Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Vicki Haley sets a new standard for the UN - UN Watch




by UN Watch

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan

A new day at the UN!





UN Watch

Source: https://www.facebook.com/unwatch/videos/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Trump’s Immigration Executive Orders and the Constitution - Michael Cutler




by Michael Cutler


Thumbs up or thumbs down?




President Trump has stated that he plans to modify and re-issue his executive order concerning his executive order to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States who are citizens of countries that have a nexus to terrorism and where the citizens of those countries cannot be properly vetted to prevent terrorists from entering the United States.

It will be interesting to see what the new executive order will contain.  I am certain that Attorney General Jeff Sessions will be able to devise a “new and improved” executive order.  However, I am still struggling to understand how the first order ran into any problems.

Those opposed to President Trump’s executive orders on immigration have freely and frequently invoked the claim that those executive orders are “unconstitutional.”

Although many politicians, pundits and journalists have made that claim on a string of news programs on the major networks, they have rarely, if ever, been challenged to explain how the President’s executive orders violate the Constitution.

Usually when making their fatuous claims about the “unconstitutionality” of the immigration executive orders, they cite the First Amendment of the Constitution and the issue of religious freedom.

What has been generally glossed over was the fact that the executive order did not mention any religion, let alone Islam.  However, inasmuch the seven countries identified in the executive order as being “Muslim majority countries” the illusion was created that President Trump was attempting to bar the entry of Muslims into the United States.

What was also ignored by the media is that the list had been compiled by the Obama administration.

What has additionally been ignored is that in 1980 President Carter suspended the entry of citizens of Iran into the United States when our embassy at Tehran was seized.

If Trump’s goal was to bar the entry of Muslims into the United States he was incredibly inept.  In fact, if that was his goal, he should have added the world’s most populist Muslim majority nation, Indonesia, to that list of countries inasmuch as its population is nearly as great as the combined population of all of the seven countries on that list.

The seven countries are countries that have a nexus to international terrorism.  As was the case in 1980, the entry of citizens of Iran into the United States was to be suspended.

Yet these issues are seldom noted in the mainstream media.

In this era of “Asymmetrical Warfare” the Commander-In-Chief must not only protect America and Americans from foreign governments and their military but from international terrorist organizations.

Consider that on September 11, 2001 nineteen terrorists, barely out of their teens inflicted more casualties on the United States than did the entire Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Now let’s consider that Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states:

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.
Invasion has been defined as:
an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force: the Allied invasion of Normandy | in 1546 England had to be defended from invasion.
  • an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity: stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans.
  • an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain
As for the expression, “domestic violence,” deadly terror attacks certainly inflict devastating domestic violence.

I would suggest that a failure of the President of the United States to act to prevent the entry and embedding of foreign terrorists into the United States would constitute nonfeasance, misfeasance and malfeasance.  Indeed, I would argue it would constitute gross negligence of duty.

Furthermore the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) includes this statute: 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens which includes section (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President.  That section includes the following paragraph:

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.
It is clear that the President of the United States may act unilaterally if he finds that the entry of any alien or class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.  The phrase “detrimental to the interests of the United States” creates an extremely low bar.  Threats to national security certainly exceed the minimal standard of being “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”  Time and again innocent people in the United States have been killed and grievously injured by foreign terrorists who managed to game the visa process and the process by which aliens are granted various immigration benefits including being granted political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even, in a few instances, United States citizenship.

Our European allies have similarly suffered deadly terror attacks when their immigration systems failed.  I provided specific examples and parallels of this in my recent article, “Berlin Terror Attack and Immigration Law Violations: What America should learn from this newest horrific lesson.

Clearly President Trump has learned the lessons of these terror attacks and on January 27, 2017 he issued another executive order that has drawn scant attention by the media.

The title of this executive order, “Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States” clearly articulates his motivation for promulgating this executive order.  However, it is important to consider the purpose of this order as it is presented in the first paragraphs:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States.  Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans.  And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States.  The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.  The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.  In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

I strongly suggest you read this executive order in its entirety, it is very unlikely that the media will make note of this executive order, let alone provide it in their coverage of the efforts being made by the Trump administration to fulfill not only campaign promises, but more importantly, the requirements of the Constitution of the United States.

