It appears that at least some Republicans, Democrats and Independents are looking beyond the 2020 presidential election. In the video below Donald J. Trump, Jr., author of Triggered, reacts to chants of “46” after being introduced by his father at a rally in New Hampshire.
Fox News reports:
Donald Trump Junior tells ‘Fox & Friends’ that he was humbled by chant but focused on his father’s re-election in 2020.
© All rights reserved.
It isn’t only Hollywood’s messaging that is undermining America. Behind the scenes, its big money is funding anti-American organizations as well.
Filmmaker Steven Spielberg and his wife, actress Kate Capshaw, have given more than $3.5 million to Democrats since December, with some of the biggest amounts going to the organization behind the malfunctioning mobile app that crashed during last week’s Iowa caucuses, according to Breitbart News.
In recent months, the Hollywood power couple has also given money to the campaigns of California Democrat Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Ted Lieu. The pair also has donated a combined $1 million to PACRONYM, the political fundraising arm of ACRONYM, whose subsidiary Shadow, Inc. created the failed mobile app.
Spielberg also donated $500,000 to Priorities USA Action and an equivalent sum to American Bridge 21st Century, which has ties to Media Matters for America. Spielberg gave another $500,000 to the Senate Majority PAC. Capshaw made equivalent donations to the same three Democrat super PACs.
31 Known Connections
In February 2008 Spielberg collaborated with Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen to organize an exclusive Beverly Hills fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, an event that reportedly netted $1 million. Nevertheless, in June 2008 Spielberg officially endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton as his first choice for president, “convinced” that she was “the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House.”
During the 2012 presidential campaign season, Spielberg advised the Obama re-election team on how to effectively use advertising messages to smear Republican challenger Mitt Romney as a heartless multi-millionaire who was indifferent to the troubles of ordinary folks. For example, commercials backed by Spielberg’s creative advice deceptively depicted Romney’s investment firm, Bain Capital, as an evil entity whose refusal to provide health insurance coverage for one particular woman had resulted in her dying from cancer.
To learn more about Spielberg, click on the profile link here.
When Chelsea Mitchell, ranked as the fastest girl in the 55-meter dash in Connecticut high school track, showed up for a competition last year, she knew it would be a challenge.
Her competitors included two biological males who said they identify as girls.
Mitchell, a senior at Canton High School, had seen the speeds posted by the two. She was aware that other girls had lost to athletes born as boys who identify as girls. But at the time, she says, she “could feel the adrenaline in my blood.”
That adrenaline wasn’t enough, though. Mitchell came in third behind the two biological males.
In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>
Ultimately, because of Connecticut’s high school athletics policy on transgender competitors, she lost four girls state championships and two all-New England awards to biological males who identify as females.
“It was definitely frustrating and disheartening to be right there, running for the biggest honors in the state, and to work so hard and try so hard to be the best in the state,” Mitchell told The Daily Signal in an exclusive telephone interview Tuesday.
Mitchell and two other girls from different Connecticut high schools, Alanna Smith and Selina Soule, are suing the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference over the policy that allows biological males to compete as girls with biological females in high school sports.
The suit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, claims that the state athletic conference is violating Title IX, the section of federal law designed to protect equal athletic opportunities for women and girls.
Smith is a sophomore at Danbury High School and Soule is a senior at Glastonbury High School whose story has been chronicled by The Daily Signal since last May.
Although Soule has spoken at length to The Daily Signal, and later other news outlets, Mitchell and Smith are speaking on the record for the first time.
The two biological males are Terry Miller of Bloomfield High School, who won the 55-meter dash, and Andraya Yearwood of Cromwell High School, who came in second.
The lawsuit states that Miller and Yearwood have won 15 girls state championship titles and “taken more than 85 opportunities to participate in higher level competitions from female track athletes in the 2017, 2018, and 2019 seasons alone.”
Mitchell and Smith were anonymous in Soule’s original complaint last June to the U.S. Department of Education, which the agency is investigating.
This is the first lawsuit of its kind in the nation, according to Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal aid organization that represents the three high school students.
Smith’s father, former Chicago Cubs pitcher Lee Smith, was inducted into the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame last year.
As a freshman, Smith won the 400-meter at the 2019 outdoor New England Regional Championships. She came in third in the 200-meter at the championships, behind a biological male.
“This makes us work harder and most of the time we know we are not going to get the top spot, just achieve a personal record,” Smith told The Daily Signal in an exclusive phone interview Tuesday, referring to the athletic conference’s decision to allow biological males to compete against girls.
It’s a complex issue, she said, but the court case is about fairness in competition.
“We want to be able to make sure there is fairness,” Smith said.
Soule missed qualifying for the state championship in the 55-meter final and, by one spot, an opportunity to qualify for the New England championships in the 2018-2019 season.
Two spots above her were taken by biological males.
Because 18 other states have similar policies for high school athletics, the three girls’ case in Connecticut could set a national precedent, said Christiana Holcomb, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom.
“The objective is fairness in women’s sports,” Holcomb told The Daily Signal.
“Title IX is there for a reason,” she said. “It’s to give athletes like Chelsea [Mitchell] and Alanna [Smith] the opportunity to excel and be victorious.”
Mitchell said that she drew on her training and knew how to maximize her performance. She recalled looking at the running times for the biological male athletes in her race and realizing that beating them would be quite difficult.
“They are leaps and bounds beyond my fastest time,” Mitchell said.
The three girls’ lawsuit notes that college scholarships are among the missed opportunities they faced in losing to biological boys in competitions specifically intended for girls.
