VIDEO: “I hate you and I hope you die”

A student activist I work with sent me a disturbing video.

And I’m sharing it with you now to show you the hostile and often violent abuse young conservatives face from AntiFa and other radical leftists on their college campuses.

As you’ll see in the video, one “tolerant” left-wing student took a break from vandalizing property at a local Turning Point USA event to aggressively shout at a student organizer:

“I hate you and I hope you die!”

I hope you’ll take a moment now to watch this short, 47-second video:

In the toxic atmosphere on campuses, hundreds of thousands of conservative students are outnumbered by…

…AntiFa and other radical leftist students as well as far-Left socialist professors and university administrators.

EDITORS NOTE: This TPUSA video and column are republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Florida Governor DeSantis Signs Law Protecting State Constitution Amendment Process

HB-5 Ballot Measure, Protects Florida’s Constitution from Outsiders

HB-5 – Contains an amendment by Rep. James Grant (R) to restore the right of Floridians to control the Florida citizen ballot initiative petition process.

The amendment is intended to stop out-of-state billionaires from crafting amendments to Florida’s Constitution, then sending paid, out-of-state petition gatherers into Florida to collect petition signatures to change the Constitution for the benefit of out-of-state special interests.

The House voted 105-0 to pass the Grant amendment with 15 House members not voting. The Senate concurred in the Grant amendment and passed the bill 22-17.

On June 7, 2019, Governor DeSantis signed the bill into law.  

Bill Cotterell, a reporter with the Tallahassee Democrat, framed it well in his article on June 8, 2019 when he said:

“When it takes effect, the bill will soon require people gathering petitions to register with the state and live in Florida, effectively eliminating a sort of cottage industry that specializes in crafting constitutional amendments and guiding them through the referendum process. It also forbids paying canvassers by how many voter signatures they gather.” 

The new process takes effect in 30 days.

These changes are critically important to gun owners, as anti-gunners repeatedly try to subvert the Constitution and Second Amendment rights by imposing gun bans and gun control through the ballot petition process.

Film ‘The White Crow’ shows the evils of living under Communism

“I want to stay and to be free.” – Rudolf Nureyev at Le Bourget Airport


I had a great opportunity to watch a Sony Pictures film titled “The White Crow” about the life of Rudolf Nureyev. The film is powerful, not only because of Nureyev himself but of what it shows about living under Communism during and after WWII. Rudolf’s family “were Tartars, coming of peasant stock in the Soviet republic of Bashkir.” His father, Hamet, become a political education officer in the Red Army, advancing to the rank of major during WWII.

The main influence in his life was his mother, who first took the young Rudolf to a ballet. From then on Rudolf wanted to be free to dance. Nureyev wanted to dance where he wanted and when he wanted. His penchant for wanting to be with Westerners finally caused him to be recalled to Moscow. Therefore, as a free thinker, Nureyev became an enemy of the Soviet state. This eventually lead to his defection.

Rudolf Nureyev Foundation notes:

When the company went to Paris in 1961 for its first foreign tour, Rudolf could hardly be left behind but a close watch was kept on him.

Still he did not conform. Instead of returning obediently to the hotel each night in the coaches provided, he went out with French dancers and other locals. One or two other Kirov dancers did likewise but Nureyev was the one who caused most alarm to the political agents running the tour.

When everyone arrived at the airport to move on for performances in London he was instead given a ticket to Moscow and told he was needed for a gala.

Disbelieving assurances that he would rejoin the company in London, he was sure he would never again be allowed out of Russia and would face relegation back home.

He decided to seek asylum in the west and managed to get word to friends who had come to see him off. They told the French police, who explained that Nureyev must personally approach them; he did this and was granted permission to stay in France. Russian officials thereafter did all they could to disparage the “defector”, and in absence he was sentenced to prison. For many years all his travelling had to be done on temporary documents but eventually he was given Austrian citizenship.

Watch the trailer:

What I learned from this film was what it is like to live under a Communist regime, the former USSR. The “C” in Communism stands for control. The White Crow is about an artist who stood against oppression. His name was Rudolf Nureyev.

Rudolf Nureyev

The Rudolf Nureyev Foundation says this about “The White Dove”:

Ralph Fiennes’ THE WHITE CROW was inspired by the book Rudolf Nureyev: The Life by Julie Kavanagh. The drama charts the iconic dancer’s famed defection from the Soviet Union to the West in 1961, despite KGB efforts to stop him. Fiennes directs from a script by David Hare (The Hours). Acclaimed dancer Oleg Ivenko stars as Nureyev, alongside AdAle Exarchopoulos as Clara Saint, and Fiennes as Russian ballet coach Alexander Pushkin.

I highly recommend seeing “The White Dove” to understand why American can never become socialist.

RELATED ARTICLE: How socialism violates all Ten Commandments

Nureyev Biography

The Rudolf Nureyev Foundation provides this Nureyev biography:

1938 March 17. Birth of Rudolf, fourth child and only son of Hamet and Farida Nureyev, aboard the Trans-Siberian express, near Lake Baikal. He spends his childhood and youth in Ufa, capital of the Soviet Republic of Bashkir. His parents are Tartar Muslims.

1955 August 24. Rudolf Nureyev takes the entrance exam for the prestigious Vaganova Academy (Kirov Ballet school) in Leningrad. He is admitted and trains under legendary ballet teacher Alexander Pushkin.

1958 For the school’s graduation concert, Rudolf Nureyev dances the pas de deux from Le Corsaire with Alla Sizova. He joins the Kirov (ex-Marinsky Theatre) Ballet in Leningrad, the most important dance company in the USSR, as soloist.October 28. Debut at the Kirov in the pas de trois in Swan Lake.