Just before our nation observed the 15th anniversary of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 I wrote an article, “Reflection on 9/11's Vulnerabilities: The failures that proved key factors in the attacks -- and how Obama has exacerbated them.

Back then, the outcome of the impending election was not certain.  I feared that if Trump failed to win the election that our nation would face vulnerabilities under Hillary Clinton that are the stuff of my worst nightmares.

Thankfully, however, Trump did win.

He is acting swiftly and decisively to effectively address these vulnerabilities.  His executive orders, in my judgement, are consistent with the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, to which I provided testimony.  His executive orders and are entirely reasonable and, indeed, essential for the safety and security of America and Americans and provide clear and unequivocal proof of his determination to adhere to the dictates of the Constitution of the United States and hence, his oath of office.


Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his career he was assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue. He hosts his radio show, “The Michael Cutler Hour,” on Friday evenings on BlogTalk Radio. His personal website is http://michaelcutler.net/.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265856/trumps-immigration-executive-orders-and-michael-cutler

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Dire Cost of Europe’s Multiculturalism - Joseph Puder




by Joseph Puder


Sacrificing a continent on the altar of utopian ideals.




The extent to which the multiculturalist European Union (EU) elites will go to suppress free speech in the interest of promoting non-European immigration is astonishing and alarming.  It means that Middle Eastern Arabs and South Asian Muslims are immune from prosecution and deportations, despite committing rapes on native European children and adult women.  When a sane voice is raised, as in the case of Netherlands Geert Wilders, it is penalized.

If elections were to be held now (General elections are scheduled for March 15, 2017) in the Netherlands, Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders might very well win a majority in the Dutch parliament and might be elected as Prime Minister.  Opinion polls notwithstanding, Wilders had to endure a trial in Amsterdam for allegedly inciting hatred and racial discrimination.  The Dutch court found Wilders “guilty” of inciting discrimination against Dutch Moroccans that according to The Guardian (December 9, 2016) “is expected to intensify the debate about migration in the Netherlands.”

Geert Wilders was “guilty” of asking at a 2014 Freedom Party rally whether the crowd wanted “fewer or more Moroccans in the Netherlands.” Wilders called the trial a “politically motivated travesty.”  Wilders was neither fined nor given prison time by the judges.  What the trial does however show, is the stifling of free speech in the EU countries, and in this case, the Netherlands, particularly, when it does not comply with the elites of the EU cherished ideals of multiculturalism and its advocacy of free immigration.

Soeren Kern, in a Gatestone Institute article, quoted a high-ranking official in Frankfurt, Germany as reported by German newspaper Bild, “There are strict instructions from the top not to report sexual offenses committed by (immigrant) refugees.  It is extraordinary that certain offenses are deliberately not being reported and the information is being classified as confidential.”

Boris Johnson, former Mayor of London and a leading voice for Brexit, argued (Economist June18-24 issue) that “Napoleon, Hitler, and other various people tried this out (forcefully unifying Europe-JP), and it ended tragically.  The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods.”  One of those coercive methods has been to limit, if not forbid, anti-immigration speech.

The elitist of the EU have seen a rise in nativist protest movements throughout the European continent.  The voiceless people of the states of the European Union have been forced to adopt multiculturalism and political correctness as their new civil religion, and their dissenting voices are now being squashed by a series of measures that amount to the curtailment of free speech.

The European Commission, a powerful and unelected EU’s executive branch, announced last year plans to combat “illegal online hate speech.” The same European Commission unveiled a code of conduct that will ensure that online platforms do not offer opportunities for “illegal online hate speech to spread virally.” Unsurprisingly, it is the European Commission that will determine what constitutes “illegal online hate speech” and not the people’s elected representatives in the individual European countries that make up the EU.