“I’m left wondering,” Mitchell told The Daily Signal. “I can’t measure the college scholarship, and I don’t know what opportunities could have come if the rules were different.”
Like Soule before them, both girls stressed that they do support fairness for transgender individuals, but that the current policy in Connecticut high school athletics isn’t fair to girls.
The Connecticut Association of Schools-Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, which governs high school sports in the state, has argued that the transgender policy is based on federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
“This is about someone’s right to compete,” Executive Director Glenn Lungarini told the Associated Press last year. “I don’t think this is that different from other classes of people, who, in the not too distant past, were not allowed to compete. I think it’s going to take education and understanding to get to that point on this issue.”
The lawsuit filed Wednesday states:
This discriminatory policy is now regularly resulting in boys displacing girls in competitive track events in Connecticut—excluding specific and identifiable girls including Plaintiffs from honors, opportunities to compete at higher levels, and public recognition critical to college recruiting and scholarship opportunities that should go to those girls.
As a result, in scholastic track competition in Connecticut, more boys than girls are experiencing victory and gaining the advantages that follow even though postseason competition is nominally designed to ensure that equal numbers of boys and girls advance to higher levels of competition.
Compared to boys—those born with XY chromosomes—in the state of Connecticut those who are born female—with XX chromosomes—now have materially fewer opportunities to stand on the victory podium, fewer opportunities to participate in post-season elite competition, fewer opportunities for public recognition as champions, and a much smaller chance of setting recognized records.
COLUMN BY
Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Even Liberal Feminists Worry About Equal Rights Amendment
Problematic Women: Young, Woke, and Depressed
On TikTok App, Abortion Becomes Hot Topic
A Note for our Readers:
This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.
The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.
They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.
My latest in PJ Media:
Joe Biden is always good for laughs, but there isn’t really any joke: he’s serious. On Sunday, he reminded us just how far around the bend he is when he called a female questioner in New Hampshire a “lying, dog-faced pony soldier.” Even Fox News, along with the rest of the establishment media, immediately rushed to his aid by claiming he was “joking,” but imagine what the uproar would have been if Trump had called anyone that. In any case, it’s important to remember that Crazy Joe is not alone: the Democratic candidates are all crazy.
The “dog-faced pony soldier” remark was not Old Joe’s first trip to the Crazy Rodeo. Last August, he was asked by a college student in Iowa how many genders there were. “There are at least three,” he answered, and when she asked him to explain, he shot back: “Don’t play games with me, kid.”
After a New Hampshire voter asks @JoeBiden why they should trust he can turn his campaign around, he asks if she’s ever been to a caucus before; when she says yes, Biden snaps: "No you haven’t. You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier." pic.twitter.com/3uxOAu0Ues
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 9, 2020
Three genders. Well, at least Joe is saner than those who insist there are seventy-three genders, or whatever the number is this week.
Affable but testy and thin-skinned, Joe has been just as testy on numerous other occasions, hardly a winning strategy for someone who is trying to ingratiate himself with voters. When another Iowa voter challenged him about his son Hunter’s highly questionable dealings in Ukraine, he grew increasingly agitated and finally responded heatedly to the portly questioner: “Look, Fat, look, here’s the deal…”
Dotty old Joe has also been given to nostalgic ramblings, as when he said: “And by the way, you know, I sit on the stand, and it’d get hot. I gotta lotta, I got hairy legs, that turn, that, that, that, that, that, that turn, uh, uh, um, blond in the sun. And the kids used to come up and reach into the pool and rub my leg down so it was straight and then watch the hair, mmm, come, come back up again. So I learned about roaches. I learned about kids jumping on my lap. And I’ve loved kids jumping on my lap.”
Time to back away slowly, while smiling reassuringly at old Joe, hoping he doesn’t make any sudden moves. But where to turn?
There is much more. Read the rest here.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Buttigieg, Sanders and Biden hit Trump for eliminating international jihadi Soleimani
France: 30-year-old Islamic convert brandishing machete demands to marry 11-year-old girl
RELATED VIDEO: Soleimani’s daughter, a Qur’an study leader, calls on “Islamic world” to avenge her father
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet End Presidential Campaigns
Van Jones: Biden’s South Carolina Strategy Is Going To ‘Blow Up In His Face’
New Hampshire Voter Tells MSNBC Anchor She Voted For Bernie Sanders – To Stick It To MSNBC
CNN Correspondent Can’t Find A Single Biden Supporter In New Hampshire
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.
Hat tip to bigrims405 for publishing this video titled Best 2020 Campaign Ad So Far on YouTube:
© All rights reserved.
GEOFFREY DICKENS
Geoffrey Dickens is the Deputy Research Director at the Media Research Center. He currently writes for all of the MRC’s publications and outlets including MRC.org, Newsbusters.org, Notable Quotables and has contributed to past projects including MediaWatch and MagazineWatch. He also authored the MRC’s Outgunned Special Report that examined the media’s bias against gun rights. Dickens has made several appearances on radio talk shows around the nation.
TOPIC: Unhinged MSNBCers Keep Comparing Trump to Hitler
SETON MOTLEY
Seton Motley is the president of Less Government, an organization dedicated to, well, less government. Including protecting the First Amendment from governmental assault. He is a writer, television and radio commentator, political and policy strategist, lecturer, debater, and activist.