1961 Kirov Ballet tour, Paris. Rudolf Nureyev’s success is stunning from his very first appearance on stage at the Palais Garnier on May 19, in Act III (Kingdom of the Shades) from La Bayadère.June 16. Rudolf Nureyev “chooses liberty” and demands political asylum at Le Bourget airport instead of boarding an airplane to take him back to the USSR. He joins the Ballets du Marquis de Cuevas the next day. Decisive encounter with Erik Bruhn, principal dancer with the Royal Danish Ballet.

1962 Departs for Copenhagen to study the Bournonville style with Erik Bruhn.February 21. First performance of Giselle with Margot Fonteyn and the Royal Ballet at Covent Garden. Rudolf Nureyev becomes guest artist with this company and continues as such until 1977

1963 March 12. Premiere of Marguerite and Armand, choreography by Frederick Ashton for Margot Fonteyn and Rudolf Nureyev. It becomes their fetish ballet.November 27. Rudolf Nureyev remounts a choreography by Marius Petipa for the first time, Act III (Kingdom of the Shades) from La Bayadère for the Royal Ballet. His career quickly becomes international. He dances as a guest star with all the major ballet companies in Europe, the United States and Australia. He dances the princes of the repertoire as well as creations by Frederick Ashton, Rudi Van Dantzig, Roland Petit, Maurice Béjart, George Balanchine, Glen Tetley, Martha Graham and Murray Louis. His insatiable curiosity leads him to try all dance styles. He also remounts the great 19th century Russian ballets by Marius Petipa, a choreographer he reveres: Sleeping Beauty,The Nutcracker, Don Quixote, Swan Lake, Raymonda. He choreographs Tancredi and Manfred.

1983 Rudolf Nureyev becomes dance director at the Paris Opera Ballet, a position he holds until 1989.
He brings new life to the company, invites numerous modern choreographers and teachers, choreographs Cinderella and Washington Square….

1989 Finally obtains long-waited approval from the Soviet authorities to return to Russia and dances La Sylphide at the Kirov Theatre in Leningrad, where he had not returned since 1961.He can visit his dying mother during a short trip to USSR.

1990 He performs in the musical comedy The King and I in the United States.
He performs “Song of a wayfairer” for the last time at the Paris Opera Devoted himself to orchestral conducting.

1992 October 8. First performance of La Bayadère, remounted by Nureyev based on choreography by Marius Petipa, at the Palais Garnier.

1993 January 6. Rudolf Nureyev dies at the age of 54, at the Hôpital du Perpétual Secours in Levallois-Perret, near Paris.Rudolf Nureyev was buried at the Russian cemetery of Sainte-Genevieve-des-Bois near Paris.

VIDEOS: At least seven hurt in central Lyon explosion; package bomb suspected (French prosecutors)

BREAKING France 24:

At least seven hurt in central Lyon explosion; package bomb suspected (French prosecutors).

Police are hunting “a man in his 30s”

That narrows it down doesn’t it?

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column is republished with permission.

This Just In: Left Discovers Candace Owens Is A Nazi!

Candace Owens

Are Leftists evil, crazy, or both? This piece isn’t about jihad, but it does describe an instance of the same tactic that Leftists and Islamic supremacists use on foes of jihad terror and Sharia oppression: take a statement, twist its meaning, and use it to try to defame and destroy the speaker. My latest in FrontPage:

Leftists thought they had hit the jackpot last week in their never-ending quest to portray all dissenters from their totalitarian agenda as Nazis and/or tools of Vladimir Putin: video surfaced of black conservative activist Candace Owens of Turning Point USA appearing to say that the only problem with Adolf Hitler was that he carried his program outside of Germany. Their gleeful smearing of Owens raises the question yet again: are Leftists evil, crazy, or both?

Owens said this at a December event in London:

I actually don’t have any problems at all with the word ‘nationalism.’ I think that it gets, the definition gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don’t want. So when you think about, whenever we say ‘nationalism,’ the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay fine. The problem is that he wanted, he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German. Everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. To me, that’s not nationalism. In thinking about how we could go bad down the line, I don’t really have an issue with nationalism. I really don’t. I think that it’s okay.

It was indeed possible to see this as saying that the only problem with Hitler was that he didn’t confine his activities to Germany alone. And Owens’ Trump/Hitler resonance in speaking of Hitler wanting to “make Germany great” was more fodder for Leftists eager to find validation of their multiple smears of conservatives, and particularly of Trump supporters.

However, any sane person can see that Owens was discussing the taint that has been attached to the word “nationalism,” and not pausing to detail all of Hitler’s obvious crimes. That did not mean that she endorsed those crimes, as she made clear after the firestorm erupted: “He was a homicidal, psychotic maniac who was bent on world domination outside of the confines of Germany. You wouldn’t say he was a nationalist, because he wasn’t about putting Germans first. There were German Jews that he was putting into camps and murdering. He was a mass murderer.”

She also explained that she wasn’t likening Trump to Hitler: “Trump has no interest in conquering the world.” He is “employing a type of nationalism that is desperately needed in times like this, when you have people that are trying to globalize our economy, and we’re seeing that America has been hurt by it.” Responding to claims that she was saying Hitler would have been fine if he had just stayed in Germany, she said: “No, I’m saying Hitler wasn’t a nationalist.”

Anyone with an ounce of good will and common sense could have realized these things all along, but Leftists evidently have neither. Chelsea Clinton tweeted: “Ignorance about Hitler’s evil regime must always be confronted. That burden should not fall on Holocaust survivors. There was nothing, using @RealCandaceO own words, ‘great’ about the Third Reich before it began annexing & invading its neighbors.”

Fake moderate Muslim Qasim Rashid jumped on as well: “Oh my God. Candace Owens says she has ‘no problem’ w/Hitler’s nationalism as long as it had remained in Germany b/c ‘it’s important to retain your country’s identity.’ So Hitler using Nationalism to commit genocide of Jews was ‘just fine’ for Owens.”

The Washington Post pontificated: “Owens and Turning Point have been criticized for issues related to diversity. Some former members have called leaders of the group racist. With speeches like that from Owens, it’s not hard to see why.”