A press release headline issued by the European Commission (EC) in Brussels on May 31, 2016, read “The European Commission and IT companies announce Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech,” The EC explanatory paragraphs read: “In order to prevent the spread of illegal hate speech, it is essential to ensure that relevant national laws transposing the Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia are fully enforced by Member States in the online as well as the offline environment. While the effective application of provisions criminalizing hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated.”

These provisions of the EC against hate speech have done little to prevent the rise of anti-Semitism in the EU countries, nor has it criminalized the anti-Semitic nature of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement, which singles out the Jewish state.  It does, however, seek to stifle the anti-immigrant movement, which is trying to alert Europeans of the coming Islamization of Europe.  In addition, the EC decision will adversely impact on the civil liberties of over 500 million Europeans. 

The net impact of recent “speech” laws enacted by European governments has been magnified by private censorship on anti-immigrants speech.  For example, most news organizations have stopped showing images of Mohammad, although no such self-censorship has been made regarding caricatures of other religious figures.  In September, 2012, French actress and animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot was fined several times for comments she made about how Muslims are undermining French culture.  In Britain, a 15-year old girl was arrested for “burning a Koran at school and posting footage on Facebook.”

While Germany is on its way to committing demographic and cultural suicide with the admission of millions of Middle Eastern and African migrants, Sweden is already there.  The people of Sweden are allowing its radical leftist governing parties and its equally pandering press to expedite their national demise.  The Gatestone Institute reported (December 22, 2014) that before the scheduled March, 2015 elections, the current Social-Democrat and Greens party coalition government  enacted “a measure far less publicized, that came into effect that Christmas (2014). The measure was designed to make it easier to prosecute those who offend immigrants, immigration policies, LGBT people and politicians online.”
According to Gatestone “even immigrants themselves do not seem to be allowed to challenge immigration policy or immigrant culture.  Last year a Somali-born female journalist, critical of immigrant culture, was intimidated to such an extent by the Swedish journalistic establishment that she decided Mogadishu (Somalia) was a safer place for her than Sweden.”

Only in Sweden does the government take out loans to make welfare payments to migrant Muslim gang-rapists.  While the government and its compliant leftist press blew out of proportion an attack on migrants, it had been silent on the rapes by mainly Arab and African Muslim migrants on Swedish women.  The U.K. Daily Mail reported (March 4th, 2016) that “What is worrying is that if the Stockholm Station story has been blown out of proportion, it could have artificially fueled pro-migrant sentiment and made ordinary Swedes less ready to voice their worries about mass migration.  Fears of a cover-up have been fueled by an investigation published by a flourishing online Swedish news outlet Nyherer Idag, showing that Swedish authorities hid from the public sexual assaults by immigrant gangs on scores of teenage girls at a popular Stockholm music festival booth last year and in 2014.”

Needless to say that in the EU states, anti-immigrant voices are stifled by archaic laws that are undemocratic to say the least.  Europe’s EU bureaucrats are moreover suppressing free speech in the interest of promoting disastrous immigration policies.  Europe has traded Christianity and pride in its civilizational accomplishment for the falsehood and insanity of multiculturalism.

Joseph Puder

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265852/dire-cost-europes-multiculturalism-joseph-puder

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

One State or Two States? - Ted Belman




by Ted Belman

-- the object of the exercise for the US is to make a deal rather than to create a Palestinian state

President Trump told Prime Minister Netanyahu in their joint press conference on Wednesday, he “likes the one both parties like.” He also said on another occasion that he wasn’t going to pressure Israel to make a deal.

The importance of his remarks is that the object of the exercise for the US is to make a deal rather than to create a Palestinian state. The push back on this has been substantial, not only from the EU and the UN but also from some officials in the State Department.

To deflect some of the criticism, the Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the UN, framed it this way, “We absolutely support the two-state solution but we are thinking out of the box as well.”

“The solution to what will bring peace in the Middle East is going to come from the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority,” Haley said. “The United States is just there to support the process.”

