in the Democratic primary. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

Economic transformation barely disguised as a way to address environmental concerns appears to be the main point.

One of the speakers on the Teen Vogue climate panel, Sally Taylor, is a member of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented environmental activist group that made headlines in February when several elementary school-age members of the group confronted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about her lack of support for the Green New Deal.

The other speaker on the Teen Vogue climate panel was Haven Coleman, a 13-year-old environmental activist who has received favorable coverage for leading the U.S. Youth Climate Strike in March. She was open about the system change she was aiming for to address climate change.

She noted during her remarks that she was receiving cues from her mother, who she said was in attendance.

Haven said the answer to the climate change problem was moving on from our “capitalistic society” to something “other than capitalism.”

Interestingly, none of the glowing media profiles of Haven or the Climate Strike mentioned a link to socialism or abolishing capitalism.

6. Socialism Can’t Be Ignored as a Rising Ethos on the Left

According to a recent Gallup survey, 4 in 10 Americans have a positive view of socialism. Support among Democrats is even higher than among the general population, with a majority of Democrats saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.

But many who say they want socialism rather than capitalism struggle to define what those terms mean and change their views once asked about specific policies.

As another Gallup poll from 2018 indicated, many associate socialism with vague notions of “equality,” rather than as government control over the means of production in the economy.

What’s clear from my observations at Socialism 2019 is that traditional Marxists have successfully melded their ideology with the identity politics and culture war issues that animate modern liberalism—despite still being quite far from the beliefs of the average citizen.

Socialists at the conference focused more on social change, rather than electoral politics, but there were still many core public policy issues that animated them; notably, “Medicare for All” and government run-health care, some kind of Green New Deal to stop global warming (and more importantly, abolish capitalism), open borders to increase class consciousness and promote transnational solidarity, removing all restrictions on—and publicly funding—abortion, and breaking down social and legal distinctions between the sexes.

They were particularly able to weave their issues together through the thread of “oppressor versus oppressed” class conflict—for instance, supporting government-run health care meant also unquestioningly supporting unfettered abortion and transgender rights.

Though their analyses typically leaned more heavily on economic class struggle and determinism than what one would expect from more mainstream progressives, there wasn’t a wide gap between what was being discussed at Socialism 2019 and the ideas emerging from a growing segment of the American left.

COMMENTARY BY

Jarrett Stepman is a contributor to The Daily Signal and co-host of The Right Side of History podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. He is also the author of the new book, “The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past.” Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Exactly When Did You Think America Was Great?’ Says Eric Holder. Here Is the Answer.

I Was America’s First ‘Nonbinary’ Person. It Was All a Sham.

19 Arrests Later, a Texas Town Is Torn Apart Over Voter Fraud


A Note for our Readers:

As progressives on the far Left continue to push for greater government control under the disguise of “free stuff,” our lawmakers need conservative research and solutions to guide them towards promoting your principles instead.

That is why we’re asking conservatives to unite around the key values of limited government, individual liberty, traditional American values, and a strong national defense by making a special year-end gift to The Heritage Foundation before December 31.

Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. The Left won’t pull any punches. They stand ready to trade the principles of the American founding for the toxic European socialism that has failed so many times before.

That is why finishing this year strong is so critical. The Heritage Foundation is challenging you to rise up and claim more victories for conservative values as we battle socialism in 2020.

LEARN MORE NOW >>


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

History revised is history denied

Once upon a time, Jewish progressives embraced their people’s history and were willing to die for its modern political realization. Though they eschewed traditional observance, they typically substituted faith in history for belief in G-d.


Edmund Burke famously stated that “those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it” and this adage has proven true time and again.

However, what of those who know history but reject its lessons, and instead manufacture alternative traditions based on partisan fantasy or political ideology?  Will they merely repeat the mistakes of the past or ensure a future where truth is subjective and morality relative?  If the latter, they risk creating a world devoid of ethical integrity and intellectual honesty.

Unfortunately, historical revisionism has become part of the American political process, and those who use it to promote radical narratives are the ones most responsible for today’s irrational hostility towards Israel and the Jewish People.

Progressive extremists are particularly shrill in denouncing Israel for supposed acts of aggression and callousness that in truth are neither outrageous nor extreme, but instead consistent with international law and Jewish historical rights and tradition.  They are especially indignant when Jewish history conflicts with the claims of Palestinian-Arabs, whose national narrative is a chimerical study in antisemitic rejectionism with little or no foundation.

This was apparent when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking for President Trump, acknowledged the legality of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria.  The Union for Reform Judaism (“URJ”) responded with a statement urging the President to recant, declaring: “Any unilateral move…would place serious and critical obstacles to a viable two-state solution, damaging the prospect of renewing the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and causing a long-term threat to Israel’s status as a Jewish and democratic state.”  But President Trump’s position reflected sentiments that prevailed before the Obama administration and an understanding that Palestinians oppose a “viable two-state solution” because they deny Israel’s legitimacy. That denial is actually the most “serious and critical” obstacle to peace.