There are just two options here: one is that the Leftists who pounced on Owens (and there are many more) actually believe that conservatives are Nazis, in which case they are insane. Insanity is the inability to distinguish reality from fantasy, and if Chelsea Clinton, Qasim Rashid, the Washington Post and the rest really think that Owens’ initial statement revealed that she secretly admired Hitler, they have shown that they cannot make basic distinctions and perceive elementary realities.

On the other hand, if Leftists knew full well all along that Owens was not a Nazi, but saw her words as fodder to be exploited in order to try to defame and destroy her and all conservatives and Trump supporters, then they are evil.

The most likely answer is that they’re both crazy and evil.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is from Candace Owens’ Facebook page.

Will you consider sending an editorial to your local paper to counter leftist promotion of World Hijab Day?

The same Sharia law that dictates women must wear the hijab also advocates harsh discipline (abuse) of wives, genital mutilation of girls and honor killing of allegedly dishonorable females.

World Hijab Day is February 1st.  The mission of World Hijab Day is to allegedly make non-Muslims aware of the societal response to Muslim women who wear a hijab.


#NoHijabDay livestream on February at bit.ly/NoHijabDayLive

The hijab symbolizes many tenets of Sharia law that oppress women. While most Muslim women in America do NOT wear the hijab, leftist media and retailers in their frenzy to be diverse have made the hijab its new symbol of diversity.  Leftist embracement, promotion and defense of the hijab reinforces the Sharia mandated headgear for women.  Their support for the hijab is hurting the chances of women embracing the fullness of the liberty that is extended to them by the United States Constitution by doffing the oppressive hijab as well as taking a stand against the harsh Sharia tenets that oppress them.

One way to counter World Hijab Day is to submit an editorial or opinion for publication in newspapers.  We are providing two editorials below for you to consider submitting to your newspaper.  The second editorial is the same as the first except it has been edited to 250 words which is the limit of some papers.  Please feel free to make changes to these editorials or write your own opinion.  Florida Family Association has published more information regarding the hijab here.   

Most news media provide a form or email address on their website to make submission easy.  The best way to find this form or email address is to search the internet with the words “newspaper name editorial.” 

If you are willing and would like to voice concern to the public regarding the realities of the hijab please consider submitting an editorial or commentary to your newspaper.  Please let us know if they publish your submission.

LONGER EDITORIAL

Title:  Embrace liberty, doff hijab. 

The mission of World Hijab Day (February 1st) is to allegedly make non-Muslims aware of the societal response to Muslim women who wear a hijab.  Perhaps Muslim women feel uncomfortable wearing the hijab in public because they know that millions of Americans see the hijab as exemplifying one of many harsh tenets of Sharia law that oppress women. 

The hijab has replaced the pink triangle as the progressive left’s top symbol of diversity.  However, tens of millions of Americans including thousands of Muslim women view the hijab as a symbol of Islamist, misogynistic repression.   Nearly sixty percent of Muslims in America do not wear the hijab according to Pew Research published by NPR on April 21, 2011.

Some scholars of Islam teach that the Quran does not mandate the hijab.  The hijab was invented and mandated by Mussah Sadr, an Iranian mullah, in the 1970s, 1300 years after the Quran was written.  Sadr issued a Sharia edict that required women to wear the hijab to allegedly prevent their rape.  Women In The World media published an article on September 15, 2015 titled “The day 100,000 Iranian women protested the head scarf.”  The article displayed a seldom-seen collection of photographs, shot in Tehran in 1979, of thousands of women who are not wearing hijabs or other oppressive attire prior to Sadr enforcing Iran’s new Islamist hijab law.  

British Muslim Qanta Ahmed wrote on March 18, 2017 in The Spectator UK:  “As a Muslim, I strongly support the right to ban the veil.  At last, the European Court of Justice has made a stand for European values.  Rigid interpretations of the veil are a recent invention. They’re derived not from the Quran or early Islamic tradition but from a misogyny which claims a false basis in the divine.”

The same Sharia law that dictates women must wear the hijab also advocates harsh discipline (abuse) of wives, genital mutilation of girls and honor killing of allegedly dishonorable females.  Hopefully, Muslim women will embrace the fullness of the liberty that is extended to them by the United States Constitution by doffing the oppressive hijab as most other Muslim women have done in America as well as take a stand against the harsh Sharia tenets that oppress them.

SHORTENED EDITORIAL 250 WORDS


Title:  Embrace liberty, doff hijab. 

The mission of World Hijab Day (February 1st) is to allegedly make non-Muslims aware of the societal response to Muslim women who wear a hijab.  Perhaps Muslim women feel uncomfortable wearing the hijab in public because they know that millions of Americans see the hijab as exemplifying many tenets of Sharia law that oppress women. 

The hijab has replaced the pink triangle as the progressive left’s top symbol of diversity.  However, tens of millions of Americans including thousands of Muslim women view the hijab as a symbol of Islamist, misogynistic repression.   Nearly sixty percent of Muslims in America do not wear the hijab according to Pew Research published by NPR on April 21, 2011.

The hijab was invented and mandated by Mussah Sadr, an Iranian mullah, in the 1970s, 1300 years after the Quran was written.  Sadr issued a Sharia edict that required women to wear the hijab to allegedly prevent their rape.  Women In The World media published an article on September 15, 2015 titled “The day 100,000 Iranian women protested the head scarf.”  The article displayed photographs taken in 1979 of thousands of Iranian women who were not wearing hijabs.  

The same Sharia law that dictates women must wear the hijab also advocates harsh discipline of wives, genital mutilation of girls and honor killing.  Hopefully, Muslim women will embrace the fullness of the liberty extended to them by the United States Constitution by doffing the oppressive hijab and standing against other oppressive Sharia tenets.