TOPIC: The Left Is Confused
TRACY BEANZ
Tracy Beanz is an investigative journalist who places a strong focus on politics. While writing for UncoverDC, she has brought the intricate details of several major stories to light, including corruption between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Andrew McCabe, who threatened the NY Office of the FBI during the Clinton Email investigation. Tracy has also worked at a high level on several grassroots political campaigns, including Ron Paul’s 2012 run for the presidency, Rand Paul’s first Kentucky senate run, and most recently, the campaign for Donald Trump for President in 2016. In addition editor at UncoverDC.com.
TOPIC: Jeffrey Epstein: What they aren’t talking about!
Psychologists should consider the harm caused by anti-bullying policies.
Thanks to anti-bullying laws, schools are now routinely being sued for the death of bullied kids who commit suicide. Another lawsuit has just made national news, this time against a school in New Jersey which prided itself on having the toughest anti-bullying law in the country.
According to the lawsuit, Tristan Peterson, a boy of 12, committed suicide in 2017 because he was “bullied and harassed repeatedly by his classmates” at Woodruff Middle School in Bridgeton after he came out as gay. As reported by NBC news,
The suit accuses the school, the Upper Deerfield School District and staff of negligence, and of violating the state’s discrimination law, wrongful death and creating a hostile learning environment. Several district staff and the state of New Jersey are also named in the suit, which seeks damages and a jury trial.
Judaism instituted the ritual of Bar-Mitzvah, in which a boy, upon reaching the typical age of puberty–13–has responsibility for his actions transferred from his parents to himself. Thus, it is appropriate to be asking, Who or what killed 12-year-old Tristan Peterson?
The answer provided by anti-bullyism, as reflected in the lawsuit, is his school and the governmental bodies that oversee it.
But could it be that something else is responsible for his death, something no one is considering?
Psychology is a branch of science. The purpose of science is to figure out how nature works and to use that knowledge to solve problems and make the world a better place. The most basic tool of science is questioning. We don’t just assume that our inventions and interventions will yield only positive results. As that magnificent old saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Anti-bullyism is founded on the good intention of creating a society in which no one is made miserable by anyone else. Unfortunately, anti-bullyism has been a grand failure. After two full decades of anti-bullyism being championed by psychology, education and law, bullying is considered a growing epidemic, the suicide rate among young children has been skyrocketing, and lawsuits against schools for failing to make bullying stop are proliferating.
Psychology, as well as all systems of wisdom, advise us to take personal responsibility for the results of our actions–at least when we reach adulthood. Bar-Mitzvah boys are not exempted, and neither should researchers be.
It is high time for researchers to ask why we they failed to conquer the bullying problem and to take responsibility for any harm caused by their policies.
If medical researchers were discovered to be promoting a drug despite knowing that their research finds it to be largely ineffective and often harmful, the researchers would get sued.
Yet many of the leading bullying researchers continue promoting the same policies year after year despite their research showing they are minimally effective and often counterproductive. Because Professor Dan Olweus, the “father” of the psychological field of bullying, insisted that we fight for anti-bullying laws, and because the legions of bullying researchers who treat him with religious reverence have heeded his call, they have created a draconian situation in which schools get sued for the failure of the Olweus-generated policies they foisted upon them.
To accurately locate responsibility for Tristan Peterson’s suicide, we need to think like psychological scientists rather than religious zealots. Suicides by bullied kids have been escalating during the very period that society has been legislating policies against bullying. We would be grievously irresponsible to ignore the possibility that anti-bullying policies have contributed to the rise in these suicides.
Until the sexual revolution enabled by the invention of “the pill,” sexual activity was recognized to be dangerous and was strongly discouraged among teenagers. To this day, we consider reduction in teen sexual activity as a positive development, as reflected in an article in The Atlantic:
To the relief of many parents, educators, and clergy members who care about the health and well-being of young people, teens are launching their sex lives later.
And prior to the gay rights movement, homosexuality was widely considered aberrant or sinful, as it still is in much of the world. A 12-year-old like Tristan would never have announced that he was gay, and unless he had obviously effeminate mannerisms, he wouldn’t have been a target of gay bashing.
In recent decades, schools have been mandated to promote diversity, so they have been educating students from the youngest grades to recognize, accept and appreciate the gamut of sexual preferences and gender identities. Additionally, because of schools’ mandate to eliminate bullying, students have been bombarded with the messages that they have a right to attend school without being bullied and that bullying will not be tolerated.
Thus, Tristan felt encouraged to come out as gay, possibly even expecting the admiration of his peers for his courage.
Then Tristan was hit with reality: children are human beings, not computers that can be programmed to think and act the way social engineers would like them to. Like the rest of us, kids are titillated by the subject of sex, most are biologically attracted to the members of the opposite sex, and despite their indoctrination that all sexual orientations are “normal,” many relate to homosexuality as funny, weird, or even repulsive.
Thus some kids in school made fun of Tristan. He naturally got upset by the taunting, not realizing that getting upset actually fans the flames of taunting.
Tristan and his mother were also taught that they must inform the school about bullying. So that’s what they did. As the NBC article reports:
The boy [Tristan Peterson] and his mother complained multiple times about the bullying, but staff “failed to properly and/or prevent the abusive behavior,” the suit claims, adding, “The defendants had a duty to provide for the safety and security of students.”
What the authorities failed to inform students and parents is that there is no good reason to believe schools can fulfill such a duty. In fact, recent research has confirmed what is obvious even to most teenagers: the kids who get bullied the most are those who inform the authorities the most. But can we blame Tristan and Mrs. Peterson for trusting the school authorities when even the researchers that have discovered this damning correlation continue to advocate for informing?