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates have been working together with Israel to confront their common enemy, Iran. Both Netanyahu and Trump want to build on this and formalize it. They hope that as part of building this alliance, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates will soften their demands on Israel regarding the solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict or perhaps enter a peace agreement with Israel without reference to the conflict.

DEBKAfile reports: “…these sentiments reflected agreement in principle between Trump and Netanyahu to seek an Israeli peace accord with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates as the lead-in to negotiations for an accord with the Palestinians. Egypt, Jordan and Turkey with whom Israel already has normal relations would jump in later. This deal fits in with the US plan reported more than once on these pages for a regional peace between the Sunni Arab nations and the Jewish State.”

At the press conference, Trump also said,
“This is one more reason why I reject unfair and one-sided actions against Israel at the United Nations -- just treated Israel, in my opinion, very, very unfairly -- or other international forums, as well as boycotts that target Israel.”

That was not the first time that he indicated that he would not tolerate the U.N.’s war on Israel.

To buttress this position, Haley said in her U.N. remarks, “I am here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this anymore. I am here to emphasize that the United States is determined to stand up to the U.N.’s anti-Israel bias.”

The message to Saudi Arabia is that they can no longer fight Israel through the U.N. It is hoped that Saudi Arabia will be more amenable to burying the hatchet, particularly given the threat from Iran.

But let us go back to the one-state, two-state choice.

Neither is doable. Israel will not accept a bi-national state inherent with the one-state choice, And the PA won’t accept it if there isn’t such a state. Neither will compromise on this.

As for the two-state plan, Netanyahu laid out his long-standing demands in the press conference:
“But rather than deal with labels, I want to deal with substance. It’s something I’ve hoped to do for years in a world that's absolutely fixated on labels and not on substance. So here’s the substance: There are two prerequisites for peace that I laid out two years -- several years ago, and they haven’t changed.
“First, the Palestinians must recognize the Jewish state. They have to stop calling for Israel’s destruction. They have to stop educating their people for Israel’s destruction.
“Second, in any peace agreement, Israel must retain the overriding security control over the entire area west of the Jordan River. Because if we don't, we know what will happen -- because otherwise we’ll get another radical Islamic terrorist state in the Palestinian areas exploding the peace, exploding the Middle East.”
He went on to say:
“Now, unfortunately, the Palestinians vehemently reject both prerequisites for peace. First, they continue to call for Israel’s destruction -- inside their schools, inside their mosques, inside the textbooks. You have to read it to believe it.
“They even deny, Mr. President, our historical connection to our homeland.”

Both of these prerequisites have been adamantly rejected by both the Palestinians and the Saudis from day one. Obviously, if the Saudis agree, the Palestinians would be isolated in their refusal.

But even if they accept such prerequisites, Israel will still insist on borders that include most of the settlements so that their citizens don’t have to be uprooted as they were in Gaza. Aside from Jerusalem, there are close to 500,000 Israelis living in Judea and Samaria, their homeland. The political will or the physical ability to remove even 100, 000 of them is not there.

Another reason Israel wants to retain part of these lands is that they wish to widen their midriff from 6 miles to perhaps 30 miles or even more. Naftali Bennett, head of the Jewish Home Party, is demanding that Israel annex all of Area C as laid out by the Oslo Accords.

If this sounds overly aggressive to some of you, let me state for the record, these are not Palestinian occupied territories. They are territories awarded to Jews/Israel by the Palestine Mandate and the UN; anyone who believes in international law has no power to change that. Furthermore, Israel has no obligation to relinquish any part of these lands, having come into possession of them by means for a defensive war.

So, it would appear, neither the one-state nor the two-state solution will be agreed upon. To achieve peace, the U.S. must think outside the box as Haley suggests.