 

RELATED ARTICLE: #NoHijabDay Campaign Fights Women’s Subjugation, Indoctrination

EDITORS NOTE: This FFA column is republished with permission. The featured image is from Pixabay.

INTO THE FRAY: Generals in Israeli politics — The pinnacle of perversity?

As a rule, on entering Israeli politics, senior military and security figures have played a troubling role, which has—almost uniformly—proved disastrous, both for the country and/or for themselves.

It would be so nice if something made sense for a change.” – Alice in Wonderland.

Little could have reflected the perversity of politics in Israel more than the ten minute prime-time interview with former Prime Minister and IDF chief-of-staff, Lt. Gen. (res.) Ehud Barak on Wednesday (January 16, 2019).

A noxious brew of duplicity and hypocrisy

It was a noxious brew of duplicity and hypocrisy, in which Barak launched into a blistering diatribe against the incumbent Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu—beginning with the wildly implausible accusation that he was somehow to blame for the recent scandal involving the head of the Israel Bar Association for allegedly accepting sexual favors in return for advancing judicial appointments.

Indeed, it is curious that Barak should be given such media prominence in light of his largely disastrous foray into politics—or why his views should have any sway with the electorate. He was, after all—arguably—Israel’s most failed prime minister and—inarguably—its shortest serving one, being unceremoniously ejected from office by the voters after barely 18 months. Thus, one might be excused for entertaining the cynical doubt that, had he been about to warmly commend, rather than viciously condemn Netanyahu, he would never have been afforded such generous media exposure.

But apart from the gall of his toxic tirade against Netanyahu, who has been repeatedly re-elected by the very voters who rejected Barak, and who has served consecutively longer than any other prime minister to date—with less than 200 days between him and David Ben Gurion’s record for the longest overall accumulated incumbency—there is the jarring hypocrisy of his recriminations.

For Israel’s enemies: Manna from heaven

After all, Barak served for a good number of years under Netanyahu, first within the Labor party (2009-2011), and then in his breakaway Independence party (2011-2013), which he formed with the explicit purpose of remaining in the Netanyahu-led coalition, after Labor decided to quit it.

Moreover, it is unlikely that anyone familiar with the Israeli political system could doubt that if Barak’s Independence faction had any chance of winning enough votes to cross the minimum threshold required to enter the Knesset, he would have continued to participate in a Netanyahu-led coalition!

Yet today, perhaps smarting under the insult of rejection by the public and his own political failure, Barak has embarked on an incendiary campaign to besmirch the elected government of the country—in which he himself served—that is pure manna from heaven for Israel’s most vehement detractors. Indeed, it is difficult to think of  any of Israel’s external critics, who have expressed harsher or more derogatory accusations against the Jewish state than Barak himself. Indeed, Israel’s enemies need to do nothing more than to quote his venomous invective to prove their claims as to the nefarious nature of the brutal, corrupt, and racist “Zionist entity”.

But more about Barak and his disastrous debacles a little later.

Two categories of generals

Throughout Israel’s short history, former generals have been a highly sought after commodity by political parties. Although prima facie this may appear a logical—perhaps even obvious—desire, a brief glance at the political performance in the past few decades should suffice to cast considerable doubt as to the political acumen and value of former generals.

Indeed, as a general rule, on entering Israeli politics, senior military and security figures have played a troubling role, which has—almost uniformly—proved disastrous, both for the country and/or for themselves.

Overall, there have been two categories of generals that have entered politics in Israel: (a) Those who have managed to attain the highest political office of Prime Minister—and wrought disaster on the nation; and (b) those who did not—and were chewn up, and ignominiously spewed out of the political system—often with their reputations mauled.

In the latter category, we find former IDF Chief-of-Staff and Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, who was forced into humiliating political retirement when it was clear that his Kadima list (once the largest in the Knesset) would not get enough votes to pass the threshold for election, and no other party was prepared to offer him a realistic spot on its list.

Other names that spring to mind in the lengthy list of unimpressive performances by the top brass in politics include Maj.-Gen. (res.) Danny Yatom, former head of the Mossad; V.-Adm. (res.) Ami Ayalon, former commander of the navy and head of the Shin Bet; the lackluster former Chief-of-Staff, the late Lt.-Gen. (res.) Amnon Lipkin-Shahak; Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amram Mitzna, former head of Central Command; and the hapless Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yitzhak Mordechai, former head of Southern Command and later defense minister, who left public life under a cloud of sexual scandal.

Disastrously detrimental role

 With regard to the former category—those ex-generals who have become prime minister—the record is, without exception, dismal. From Yitzhak Rabin through Ariel Sharon to Ehud Barak, each and everyone has left a dismaying heritage of disaster.

Thus, Yitzhak Rabin, despite grave misgivings, capitulated to pressures from his party’s Left wing, and ushered in the Oslo Accords, that left Israel’s streets, cafes and buses awash in blood and body parts; allowed the arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat and his cronies to return triumphantly to Gaza; and for hostile armed militias to deploy within mortar range of the nation’s parliament.

Ariel Sharon abandoned the Gaza Strip, a measure he once vehemently opposed, precipitating all the perils he foresaw and of which he warned, while forcefully expelling thousands of productive, loyal Israeli citizens, to turn their homes over to savage hordes, who ravaged everything and anything left behind.

Then, of course, came Ehud Barak, billed as “Israel’s most decorated soldier,” portrayed as a rare combination of James Bond, Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein, and heralded as the great “white hope” of Israeli politics—a hope that was soon to be dashed. Swept along by the halo of his military glory, Barak was quickly elected prime minister—and disaster soon followed hard on the heels of disaster. Thankfully, he was forced out of office after little more than a year-and-a-half, but not before ordering the ignominious, unilateral flight of the IDF from South Lebanon in 2000; surrendering the area to Hezbollah; consenting – or rather capitulating – to the far-reaching concessions of the Clinton Parameters; and failing to contain the violence of the Second Intifada—that erupted despite his willingness to accept virtually all Palestinian demands.