Informing the school was probably the clincher for Tristan. Kids may enjoy making fun of others for being gay, just as they may enjoy making fun of kids for being fat, skinny, tall, short, red-haired, Black, Jewish or bespectacled. But they don’t necessarily hate them. What truly makes kids hate others and want to hurt them is when they inform on them to the authorities. Examine the news stories about bullying that led to serious violence or suicide. You will discover that the tragedies almost always occurred after the school was informed of the bullying.
Imagine what it’s like to be Tristan. First the adult authorities instruct you to be proud of your sexual orientation, and that other kids are required to treat you with respect for it. Then you discover it was a lie, and you get repeatedly ridiculed for coming out. Then you trust the authorities’ promise that they will solve your problem if you inform them, only to discover that that they lied to you about this as well, and your life has become an absolute nightmare. You see no way out of your misery. Is it any wonder that so many bullied kids resort to suicide out of desperation?
And how about the lawyers suing schools? Do they really believe their accusations? Haven’t they discovered that when people complain about each other to the authorities, that’s when they really want to kill each other? But truth is not the concern of lawyers. Their aim is to earn money representing their clients. Fortunately for lawyers, the anti-bullying laws psychologists fought for have given them a new revenue stream by assaulting schools.
But scientists are not lawyers and money is no excuse for being unethical. Our goal is to find the truth no matter how politically incorrect the truth may be.
Until we psychological scientists consider the hypothesis that the anti-bullying policies we promote can be responsible for the death of kids like Tristan, we will continue to anguish over the sky-high youth suicide rate, and schools will continue being sued for our own irresponsibility.
Closing note: Does this mean there is nothing to be done about kids getting ridiculed for being gay? Not at all. Good psychology can help. First, they can be taught that their sexual orientation is a private matter which they need not disclose to anyone other than their person of romantic interest. Second, they need to be warned not to inform the school when kids pick on them unless they are certain the school has a reliable way of making them stop.
Third, and most importantly, they deserve to be taught what to do when kids make fun of them for being gay (or for any other reason). The way they respond will determine whether their peers end up despising or admiring them.
COLUMN BY
Izzy Kalman is the author and creator of the website Bullies2Buddies.com and a critic of the anti-bully movement.
The talk about Allah extinguishing wars is derived from one of the Qur’an’s innumerable denunciations of Jews: “And the Jews say, ‘The hand of Allah is chained.’ Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both his hands are extended; he spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. And We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they kindled the fire of war, Allah extinguished it. And they strive throughout the land corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters.” (Qur’an 5:64)
Once again we see a “Palestinian:” organization framing its opposition to peace in Islamic terms. Once again all mainstream analysts ignore this aspect of the conflict.
“Fatah: ‘Trump… shove [the deal] up your [ass]’ or ‘we’ll declare a war only Allah can extinguish,” by Nan Jacques Zilberdik and Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch, February 9, 2020:
Abbas’ Fatah posted a video threatening US President Trump that Palestinians will launch a war that “only Allah will be able to extinguish” if Trump continues to promote his peace plan. Fatah’s video ended with the words: “Trump… roll up [the deal]… and shove it up your ‘ass’.”
“We’ll redeem Palestine with blood… Over our dead bodies, we won’t let it pass, and if you want to overstep my limit, Trump, we’ll blind you; and if you want war – we’ll declare it and only Allah will be able to extinguish it. We’ll drive your Israel crazy and turn it upside-down. Trump, gather up this deal quickly, fold it and roll it up, you idiot, put it in the center, and shove it up your ‘ass’ (lit. in Arabic “tinak” meaning “your mud”, a play on the word “tizak” meaning “your ass”).”
[Official Fatah Facebook page, Feb. 4, 2020]
Thursday and Friday’s four terror attacks against Israelis in which 14 were wounded didn’t appear out of nowhere. Palestinian Media Watch has documented that the PA and Fatah continuously encourage Palestinians to see the use of violence and terror as a legitimate and even the preferred way to “resist the occupation” and “the deal of the century.” Accordingly, they have urged Palestinians to fight and die as “Martyrs” in response to Trump’s peace plan.
The following is the full text of the video:
Palestinian poet Adnan Balawneh: “We’ll redeem Palestine with blood, it’s not a toy you can play with, and it’s not your father’s inheritance, you idiot, so that you can divide it and give it as a gift, and nonchalantly hold your summit and summon the traitors to you. At whose expense do you flatter and placate Zionism, and sign, sell, and give [it] as a gift? Is it your land or did you find it? I’ll tell you something on my behalf, and my entire people says this: Listen to us, you worthless man, open your ears, this deal will never pass! This deal will never pass! This deal will never pass!
Over our dead bodies, we won’t let it pass, and if you want to overstep my limit, Trump, we’ll blind you; and if you want war – we’ll declare it and only Allah will be able to extinguish it. We’ll drive your Israel crazy and turn it upside-down. Trump, gather up this deal quickly, fold it and roll it up, you idiot, put it in the center, and shove it up your ‘ass’.”
Text on screen: “Shove it up your ‘ass’”
In the expression “shove it up your ‘ass’,” the poet used the word “tinak” in Arabic, which means “your mud” and rhymes with the word “tizak” meaning “your ass.”
[Official Fatah Facebook page, Feb. 4, 2020]…
RELATED ARTICLES:
Ex-Qatari PM: Israel and Gulf states to sign non-aggression pact soon
Sweden: Muslim migrant gets 75 hours community service for rape of 13-year-old girl
France: Teen hunted for criticizing Islam moves to new school “to allow her to continue her life”
Belgium: Two Catholic universities to offer programs to train Muslim imams
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.