The New York Times recently published an article by Yishai Fleisher titled A Settler’s View of Israel’s Future, in which he decried the two-state solution and laid out five alternatives which are being discussed. I like the first one:
The first option, proposed by former members of Israel’s Parliament Aryeh Eldad and Benny Alon, is known as “Jordan is Palestine,” a fair name given that Jordan’s population is generally reckoned to be majority Palestinian. Under their plan, Israel would assert Israeli law in Judea and Samaria while Arabs living there would have Israeli residency and Jordanian citizenship. Those Arabs would exercise their democratic rights in Jordan, but live as expats with civil rights in Israel.
I recently wrote an article setting out my version of this plan which was first published by American Thinker. Thereafter, I published it on Israpundit with significant changes. It is followed by close to 200 very knowledgeable comments.

It needs the agreement of only Israel and the U.S.

No other idea out there will result in a deal.

Ted Belman

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/one_state_or_two_states.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

US twin sea buildup against China, NKorea, Iran - debkaFile




by debkaFile

Today, American forces have been placed in position to prevent Iran from blocking the Strait of Mandeb, and so choking the main sea route used by oil and merchant shipping




Donald Trump marked his first month as US President with two major military gambits in the Middle East, Asia and the South China Sea. Early Sunday, Feb. 19, the US Navy said that the Nimitz-class USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier and strike group had begun patrols in the disputed waters of the South China Sea. With them are three air squadrons coming from their Naval Air Station Lemoore: the USS Lake Champlain guided missile cruiser and two guided missile destroyers, the USS Michael Murphy and the USS Wayne E. Meyer.

The deployment comes after Beijing’s warning that a US naval unit sailing near the disputed Spralys, where China has built islands and a military presence, would be seen as a violation of sovereignty, which the US and Japan refuse to recognize.

The Trump administration’s move therefore opens up a potential arena of confrontation between the US and China.  It also caries a message for North Korea, which Trump has called “a big, big problem and we will deal with that very strongly.”

A week ago, on Feb. 12, North Korea launched a missile, using new “cold eject” technology which makes it possible to fire a missile from a submarine. Military experts in Washington and Jerusalem estimate that once Pyongyang has perfected the system, it will be passed to Tehran, an eventuality covered in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s White House talks with President Trump last week, our sources reveal.

Our military sources add that while Washington has publicly announced the transfer of a naval-air force to the South China Sea, the deployment of the large 11th Marine Expeditionary Combat Unit to the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea is being kept low key.

The conventional thinking until now was that, in the event of an Iranian clash with the US or Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, Tehran would push back by blocking the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Today, American forces have been placed in position to prevent Iran from blocking the Strait of Mandeb, and so choking the main sea route used by oil and merchant shipping sailing to and from the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal, by posting missile bases on Yemen’s western Red Sea coast.


The 4,500-strong contingent of MEC marines and sailors is supported by the fighters and attack helicopters on board the USS Makin Island amphibious assault ship, the USS Somerset amphibious transport and the USS Comstock dock landing ship. Their task is to keep the strategic waterway open and safe.

The deployment of the USS Cole destroyer around the strait was announced on Feb. 3, days after a suicide boat attack by Yemeni Houthi rebels on the Saudi frigate Al Madinah off the Yemeni port of Al Hudaydah.

debkafile’s military analysts note that the deployment of these naval and air forces in two international maritime arenas offers President Trump a flexible operational scenario. He can order one of those forces to go on the offensive as a warning to hostile elements in the other one – or go into action in both simultaneously - for example the US could strike North Korean and Iranian targets synchronously.

In line with these moves, a US flotilla departed its Arabian Sea base at Duqm in Oman on Feb. 12 and is sailing towards Bab Al Mandeb.

Tehran reacted Monday, Feb. 20, by embarking on a large-scale three-day military exercise titled Grand Prophet 11. Gen. Mohammed Pakpour, commander of the Revolutionary Guards ground forces, announced that the drill would include missile launches, without specifying their types or ranges.

Iranian leaders have repeatedly stated that they would not allow American warnings to deter them from their missile program, any more than Pyongyang hesitated to fly in the face of those warnings. Those warnings are now backed up by America’s sea and air might in combat positions.


debkaFile

Source: http://debka.com/article/25934/US-twin-sea-buildup-against-China-NKorea-Iran

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

How the Southern Poverty Law Center Faked an Islamophobia Crisis - Daniel Greenfield




by Daniel Greenfield


The Fake News media repeats a fake group’s lies.



Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam

Look out!  It’s another fake Islamophobia crisis.

“Huge Growth in Anti-Muslim Hate Groups During 2016: SPLC Report,” wails NBC News. “Watchdog: Number of anti-Muslim hate groups tripled since 2015,” FOX News bleats. ABC News vomits up this word salad. “Trump cited in report finding increase in US hate groups for 2nd year in a row.”

The SPLC stands for the Southern Poverty Law Center: an organization with slightly less credibility than Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Clown College, and without the academic degree in greasepaint.

And you won’t believe the shameless way the SPLC faked its latest Islamophobia crisis.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s latest “hate group” sightings claims that the “number of anti-Muslim hate groups increased almost three-fold in 2016.”

That’s a lot of folds.

And there is both bad news and good news from its “Year in Hate and Extremism.”

First the good news.

Casa D’Ice Signs, the sign outside a bar in K-Mart Plaza in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is no longer listed as a hate group. The sign outside the bar had been listed as a hate group by the SPLC for years. The owner of Casa D’Ice had been known for putting politically incorrect signs outside his bar. So the SPLC listed the “signs” as a hate group. (Even though there was only one sign.) Not the bar. That would have made too much sense.

Since then Casa D’Ice was sold and the SPLC has celebrated the defeat of another hate group. Even if the hate group was just a plastic sign outside a bar.

But the bad news, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is that anti-Muslim hate groups shot up from only 34 in 2015 to 101 in 2016.

What could possibly account for that growth? Statistical fakery so fake that a Vegas bookie would weep.

President Trump is on the cover of the SPLC’s latest Intelligence Report: a misnomer of a title from an organization whose intelligence gathering led it to list a bar sign as a hate group.

But there’s actually another phenomenon responsible for this startling rise reported by the SPLC.

The SPLC decided to count 45 chapters of Act for America as separate groups.

How do you get a sudden rise from 34 to 101 hate groups? It helps to suddenly add 45 chapters of one group. Act for America isn’t a hate group. It’s also just as obviously not 45 groups.

And it didn’t come into existence last year.

Act for America was only listed as one group in the 2015 list. It shot up to 45 now.

The SPLC this year listed the Los Angeles chapter of Act for America as a separate group. But the chapter has been around for quite a few years.

Furthermore Act for America boasts not 45, but 1,000 chapters across the country. Why list just 45 of them? Look at it from the SPLC’s perspective. Next year, it can add 200 chapters and claim that anti-Muslim hate groups once again tripled. And then it can do the same thing again the year after that.

That way the Southern Poverty Law Center can keep manufacturing an imaginary Islamophobia crisis.

Also added to the list is Altra Firearms: a gun store that ran an ad declaring that it wouldn’t sell firearms to Clinton supporters or Muslims. Like Casa D’Ice, this is another case of the SPLC demonstrating that it has no idea what distinguishes a store whose owner says politically incorrect things from a “group”.

The list has added Bosch Fawstin: an artist who was the target of the first ISIS terror attack in America during the assault on the Draw Mohammed cartoon contest. The SPLC announced that it was adding the Eisner nominated artist to its list of hate groups after he survived the attack.

The SPLC’s actions were obscene.

After the attack, Heidi Beirich, in charge of adding targets to the SPLC’s hate map, announced that she would be adding Bosch to the list because the Center now knows his location.

Indeed the SPLC makes a point of highlighting the locations of likely terrorist targets. And the Southern Poverty Law Center’s map of hate has been used by terrorists before.

Floyd Lee Corkins opened fire at the headquarters of the Family Research Council. The conservative Christian organization had been targeted by Corkins because of its appearance on the SPLC’s list.

"Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups. I found them online,” Corkins later confessed to the FBI.