Generals galore

Thus without exception, all these generals-turned-prime ministers have facilitated the transformation of what were troublesome terrorist nuisances into grave strategic threats.

Yet despite this depressing record, generals still appear to be “flavor of the month” in the upcoming election. More than ever, top military figures are crowding into the 2019 race for the Knesset. Two former chiefs-of-staff have set up their own parties, Bennie Gantz, whose Israel’s Resilience party is polling well, and Moshe “Bogey” Ya’alon, whose Telem party, is not. A third, Gabi Ashkenazi, is rumored as being on the cusp of throwing his hat into the ring—but as to with whom, little is known. Earlier this month, another well-known ex-general, Yom-Tov Samia, former head of Southern Command, who recently left the Zionist Union, announced he was about to set up a new—allegedly left-leaning—party.

Two other generals have joined existing parties, Yoav Galant, former head of Southern Command, who recently left the Kulanu list to join the Likud, and Orna Barbivai, former head of IDF’s Manpower Directorate and the first woman to serve in the General Staff, who joined Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid.

Yet the plethora of emerging parties does not seem to reflect a commensurate plethora of emerging ideologies. Indeed, far more is unknown about what the parties stand for than what is known. Thus, in registering his Israeli Resilience party, Gantz declared its goals as: “the ongoing foundation and strengthening of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state in the light of the Zionist dream as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and through the establishment and redefinition of national priorities in the following areas: education, national infrastructure development, agriculture, law, internal security, social welfare, peace and security.”—which scarcely any of the Zionist parties competing in the elections would oppose!

Positions, not principles; Egos, not ideologies

Sadly, therefore, it appears that the upcoming elections will not be a battle of ideas, ideals and ideologies but of egos, not a struggle to advance principles, but to attain positions. And when position is the overriding goal, principles are jettisoned along the wayside. This has been a recurring phenomenon with generals-turned-politicians.

Thus, Rabin—against his better judgement—capitulated to the pressures of the Left-wing party to adopt the Oslo Accords; Sharon sacrificed Gaza—despite articulating precisely what the results would be—in the hope of appeasing the Left-leaning legal establishment regarding charges of malfeasance on his part; and Barak caved into pressures from Left-leaning civil society protest groups to abandon South Lebanon to Hezbollah.

Likewise, there is Moshe Ya’alon, once a leading figure in the Likud, and even served for five years as vice-premier to Netanyahu without any apparent discomfort, either moral or ideological, until he was replaced as defense minister in 2016—when he suddenly discovered the glaring deficiencies of both Netanyahu and the Likud. Since then, he has scoured the country, excoriating both the man he served under and the party of which he was a member—trying to persuade the electorate that there is no more urgent imperative than to replace them at the helm of government.

Of course, after almost 13 years as prime minister, there may be many reasons why a change of leadership is called for. But invoking a disastrous incumbency by Netanyahu is not one of them. To suggest that it is, is both disingenuous and detrimental.

Misplaced anti-Bibi hysteria

In this regard, I am far from an uncritical apologist for Netanyahu. Indeed, I have, in the past, even called for his resignation. However, it is undeniable that in many ways, he has been a truly transformative leader.

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 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. Notwithstanding difficulties with western European countries, he has fostered increasingly warm relations and understanding with those in central and eastern Europe…

A whole different skill set

Whether any former high-ranking successor could match this performance is, of course, not impossible, but is certainly open to question. After all, while our senior military officers deserve great credit for their years of sacrifice, devotion and daring, civilian leadership calls for a substantially different skill set from military command.

Indeed, as I once said, a good many years ago, in a rather heated exchange with a former IDF chief-of-staff:

The ability to command is no guarantee of the ability to lead;

Physical courage is no guarantee of moral courage; and

Bluntness is no guarantee of integrity.

The voters will do well to bear this in mind!

VIDEO: Breaking Free From The Matrix

And other talking points.

Q – The Plan To Save The World

EDITORS NOTE: This video is republished with permission. The featured photo is by NeONBRAND on Unsplash.

Push Button Grievances

I find it interesting how people tend to have knee-jerk reactions to certain things. It’s kind of like a Pavlovian response we turn to in certain situations, particularly as we get older. For example, years ago when I visited my grandparents in Buffalo, New York, my grandfather would automatically go into a tirade if he heard on the radio about crime rising in the area or taxes rising, a common conundrum in New York state. This would automatically trigger a response from my grandfather who would say, “And you know who pays for that don’t you? Your grandmother and me!”

If I heard this expression once, I must have heard it a thousand times over the years as it left an indelible impression on me. So much so, when I hear something similar on the radio while I’m driving around town, I find myself saying, “And you know who pays for that don’t you?”, and I start to laugh.

I think we all have certain hot buttons which trigger some sort of an outcry, mostly things that irritate us one way or another. For example, I know a couple in my neighborhood who is quick to point out the horrible color their next door neighbor painted his house with, a ghastly dark blue. “Do you believe how horrible that looks?” I have been asked several times over the last three years since it was painted. Every time I act as if the question is new to me.

My mother has made a house in the neighborhood a pet peeve of hers. Whereas it was a handsome and well maintained house in the past, the new owners have turned it into a perpetual project whereby something is always being modified or remodeled, be it inside or out. Interestingly, they never seem to get it right, causing the house to lose its charm. Consequently, whenever we pass the house today, my mom is likely to say, “What in God’s name are they thinking of?”

There are, of course, many other push button expressions to convey our displeasure. For example, when my wife was in high school, her mother would say to her or her sisters, “You’re not going out dressed like that are you?” or “You didn’t pay money for that did you?”Women may say something catty about another woman they don’t like; e.g., “Ugh! I hate her.” Guys are a little more colorful, referring to someone as “What an idiot” or something much stronger.

Mothers are notorious for pushbutton expressions, such as, “You can plant potatoes in those ears” or “Eat your vegetables or you’ll wear them” or “You can put your eye out that way.” Another favorite is, “Stop it or you’ll go blind.”