And she was expelled from the lecture. That’s the state of academia today.
“Jewish Harvard Club member assaulted during pro-Palestinian lecture, lawsuit says,” by Kathianne Boniello, New York Post, February 8, 2020 (thanks to the Geller Report):
A Jewish member of the Harvard Club claims she was assaulted by a professor during a pro-Palestinian lecture at the swanky venue — and then was booted by the Ivy League institution.
Vanesa Levine is suing to get reinstated to the prestigious Midtown club, whose notable present and past members include Michael Bloomberg, John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Levine, 28, a marketing manager in Brooklyn, said she was a newly minted member of the 154-year old club when she and her mom attended a February 2019 lecture called, “The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine” by Rashid Khalidi, a former press officer for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
She said she “peacefully” asked during a question-and-answer session how Mideast peace could be achieved if Palestinians are taught “to support terrorism against Jews and Israelis.”
The audience erupted in “mob-like” fury at her query, according to the lawsuit.
Harvard finance professor Faris Mousa Saah, 53, called her a whore in Arabic and grabbed her by the arm, bruising it as he tried to take the microphone, according to court papers.
“I’ve been to hell and back ever since the Harvard Club incident,” Levine told The Post.
Though she was eventually able to ask her questions, Levine and her mom, who was born and raised in Israel, were asked by security to leave — with angry audience members following them into the hall, photographing her and chanting, “We’re going to get you expelled,” she charges.
Once on the sidewalk, Levine filmed herself talking about the incident and posted it to Facebook, where the video was viewed more than 50,000 times.
Saah later claimed he had feared Levine would hurt Khalidi and that she had been “aggressively and maniacally” dancing around with the microphone, according to court papers….
“I don’t remember having been at the lecture,” Saah told The Post. “There’s not a single word of accuracy in any of that,” he said of Levine’s charges.
A spokeswoman for the Harvard Club claimed Levine “disrupted a Club program. She was subsequently removed from membership in accordance with the Club’s bylaws.”
RELATED ARTICLES:
France: Teen hunted for criticizing Islam moves to new school “to allow her to continue her life”
Belgium: Two Catholic universities to offer programs to train Muslim imams
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.
There are guns that everybody has heard of and there are guns that nobody wishes to encounter in real life. Naturally, we don’t talk about Glock or Makarov handguns – you’ll soon see that those are babies compared to what we’re about to present you.
Namely, today we’re going to talk about some of the deadliest guns in the world, as well as about the features that make them so deadly – besides the fact that they can be used to hunt any kind of game and not fail the hunter, ever!
This particular rifle is made from a lightweight titanium frame and a floating barrel and can fire .50 BMG rounds – five of them in roughly 1.6 seconds!
The gun itself weighs around 14kg and is manufactured by Accuracy International Ltd., a British firearm producer. Why is it on our list?
Well, it has an effective range of 1800m and a caliber of 12.7mm. On top of that, it is specially designed to hit long-distance targets with increased precision and accuracy.
Naturally, we couldn’t have a top of the world’s deadliest guns without mentioning the M4 carbine. This particular model is a shorter version of the M16. However, the M4 comes with the same firepower as the traditional assault rifles.
As such, given its portability and firepower, it is known as a very dangerous and effective firearm. It can fire up to 950 rpm and has an effective range of 500m.
Even though we said that handguns won’t have an entry in this article, we can’t ignore the almighty Desert Eagle!
It was first produced in 1982 and it is a semi-automatic, gas-operated handgun with an effective range of 200 meters.
The most recent model, namely the Mark XIX, can be chambered for different cartridges. The largest – and probably the deadliest for a handgun – is the .50 AE. Obviously, Mark XIX can kill with a single shot.
The HK 416 model is an assault rifle believed to be a modernized version of the M4. It comes with an effective range of 600 meters and fires 5.56mm rounds.
Speaking of rounds, the assault rifle can fire up to 900 rounds per minute – an aspect that is both impressive and deadly. Obviously, the cartridge size and the sheer power of this Heckler and Koch gun make it one of the deadliest in the world!
The infamous AK-47 is known as one of the most used weapons during the Second World War. It can fire up to 580 rounds per minute and has an effective range of up to 800 meters.
Nowadays, the AK-47 is extremely popular due to its weight, as well as its incredible effectiveness in various weather conditions. After all, the Kalashnikov is known as the weapon that can be fully submerged in water and still work seconds after.
Moreover, it is one of the cheapest guns to manufacture – as it contains only eight moving parts.
The FAL, also known as Fusil Automatique Leger, is a battle rifle known as the most dependable gun that the military uses.
The weapon features a gas-operated action and can fit 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges. In terms of power, it can fire up to 700 rounds per minute when set on fully automatic – however, due to its very strong recoil, FAL users avoid this particular model.
The FAL is known by many as one of the most widely used guns in history – with more than 2 million units produced since its creation.
The Uzi is, without any doubt, a rather curious entry on this list of the world’s deadliest guns. However, most of you probably already know that one should never underestimate the Uzi.
This small weapon is capable of firing up to 600 rounds per minute – on top of that, it packs accuracy as well, besides sheer firepower. Moreover, due to its size and weight, it’s the preferred weapon when it comes to personal defense – used by either military personnel or criminals.
Last but not least, it’s time we talked about another sniper rifle – but a more powerful one than our previous entry.