American critics are impertinent when they claim to know what is best for Israel.  And the URJ’s statement is emblematic of this conceit in that it (a) seems oblivious to the impact of Palestinian rejectionism and (b) fails to acknowledge that Israeli “settlements” in Judea and Samaria actually conform to international legal norms and standards.  This  was recognized well before the Obama administration’s eight-year effort to delegitimize the “settlements”. It was Obama’s collusion with the United Nations in 2016 to undermine Israeli sovereignty that constituted a change in US policy, not Trump’s restatement of protocol.

Prior administrations did not resolutely deny the legality of the “settlements” (which were built on ancestral lands where Jews had lived for thousands of years), but believed they could be negotiated based on political considerations.  Indeed, Americans commonly recognized Jewish indigeneity throughout the Land of Israel.

Israel’s acquisition of these lands in 1967 was lawful because it was defending itself from an aggressor nation (Jordan).  Neither the Law of Belligerent Occupation nor the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibit Israel from maintaining possession of territories seized from an aggressor nation that acquired them in violation of international law.  Specifically, Jordan annexed Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem illegally in 1948, before which they had been holdings of a defunct empire. These lands were never independent or part of any autonomous nation-state after Rome conquered the Kingdom of Judah in 136 CE, and certainly not a state of “Palestine” that never existed.  Their liberation by Israel if anything reimposed legitimate sovereignty after a two-thousand-year hiatus.

Once upon a time, Jewish progressives embraced their people’s history with religious-like zeal and were willing to die for its modern political realization.  Though they eschewed traditional observance after the Enlightenment, they typically substituted faith in history for belief in G-d; and while many of them claimed to profess atheism, they nonetheless continued to express their innate religious sensibilities as historical determinism.  They knew where their ancestors came from and believed Jewish national destiny was tied to the ancient homeland.

This ancestral link to Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the rest of ancient Israel was the basis for recognizing the right of Jewish self-determination in the Mandate for Palestine of 1922.  While these lands constituted colonial holdings of successive empires after the fall of the Second Jewish Commonwealth, they never comprised independent sovereign territories between the years 136 and 1948.  Furthermore, they were commonly recognized as ancestrally Jewish and for maintaining a Jewish presence for more than 3,000 years – long before the Roman, Arab, and Ottoman conquests.

In recognition of the Jews’ ancient connection to these lands, Israel’s Provisional State Council on September 16, 1948 enacted the “Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance,” which aimed to extend Israeli jurisdiction beyond the 1947 partition lines to areas traditionally acknowledged as part of the Jewish homeland.  This ordinance (aka “Ben-Gurion’s Law”) was intended to apply to lands liberated by the Israeli military and was effective retroactively to the date of Israel’s independence on May 15, 1948. The law’s justification was inherent in its recognition that certain lands were innately Jewish (leaving its nonenforcement in 1967 open to critical question).

Unfortunately, the old Israeli left sometimes sacrificed historical virtue for the sake of partisan politics.  Though Menachem Begin made a policy of never questioning his political opponents’ patriotism, for example, Labor ideologues were often quick to label him and Herut Party members as Nazis and fascists, thus perverting the context and meaning of those terms for partisan purposes.  This was eventually coopted by Israel-haters to misrepresent the past so as to deny Israeli sovereignty and Jewish national claims.

Historical revisionism is now used to empower BDS, justify antisemitism, and delegitimize Israel by falsely depicting it as a colonial creation built on the ruins of a mythical country called Palestine.  But historical and archeological analysis corroborates Israel’s Jewish past while offering no support for Palestinian authenticity. Though the Jewish homeland was the target of multiple conquests before 1948, colonialism was enforced by Greeks, Romans, Muslim Arabs, Christian Crusaders, and Ottoman Turks – not Jews.  And the history of jihad in the region is one of subjugation, the influence of which continues to inflame anti-Jewish passions today.

Despite the historical record, ambivalence regarding Israeli sovereignty long ago infected the political mainstream without protest from Democratic leadership.  In his final television address as Secretary of State, for example, John Kerry inveighed against Israel and pushed the canard that she could not be both Jewish and democratic.  He never expressed concern over the religious and ethnic supremacism that permeates the Arab-Muslim Mideast) and his apparent disregard for Jewish ancestral rights was inexcusable.

Similar bias motivated the Obama administration’s collusion with the UN in 2016 to orchestrate a resolution declaring that Israeli “settlements” violated international law (despite much precedent to the contrary) so that the US could withhold its veto and effectively reverse American policy.  The Simon Wiesenthal Center recognized this as an attack on Israeli sovereignty and proclaimed it the most antisemitic incident of the year. This assault against Israel on the world stage was nonetheless tolerated by Jewish progressives, and even lauded by some. When Jews fail to condemn such conduct, they enable Jew-hatred masquerading as political dialogue; and denying Israeli sovereignty is indeed a form of antisemitism.

Whereas early Jewish progressives regarded their people’s history with reverence, their political descendants lost all sense of its noble origins and lofty mission.  Furthermore, today’s left has altered the past to conform to a worldview that disparages Israel and traditional Judaism.