We also see this phenomenon in the area of politics. For example, when liberals hear a reference to President Trump, they instantly respond that he is a racist, a fascist, or is xenophobic. Again, this is a Pavlovian conditioned response requiring no thinking. Ask them what he said or did to trigger their reaction and they won’t remember, but they are sure he is a a racist, a fascist, or is xenophobic, even if they do not understand what the labels mean.

I have heard these expressions so often, perhaps we should consider numbering them, thereby saving us time and effort. In a way, it reminds me of the old story where a man is sent to prison. As the newbie, he asks his cellmate if he knows any jokes to pass the time. The cellmate says, “Here in prison, we’ve heard all of the jokes a million times. So, instead of repeating them, we’ve numbered them to save time. Here watch this…”

The cellmate yells “97” from his cell which results in gales of laughter from the other prisoners.

“Wow, that’s pretty impressive,” the newbie says, “Can I try one?”

“Sure, be my guest.”

“82,” he yells out from his cell. Unfortunately, nobody responds, not even a chuckle.

“Try another,” the cellmate encourages.

“51,” he yells. Again, no response.

Frustrated the newbie tries multiple numbers, “162”, “25”, and “13.” Again, dead silence.

To which the cellmate observes, “Well I guess it goes to prove, some people can tell a joke, but others cannot.”

I’m not sure we should number our grievances this way, as I believe we take comfort in airing our displeasure to others, thereby building consensus of opinion. Besides, someone will inevitably find a way to make money off such a numbering convention, “And you know who pays for that don’t you?”

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Morgan Basham on Unsplash. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

VIDEO: Troops Cleared In MAGA Hat-Gate, CNN Hardest Hit, Plus The Best Interviews Of 2018

On the Friday edition, we have our video show. This week, it’s a look back at some of the best interviews we’ve had this year. There’s also the audio-only version with the interviews, as well as added content on the news of the day.

And that news involves the U.S. Air Force declaring our troops who asked the president to sign their MAGA hats did not violate military rules, much to the chagrin of CNN; the government shutdown continues and it’s barely even news; an illegal alien murdered a police officer on Christmas Day in the sanctuary state of California and the story is getting minimal national coverage because it goes against the liberal narrative on immigration; and the Boston Marathon bomber is seeking a new trial because, even though his lawyers admit he is guilty, they say he didn’t get a fair trial because that trial wasn’t moved out of Boston.

You can’t make this stuff up. Plus clips of our interviews with Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, Ken Starr, Gregg Jarrett, and Michael Foley.

Watch the show:

Listen to the audio show with the bonus half hour:

Help spread the word about The Daily Daily Caller Podcast. Please take a minute to rate and review on iTunes, share on social media, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode:

SUBSCRIBE TO THE DAILY DAILY CALLER PODCAST ON ITUNES

SUBSCRIBE TO THE DAILY CALLER ON SOUNDCLOUD

SUBSCRIBE TO THE DAILY DAILY CALLER PODCAST ON STITCHER

The Daily Daily Caller Podcast is a daily look and mocking of the news from a conservative perspective. Hosted by Derek Hunter, it is available in audio form Monday-Thursday and will have a video option on Fridays.

PODCAST BY

DEREK HUNTER

Derek Hunter is a columnist and contributing editor for The Daily Caller and author of “Outrage, INC: How the Liberal Mob Ruined Science, Journalism, and Hollywood” from HarperCollins, available nowPick Up a copy, or several copies, here. Send compliments and complaints to derek@dailycaller.com or follow him on Twitter at @derekahunter.

EDITORS NOTE: This podcast with images by The Daily Caller is republished with permission.

Get a Criminal Lawyer: Steps to Do If a Friend or Family Member is Arrested

The arrest of a friend or a loved one is sure to be alarming. In that situation, time gets crazy fast, and it’s likely that you won’t be able to think clearly and forget what needs to be done to save your loved one from detention.

That’s why you need to know the steps to do amidst the alarm and confusion that will likely pressure you after the police lay a charge on the arrested person. Always remember that you and the arrested person are entitled to rights, and these rights must be used in this unfortunate situation.

You should keep in mind that careless mistakes can result in a misunderstanding with the police or, worse, wrongful conviction. So, for a little help, here’s a list of steps that you should follow if a friend or family member is arrested.

Don’t Panic

In the event of the arrest of someone close to you, the first thing that you should do is to stay calm and avoid panicking. If you misbehave to the police, it’s likely that you’ll make matters worse for yourself and the arrested person.

Don’t get angry or heap curse words to the police. It’s also crucial to not use force on the police and try to resist the arrest of your loved one, even if the arrest is illegal.

Ask the Reason for the Arrest

The next step to take in this situation to help your arrested friend or family member is to confirm whether your loved one is actually under arrest or merely being detained. It’s because there’s a difference between arrest and detention.

If indeed your loved one is under arrest, ask the police the reasons why. Both of you should be able to know the charge so that you can do what to do next. And, if the police will question your friend, you should keep in mind this next tip.

Use Your Right to Remain Silent

It’s essential in an arrest that you know the arrested person’s right. The police have to remind you of your rights, and one of that is the right to remain silent and get the help of a lawyer.

Always remember that what you and your friend will say to the police can be considered as testimony and evidence, and may later put forward against the arrested person.

Call Someone Related to the Arrested Person

If you see that the possibility of an immediate release is not on the way, it’s essential that you inform the arrested person’s parents or relatives about the unfortunate situation. The person you’re going to call may be the one that can get your loved one out of police detention.

He or she may have a contact of a lawyer or the money to pay for the bail to get the immediate release of the arrested person if ever. So, it’s really the best option to get the help of another person close to the one who is arrested.

Get a Good Criminal Lawyer

Another essential thing that you should do in situations like this is to hire the services of a criminal lawyer. The lawyer that you’ll hire will help your arrested loved one on his or her legal needs.