This particular gun is, clearly, one of the deadliest there can be – and here’s exactly why. First of all, it is worth noting that the DSR-precision is manufactured as an anti-material rifle. This makes it capable of puncturing vehicles – even armored ones.
It comes with an effective range of 1500m and, as its name implies, fires .50 caliber rounds. Obviously, it is equipped with free-floating barrel technology.
Among some of its peculiar characteristics, we have to mention its rather short length that doesn’t affect the rifle’s power at all. In fact, the manufacturer made it highly adjustable and capable of great precision.
Then, to make it even deadlier, the gun was also equipped with a front holder that decreases the gun’s reloading time!
The Bottom Line
As you can see, a weapon is not deadly simply because it is very large or fires the largest caliber possible – thinking of the Uzi, in this case.
For a weapon to be the deadliest in the world, it must come with firepower and accuracy first. Then, some versatility would be helpful too – for example, there are guns that can be chambered for different bullets.
Then, in the end, it is very important that the gun is made from durable materials and that it’s manufactured properly. As mentioned above, the AK-47 contains only 8 moving essential parts and, because of this, the weather will not affect it at all.
This is, basically, what makes a weapon deadly – the fact that multiple generations can use it without major failure and that you can rely on one even if it sat in your attic for the last five years!
© All rights reserved.
Does expansion of entry restriction for aliens strengthen or weaken national security?
On January 31, 2020 the Department of Justice issued a press release, Fugitive Wanted by Iraq for Murder of Iraqi Police Officers Arrested in Arizona began with this passage:
A Phoenix-area resident, who is alleged to have been the leader of a group of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Al-Fallujah, Iraq, appeared today before a federal magistrate judge in Phoenix, Arizona in connection with proceedings to extradite him to the Republic of Iraq. He is wanted to stand trial in Iraq for two charges of premeditated murder committed in 2006 in Al-Fallujah.
The arrest was announced by Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Michael Bailey for the District of Arizona.
An Iraqi judge issued a warrant for the arrest of Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri, 42, on murder charges. The Government of Iraq subsequently requested Ahmed’s extradition from the United States. In accordance with its treaty obligations to Iraq, the United States filed a complaint in Phoenix seeking a warrant for Ahmed’s arrest based on the extradition request. U.S. Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued the warrant on January 29, 2020, and Ahmed was arrested the following day.
Subsequent news reports have indicated that Al-Nouri entered the United States as a refugee some ten years ago, was recently married and has been operating a driving school in Arizona.
That an alleged al-Qaeda terrorist and Iraqi fugitive, wanted for murder would enter the United States gives rise a long list of questions that includes the obvious and disconcerting question- was he here to participate in or support a terror attack?
That Al-Nouri was able to enter the United States as a refugee calls into focus the apparent failure of the vetting process that enabled him to legally enter the United States, provided the allegations made by the Iraqi government about him are true.
In point of fact, for decades, a long list of other terrorists were able to game the vetting process and the immigration benefits program to enter the U.S. and embed themselves in preparation for a deadly terror attack.
This brings us the fact that on the very same day that the DOJ announced the arrest of a suspected terrorists and international fugitive by the FBI, ICE and the U.S. Marshals Service, on January 31st, perhaps coincidentally, The Hill reported, Trump administration restricts travel from Nigeria and five other countries. Here is an excerpt from that report:
The government will curb the ability of citizens of Nigeria, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan and Tanzania to get certain immigration visas, according to officials with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and State Department, but it is not a blanket travel ban.”Because we have higher confidence that these six countries will be able to make improvements in their system in a reasonable period of time, we did not feel it would be proportionate to impose restrictions on all immigrant and non-immigration visas,” a DHS official said.
The official cited national security concerns as the reason for the restrictions, saying the governments of the six countries do not meet requirements for information-sharing and passport security.
President Trump was expected to sign a proclamation approving the restrictions on Friday afternoon, and it will go into effect on Feb. 22.
The actions of President Trump to tighten up the vetting process for alines entering the United States are, in reality, consistent with standing law and with the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
However, just hours after The Hill reported on the Trump administration’s expansion of the entry restriction for citizens of certain countries, The Hill reported, Pelosi: Trump’s expanded travel ban is ‘outrageous, un-American’ and threatens ‘rule of law’ and began this way:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Trump’s expanded travel ban after he included six other countries to the list of those that will face increased travel restrictions.
“The Trump Administration’s expansion of its outrageous, un-American travel ban threatens our security, our values and the rule of law. The sweeping rule, barring more than 350 million individuals from predominantly African nations from traveling to the United States, is discrimination disguised as policy,” Pelosi said in a statement.
In reality the so-called “travel ban” is actually an “entry restriction” and, far from being illegal is actually one of many authorities provide to the President of the United States to protect national security and public safety. Nevertheless, Speaker Pelosi falsely and recklessly claimed that somehow the President’s decision to use standing law to control the entry of aliens whose presence would pose a national security threat would do the precise opposite and supposedly threaten national security and the rule of law.
As I have noted in previous articles and testimony, under one of the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Specifically 8 U.S. Code § 1182: (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President the President has wide-ranging authority to suspend the entry of any and/or all aliens if he determines that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The term “detrimental to the interests of the United States” is as low a bar as could be imagined.
Here is that section of the Immigration and Nationality Act:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
This then raises the obvious and unavoidable questions that the mainstream media would never ask Ms Pelosi, how could she claim that is it illegal for the President of the United States to impose a restriction on the entry of aliens, when long-standing federal law provides that very authority to the President?