As Rav Saadia Gaon explained more than a thousand years ago, the Jews are a nation founded on Torah whose national survival requires loyalty to its laws and principles.  Without Torah, he said, the Jewish nation would have disappeared like any other ancient people swallowed by the sands of time. Is Israel’s disappearance the goal of those who now seek to deny Jewish history and suppress Judaism’s eternal values?

RELATED ARTICLE: Guardian Angels Patrolling Jewish Neighborhoods In NYC For First Time Since 1991

EDITORS NOTE: This Israel International News column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Have Ilhan Omar and CAIR Bred Acceptance of Today’s Rampant Anti-Semitism?

The ongoing horror over the rhetoric of America’s new Muslim congresswomen has turned to questions over whether Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, along with other prominent Islamists, have contributed to the acceptance of the rampant anti-Semitism being displayed in the U.S. today.

In addition, did the  failure by Democrats in the House to censure Omar help to create a breeding ground for extremists on both sides of the political spectrum to take it to the next step — physical violence, which is what we are seeing now?

2019 has seen shocking upticks in attacks against Jews that are increasing daily in frequency and intensity. Here are the “contributions” to today’s rampant anti-Semitism that some of the most prominent and vocal Islamists on the U.S. scene today made in 2019:

Ilhan Omar

Omar’s rampant anti-Semitism was in full force as soon as she was elected. While she was campaigning, she said she didn’t support the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement against Israel. But just days after her election, she changed her tune, saying that she did, in fact, believe in and support the BDS movement.

It was a stunning display of duplicity.

According to the definition of anti-Semitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and officially adopted by the U.S. (and 31 other nations, including many in the European Union), the BDS movement has been deemed at its core an anti-Semitic movement.

This is fundamentally because the movement “[applies] double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of by any other democratic nation.” For example, there are at least 100 land disputes across the globe that are not subject to “BDS” movements.

Omar’s outbursts of shocking anti-Semitism dominated the conversation in 2019, as the headlines of Clarion’s articles show:

Linda Sarsour & Zahra Billoo

2019 saw big names in the U.S. Islamist scene — sharia– apologist Linda Sarsour and CAIR official Zahra Billoo — were kicked out of the Women’s March for spewing anti-Semitism.

Sarsour not only promoted the anti-Semitic BDS movement, but her rhetoric was so racist at times that she managed to label Jews as white supremacists in order to remove them from a protected class and demonize them among the “intersectional” victim crowd.

Clarion’s top stories about Linda Sarsour and her anti-Semitism in 2019 included:

Anti-American Islamist Zahra Billoo was set to replace Linda Sarsour as a board member in the Women’s March movement. However, due to tremendous and immediate backlash after her appointment due to Billoo’s anti-Semitism, the Women’s March rescinded their invitation in a big win in 2019.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) spent a tremendous amount of energy and resources last year promoting the anti-Semitic BDS movement. While they spoke from one side of their mouth condemning physical attacks on Jews, they were busy suing state governments over anti-BDS legislation and opposing the adoption of the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism by the Department of Education.

CAIR filed lawsuits in a number of states who have laws on the books against the BDS movement. They even awarded their “Muslim of the Year Award” to a woman who CAIR helped fight for the right to be anti-Semitic while working in a public school in America.

CAIR’s Muslim of the Year Award was given to Bahia Amawi, a Texas speech pathologist who lost her job in a Texas public school because she refused to comply with the state’s anti-BDS legislation.

Here were Clarion’s top stories documenting CAIR’s overt anti-Semitism in 2019:

Rashida Tlaib

Rashifa Tlaib is also a vocal supporter of the anti-Semitic BDS movement. Tlaib also made waves this year for her close connections with Hezbollah supporters. Hezbollah — an Iranian-proxy Lebanese terror group — is dedicated to killing Jews and wiping out the state of Israel

Our top stories in 2019 on Talib’s anti-Semitism included:

In addition, Tlaib had the gall to request public funds to finance a Congressional delegation to the Palestinian Authority-controlled territories in Israel, essentially putting the U.S. in a situation where American tax dollars would be supporting an anti-American political body that has a history of paying terrorists – some of whom have specifically targeted and killed American citizens.

Louis Farrakhan

Louis Farrakhan wins the prize for his overt and unapologetic anti-Semitism. His hate is out there for everyone to see.

Farrakhan’s organization, the Nation of Islam, has a long history of Holocaust denial and demonizing Jews. Farrakhan regularly calls Jews “Satanic” and claims that they “control everything and mostly everybody.” He refers to Jews as the “synagogue of Satan” and “termites.”

RELATED STORIES:

Chinese Pastor Sentenced to 9 Years in Prison Amid Renewed Persecution

Women’s March Leader Tamika Mallory Just Denied Israel’s Right to Exist

Louis Farrakhan Denounces Jews at Nation of Islam Event 

ADL-Michigan Provides Fig Leaf For Anti-Semitic Islamist Radicals