The lawyer will tell the arrested person what to say and what not to say so for his/her defense, and so that he/she can avoid further complications of the case.

Takeaway

It will surely upset and alarm you if the police arrest someone close to you. However, there are things that you can do to support your loved one and avoid further problems along the way.

It’s also essential that right after the arrest you call a trusted criminal defense lawyer. Criminal defense lawyers like Matt Gould will assist you in your legal rights and get the arrested person out of custody.

Why the Left Won’t Call Anyone ‘Animals’

If you want to understand the moral sickness at the heart of leftism, read the first paragraph of the most recent column by Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne:

It’s never right to call other human beings ‘animals.’ It’s not something we should even have to debate. No matter how debased the behavior of a given individual or group, no matter how much legitimate anger that genuinely evil actions might inspire, dehumanizing others always leads us down a dangerous path.

Let’s begin with the first sentence: “It’s never right to call other human beings ‘animals.’”

This is so self-evident to Dionne that he adds, “It’s not something we should even have to debate.”

Only someone who has never debated the issue could make such a claim.

So allow me to debate the assertion.

My view is the antithesis of Dionne’s. As I see it, it is not right to never call another human being an “animal.”

Calling the cruelest among us names such as “animal” or any other “dehumanizing” epithet actually protects humans. The word “beastly” exists for a reason and is frequently applied to human beings. By rhetorically reading certain despicable people out of the human race, we elevate the human race. We have declared certain behaviors out of line with being human.

Biologically, of course, we are all human. But if “human” is to mean anything moral—anything beyond the purely biological—then some people who have committed particularly heinous acts of evil against other human beings are not to be considered human. Otherwise “human” has no moral being. We should then not retain the word “inhumane.” What is the difference between “he is inhumane” and “he is an animal”? Both imply actions that render the person no longer human.

Dionne provides his answer at the end of the paragraph: “dehumanizing others always leads us down a dangerous path.”

He provides not a single argument or illustration for this truly absurd comment.

Anyone who refuses to “dehumanize” the Nazi physicians—who, with no anesthesia, froze naked people for hours and then dropped them in boiling water to rewarm them; put people in depressurized rooms where their eardrums burst, driving them out of their minds from pain; rubbed wood shavings and ground glass into infected wounds, etc.—is, to put it very gently, profoundly morally confused.

What would Dionne have us call those Nazi physicians—”not nice,” “badly flawed,” “evil”? Why is rhetorically ostracizing them from the human race “a dangerous path”? He doesn’t have an answer because he lives in the left’s world of moral-sounding platitudes.

Leftism consists almost entirely of moral-sounding platitudes—statements meant to make the person making them feel morally sophisticated. But based on their relative reactions to the sadists of the MS-13 gangs, I trust President Donald Trump’s moral compass more than Dionne’s.

It is ever dangerous to use dehumanizing rhetoric on people? Of course—when it is directed at people based on their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or any other immutable physical characteristic.

The Nazis did what they did to Jews and others because they dehumanized them based on their religious/ethnic/racial identity. That’s why racism is evil. But why is it dangerous to use such rhetoric on people based on their behavior? By equating labeling the cruelest among us “animals” with labeling Jews “animals,” Dionne cheapens the fight against real evil.

I once asked Rabbi Leon Radzik, a Holocaust survivor who had been in Auschwitz, what word he would use to characterize the sadistic guards in the camp. I will never forget his response: “They were monsters with a human face.”

Incredibly, Dionne would not agree with him.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager is a columnist for The Daily Signal, nationally syndicated radio host, and creator of PragerU. Twitter: .

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

Senate Considers August Stay-cation

If Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) needs backup in his effort to clear the backlog of presidential nominations, he just got it. Sixteen Republican senators are now urging their party to squeeze every last second out of this legislative session, even if it means doing the unthinkable: canceling summer recess.

In a letter to McConnell, they argue there’s too much unfinished business to leave town for a month — not when there are hundreds of nominations on the table, a dozen appropriations bills to finish, and the chance to confirm more judges. Led by Senator David Perdue (R-Ga.), they pledge their support for McConnell to forgo the Senate’s normal R&R and plowing through the president’s to-do list instead.

Looking ahead, there are only 67 working days left on the calendar this fiscal year. That number drops to 52 if you exclude Fridays, as we usually do. This leaves only 12 weeks to get 12 appropriations bills out of committee and consider them on the floor. That alone is an impossible task. When combined with the crucial need to confirm more nominees, it is clear we do not have enough time.

“We stand ready,” they went on, “to work Mondays and Fridays, nights as well as weekends, to ensure the funding process is not used to jam the president with a bad spending deal.” They’re referencing, of course, the rush to pass March’s $1.3 trillion omnibus, a colossal waste of money that wouldn’t have been necessary if Congress had taken the time to budget through regular order. Time is already ticking on the September 30th deadline – and if voters’ outrageis any indication, Republicans can’t afford to make the same costly mistake twice.

Staying in session would also give Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) the chance to continue his run at the history books. An already great news week for President Trump got even better when McConnell knocked out another two confirmations in his already dizzying pace. The latest, Milwaukee attorney Michael Brennan, is headed to the Seventh Circuit, where he’ll fill a vacancy that’s been open eight years. To his credit, McConnell and Grassley have managed to slog through nomination after nomination, despite the obstacles Democrats keep putting in their path. The court-stocking continues next week with more votes. “We’re going to confirm these judges,” Senator McConnell insisted. “I don’t care what tactics they employ.”

While rumors swirl about a possible high court retirement, the majority leader’s advice is blunt: do it now. “My message to any one of the nine Supreme Court justices, if you’re thinking about quitting this year, do it yesterday.” McConnell knows better than anyone how long it takes for a SCOTUS nomination to even make its way to his chamber — up to 60 days in some cases, sometimes more. That doesn’t leave much of a window for the showdown that would almost certainly take place. And with the midterms looming, the urgency is even greater. “Elections have consequences. We could end up without having a Republican Senate.”