How does President Trump’s decision to prevent the entry of aliens who might pose a threat to national security threaten national security?
In point of fact, the preface of the official report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel begins with this unambiguous paragraph:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
This is hardly the first time, and I suspect will not be the last time, that Pelosi and her fellow immigration anarchists will attack the President and immigration law enforcement personnel who are dedicated to protecting national security and the lives of innocent Americans.
Indeed, she has frequently alleged that the President has acted “Unconstitutionally” when he insists on securing our nation’s borders against the illegal entry of aliens and/or enforcing our immigration laws.
In anticipation of that bogus claim Ms Pelosi and her fellow radicals should read Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Facts are, indeed, stubborn things!
EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.
The most popular name for male rapists in Scotland is Muhammad (or Mohammed, or variant spellings thereof). You could be forgiven for thinking that in such a land, the most popular names for any kind of criminal might by Angus or Archie or Donald, etc. This is quite an accomplishment by Muslims, whose population density in Scotland is allegedly hovering around the 2% mark. We always see in the newspapers that the most popular boys’ name for any given year in London or England as a whole is Mohammed, but the headline ends there and it doesn’t develop into any kind of substantive story. We’re never told what these Mohammeds come to be known for, or what they achieve. It’s probably because their tales are mostly to do with rape, drugs, and jihad. It wouldn’t do to tell the reader that there’s a new litter of jihadis and jihad enablers growing in our midst.
These Muslim rapists are non-discriminatory when it comes to having their libidos’ needs met. They are not ‘ableist’, to use a ‘woke’ word that has been recently coined by today’s liberals. Oh no, they will rape anyone regardless of physical or mental disability, as in the case of this woman who has Down’s Syndrome. On the plus side, you can rest assured that regardless of your age, race, gender or physical or mental condition, there is a Mohammed out there who will absolutely not be prejudiced or bigoted against you when it comes to having his sex needs met.
Another serial rapist called Mohammad, a father if you please, doesn’t stop to bother with such silly little things as consent. No, he’ll take it wherever he can find it. Lie down for a nap? That’s not a problem for Mohammed. He doesn’t need your permission or your interaction. Seems pretty versatile also, he can rape victims in their houses or his car.
Another family man and father called Mohammed pounced at the chance of luring a teenage girl into his car when he saw her leaving the pub drunk. He raped her and then kicked her into the street half naked. Probably thought he had done her a favour, he’d driven her halfway home after all. Makes me wonder what qualities he is instilling into his own children if that is the way he treats other people’s children.
Escaping life in the ‘open air prison’ that we are told is Palestine was probably too much too soon for this Muslim rapist named Mohammed. He was probably light-headed on the fumes of free Scottish money and free social housing as he raped a sex worker, probably thinking that unlimited non-Muslim women were also included in his asylum application, and that as a Muslim man he did not need to pay the girl.
And over in Falkirk, where Braveheart’s very own William Wallace once fought and was defeated by that most ancient of foes, the English, a ‘burly beast’ of a Muslim named Mohammed raped an underage schoolgirl. These rape wars are not the kind of battles that Scots should be fighting in their historic landscapes. The ‘Battle of Falkirk’ now seems to be one in which schoolgirls fight for their right to keep their virginities intact, and to not be raped in night-time parks by Mohammeds.
These Mohammeds consistently show us that they are industrious and can work as part of a team. Nor are they homophobic, and they show us that they can dispense of their desert ways when they come to civilised lands by using apps on smart-phones. Technology opens up new avenues for these Mohammeds by which they can rape people. These Muslims used the gay app Grindr to arrange meets with gay men in their houses, where they would rape and rob them.
The list is endless, and does not incorporate all of the Mohammeds who have participated in grooming and rape gangs. And the reader should keep in mind that this article has been written with a slightly satirical overtone to it, but it should be read as being appalling. The subject of rape is not a funny one, and it is not my intention to trivialize the act of rape or to mock any victims of sexual assault. I find the over-representation of Mohammeds in Scotland in relation to rape, given their percentage of the population, to be astounding. The fact that no one is curious about this phenomenon is, to my mind, mind-blowing, and it is the people who are ignoring and denying what is going in Scotland whom I am mocking here. No one seems to be connecting the religious and cultural dots. How many more women and children and men need to be raped by more Mohammeds before people start talking about the problem? At this late stage in the game, the wilful ignorance is farcical, and it is my hope that the tone of the article reflects that.
COLUMN BY
RELATED ARTICLES:
Afghan soldier opens fire on his US “allies,” murdering two and injuring six
Iranian Regime Cracks Down on ‘Indecently Dressed’ Mannequins in Shops
Iran’s Theocrats Mix God and Country
Germany: doctor warns female genital mutilation on the rise because of mass Muslim migration
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.
A proposed Democrat immigration bill called the New Way Forward Act takes an extreme and radical approach toward immigration to America. If passed, the New Way Forward Act would grant greater rights to illegal residents, including violent criminals, at the expense of taxpaying American citizens.
The legislation is sponsored by 44 House Democrats including Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
In a stunning speech explaining the New Way Forward Act (see video below), host Tucker Carlson singles out the most devastating aspect of the New Way Forward Act:
“The [New Way Forward] bill would entirely remake our immigration system, with the explicit purpose of ensuring that criminals are able to move here, and settle here permanently, with impunity.” – Tucker Carlson
Carlson argues that the New Way Forward Act dwarfs the Green New Deal when it comes to ripping up our laws and traditions by the roots. He adds that while Democrats claim the New Way Forward Act looks to break the “prison to deportation pipelines.” Carlson cautions American voters that these are not individuals in prison over parking tickets; they’re in prison over felony convictions.
The New Way Forward Act forces America to become a sanctuary nation, including for those who have committed violent crimes here or abroad before they came to the United States. Under the law, illegal immigrants are protected from deportation even if they’ve committed sex crimes against children.
“If this bill passes, there will no longer be any crimes that automatically require deportation … A Mexican drug cartel leader could be released from prison, then freely come to America immediately And if he wants, he could come here illegally, and it wouldn’t be a crime.” – Tucker Carlson
Rise of extremist narratives in the American landscape is not a new occurrence, but it being leveraged by lawmakers is a dangerous precedent. In our Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) Training Program, Clarion Project is vigilant of various forms of extremism.
We are noticing the same pattern of radicalism that exists elsewhere again making its way into U.S. politics. This is in part happening because there isn’t a serious good-faith inquiry by certain leaders into the connective tissue of extremist ideologies.
“Democratic ring-leaders like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez take a very serious issue like White Supremacy and weaponize it as a political attack against their opponents. They have a responsibility to be tempered, studied, responsive to cracks in society that we have the power to address.
Instead — not that different from recruiters of extremist ideologies — they’re feeding on human vulnerability to push their radicalized world view.” – Shireen Qudosi
Last summer, Clarion Project PVE co-director and a cohort of the USC Civic and Digital Culture Program Shireen Qudosi drew attention to Ilhan Omar’s identity politics as a “gateway drug” to radicalization.
Qudosi called Omar a “failed American experiment,” raising the question of how the U.S. should place value on incoming immigrants and refugees.
At the same time, Tucker Carlson noted that Ilhan Omar is “living proof” that immigration is “dangerous to this country.” He added, “A system designed to strengthen America is instead undermining it. Some of the very people we try hardest to help have come to hate us passionately.”
Some of those people, like Ilhan Omar, are now in positions of power and able to draft and pass extremist laws. The New Way Forward Act would be the most devastating piece of legislation in a century — reinforcing the narrative of a politically radicalized group that sees America as a white supremacists nation.
That view isn’t based on reality, but then again, neither is any other radicalization narrative.
RELATED STORIES:
Majority in new poll says they would not vote for socialist: Gallup
The Interview Ilhan Omar Refused to Accept
AOC Links White Supremacy to Climate Change
Focus on White Supremacist Violence Doesn’t Explain NYC Attacks
Buttigieg, Sanders & Biden Hit Trump for Eliminating Soleimani
EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.
This year’s World Hijab Day faced stiff competition from the counter movement, “Free From Hijab” and “No Hijab Day.”
World Hijab Day was started on Feb. 1, 2013 by New York resident Nazma Khan. According to Khan’s bio, she promoted a single day of focused awareness to “foster religious tolerance and understanding by inviting women (non-Hijabi Muslims/non-Muslims) to experience the hijab for one day.”
Over the years, the movement got pushback from women’s rights activists who champion the rights of women who are forced to wear the hijab against their will. Their argument is rooted in the idea that the hijab further reinforces an honor/shame dynamic that puts undue pressure and burden on them — not only to control their own representation in the world but also be “responsible” for how others will gaze at them.
In 2018, Canadian human-rights campaigner Yasmine Mohammed started #NoHijabDay joining Iranian journalist Masih Alinejad, who has been the chief campaigner for “Free From Hijab.” Alinejad is the founder of White Wednesdays and My Stealthy Freedom — both of which advocate for women’s rights in Iran and elsewhere to be free from coercion to wear the hijab.
This simple act of removing your hijab and taking a video can make you a “criminal” in Iran. #SabaKordafshari was sentenced to 24 years prison for #WalkingUnveiled and being voice of the voiceless. Now it’s our turn to be her voice.#WhiteWednesdays pic.twitter.com/FTKQLCeqBn
— Masih Alinejad 🏳️ (@AlinejadMasih) August 29, 2019
The hashtag #FreeFromHijab was trending on Twitter this February 1, while #WorldHijabDay was not. It was clear who was the winner was: #FreeFromHijab. However, Twitter isn’t the only social outlet; it’s just the social outlet most activists are on.
The place most women and influencers go to is Instagram, where #WorldHijabDay outperformed #FreeFromHijab by a wide margin:
What’s clear is that there is a world of women outside of the activists’ sphere, and they’re a low-hanging opportunity to reach out to and partner with against forced hijab. To draw in more allies against forced hijab, we will have to be more broad-thinking about how we see the issue.
Well intended as it is, #FreeFromHijab implies that all women wearing the hijab are not free. Of course, that’s simply not true.
Many women cover their hair out of a sense of modesty, while others do it in an increasingly sexualized culture to clearly communicate they’re “not available” for casual sexual encounters. Others wear hijab as a soft protest against the commodification of women’s beauty. Still others wear it as a marker of Muslim identity.
The hashtag #FreeFromHijab works well with people who are already like-minded, but it is not going to draw in a new audience let alone our hijab sisters- in-faith, if we start from the premise that hijab is de facto oppression, or if we confuse all forms of covering as the same as hijab.
To win this war, we can be passionate as human rights activists, but we also have to be accurate and inclusive.
RELATED STORIES:
Iranian Regime Cracks Down on ‘Indecently Dressed’ Mannequins in Shops
US Public School Teacher Threatens Muslim Girl for Taking Off Hijab