“We stand ready,” the senators write, “to break through the confirmation logjam and get the government funded before we break in August… The President has outlined an agenda that will unleash economic growth, strengthen our military, and rebuild our infrastructure,” point out Joni Ernst (Iowa), James Lankford (Okla.), Ted Cruz (Texas), Dean Heller (Nev.), Mike Lee (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wisc.), Bill Cassidy (La.), Roger Wicker (Miss.), Steve Daines (Mont.), Deb Fischer (Nebr.), Dan Sullivan (Alaska), Ben Sasse (Nebr.), Thom Tillis (N.C.), John Kennedy (La.), and Mike Rounds (S.D.). “We play a critical role in advancing this agenda, so together let’s make Congress work again.”


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Wisc. Attorney General Answers the Kaul on SPLC

This Weekend, Moms the Word!

Could you survive a year without electricity, food, or water?

A True State’s Man: Pompeo Wins DOS Post

No wonder President Trump is frustrated. Heading into this week, the U.S. Senate had only confirmed 432 of his political appointees. (And you thought your HR department was slow!) To the White House’s relief, that number climbed to 433 after an early afternoon vote that sent CIA Director Mike Pompeo to his new post as secretary of state.For a man whose nomination almost didn’t make it out of committee, Pompeo certainly enjoyed some surprising Democratic support. After a testy confirmation hearing filled with hardball questions, plenty of people wondered if Pompeo would be the first secretary of state to be voted down before his nomination ever hit the floor. While Democrats raked him over the coals for everything from marriage views to climate change, even Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) seemed dead-set against Trump’s pick. Fast-forward two weeks, and suddenly the president’s choice is more popular than Rex Tillerson! By a 57-42 margin, every Republican and a healthy number of Democrats agreed: Mike Pompeo is ready for the job.

For Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Pompeo’s confirmation should have been an embarrassing reminder that not every Democrat shares his extremist views on sexuality and public service. During the confirmation hearing, he desperately tried to persuade his colleagues that Pompeo wasn’t fit to head up DOS because he shares the mainstream belief that marriage is between a man and woman. In an attack that bordered on harassment, Booker asked how he could lead the State Department with biblical convictions. “We have married gay couples at the CIA,” Mike replied simply. “You should know… My respect for every individual, regardless of sexual orientation, is the same.”

That may have made Mike unfit to serve in Cory Booker’s government, but fortunately, not everyone in the party shares his intolerance. Five Democrats up for reelection in November thought better of endorsing Booker’s religious test. Unlike the far-Left wing of the party, they understand that what voters care about isn’t Pompeo’s view on marriage, but his ability to protect American interests overseas. And after the Christian inquisition of Russell Vought, Democrats ought to know: this kind of religious prejudice doesn’t appeal to the broader electorate.

Another senator who should have been stung by today’s vote was Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who ranted on the Senate floor earlier this week about Pompeo working with peaceful Muslims like our friend Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. “Mike Pompeo was deeply intertwined with this network of anti-Muslim organizations,” he claimed. “… I hope some of you will take a look at that details this network of organizations. They have fairly innocuous sounding names, like the American Islamic Forum for Democracy… but if you really take look at what they do, they preach intolerance.”

First of all, who is Senator Murphy to judge what makes someone truly Muslim? Dr. Jasser, who heads up the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, is a deeply religious man who happens to believe that Muslims should take a more active role fighting Islamic terrorists. His organization, like others on Murphy’s list, is widely respected for speaking against the violence that so many in the Muslim community excuse.

Dr. Jasser was understandably upset by Murphy’s characterization, which, he argued, was just another attempt to smear American Muslims leaders as somehow anti-Muslim.

It is a sad day in American discourse when a United States senator motivated by partisan extremism willfully slanders and maligns an American Islamic organization. Never mind that our AIFD happens to actually be dedicated to countering Islamist radicalization and leading efforts at reform in order to defend the homeland. The sad truth Senator Murphy ignores, is that had he actually read the work we have done with former Congressman Pompeo (R-Kans.), he would have learned that we, for example, joined the congressman in exposing the radical Islamist ideology of a radical imam, Sheikh Monzer Taleb, preaching in Congressman Pompeo’s backyard in Wichita. To us, there is nothing more pro-Muslim. Unfortunately, Senator Murphy prefers to read from the scripture of American Islamist talking points handed to him and his staff.

He’s right. Like other liberals, Murphy is just parroting the reckless talking points of groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center. Not to mention, Zuhdi goes on, how dangerous this kind of allegation is. “Do we need to remind Senator Murphy, who obviously knows little to nothing about Islam, Muslims, or any of the dynamics within the American Muslim community, that declaring any group of organizations let alone American Muslims as being anti-Muslim is the equivalent of [calling us apostates or infidels]?”

Fortunately for America, these pathetic campaigns against a qualified man failed. We can celebrate the fact that after a year and a half, the president finally has a leader he can depend on at State. FRC has no doubt that as secretary of state, Mike Pompeo will make international religious freedom a foreign policy priority, an issue that’s especially important given how religious liberty is so intricately connected to the security and prosperity of nations themselves. The State Department needs a strong and competent leader to bring it in line with the president’s policies. In Mike, they have exactly that.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Orange County Squeezes out Parents with LGBT Class

The Inclusion Act: Defending Kids, Faith, and Freedom

VIDEOS: The level of FBI and DOJ Corruption is Staggering

On April 13, 2018, Judicial Watch Director of Investigations and Research Chris Farrell appeared on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on the Fox Business Network to discuss the DOJ Inspector General’s report that said former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe authorized a leak to the media.


JW Pres. Tom Fitton Reacts to Raid on Trump Atty-Comey’s New Book-Obama/Syria-NEW Rpt. on McCabe/FBI.