When Leo Johnson, the building’s African-American manager, attempted to stop Corkins, the SPLC shooter told Johnson that he didn’t like his politics and opened fire. The SPLC gunman had planned to kill everyone in the office, but Johnson’s heroic actions saved their lives. The African-American building manager was forced to undergo painful surgeries because of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list.

Despite its role in the terror attack, the SPLC continues to target the Family Research Council.
None of the so-called “Anti-Muslim hate groups” listed by the SPLC have shot anyone. The SPLC has.

Bosch Fawstin is a courageous activist. He’s also an individual. As am I. And the SPLC also has me up as a hate group. Other individual bloggers on the list include Atlas Shrugs, Refugee Resettlement Watch, Bare Naked Islam and Citizen Warrior.

6 of the SPLC’s “hate groups” are actually individuals. It’s understandable that the Southern Poverty Law Center is vague on the definition of hate. But you would think that it could figure out the definition of “group.”

No such luck.

The SPLC lists the David Horowitz Freedom Center as a hate group. But then again it also lists the American College of Pediatricians and the Jewish Political Action Committee as hate groups.

It doesn’t take much to be listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

You don’t need to be a group to be listed by the SPLC as a hate group. You don’t even need to have a pulse. Inanimate plastic signs can be listed too.

The rest of the SPLC’s “increase” is padded out with assorted community groups opposed to refugee resettlement, such as Treasure Valley Refugee Watch, and any Christian ministry it doesn’t like.

But there is one barrier to being listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

No amount of overt anti-Semitism from CAIR’s Nihad Awad would ever get the Islamist hate group listed as a hate group. Even CAIR’s flirtation with Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers can’t get it on the hate map. The SPLC collaborated with the Muslim Public Affairs Council despite its anti-Semitism.

Instead the SPLC lists counterterrorism organizations such as the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the Clarion Project and the David Horowitz Freedom Center which point out their terror ties as hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is greedy, cynical and dishonest. Its latest ploy to gain headlines by inflating a group it had formerly listed as 1 organization into 45 by listing each chapter separately is the sort of behavior you expect from a lazy college student, not one of the wealthiest organizations in the country. And yet no one in the media will call out the SPLC for its greed, its bigotry and its lies.

The SPLC climbs into bed with extremists and terrorists and it smears counterterrorism organizations. It helps terrorists target their critics. And it solicits money through shameless lies.

It’s easy to indict the SPLC. But every indictment of the SPLC is also an indictment of a Fake News media that repeats its absurd lies without ever checking its facts.

When the media reports that there was a huge rise in anti-Muslim groups because the Southern Poverty Law Center turned 1 group into 45, it proves that it really is in the Fake News business. 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265859/how-southern-poverty-law-center-faked-islamophobia-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Science Journalism is Going Full Leftist - Robert Arvay




by Robert Arvay

In reality, thousands of government grants are at risk, billions of dollars of them, unless the scientists receiving the money can prove that global warming is manmade, and that human effort can reverse it.

We on the right have grown to expect bias in political journalism -- but most of us probably thought that science literature would always be objective, and exempt from radical leftist opinion. If so, then our thoughts were mistaken.

Every once in a while, I receive emailed articles from science journals, for example, Scientific American. Most of these are of interest to science junkies like myself -- but a disturbing and growing number of them have less to do with science than with left-wing political propaganda. Much of it is unashamedly anti-Trump. It seems (sarcasm here) that by questioning the (questionable) evidence of global warming, President Trump is seeking to inundate the entire world with rising oceans. In reality, thousands of government grants are at risk, billions of dollars of them, unless the scientists receiving the money can prove that global warming is manmade, and that human effort can reverse it.

Of course, the scientists can prove no such thing, which is why their journal articles increasingly give the impression of “hair-on-fire” panic.

More recently, I am beginning to notice an even more sinister trend, one which hints at anti-Semitism. In an article at Space.com, a site oriented toward NASA news, the authors seem to twist and turn through verbal contortions, straining to avoid any mention of the word, “Israel,” even though the science news therein was discovered by studying ancient Jewish records.

The article describes the geography of the featured discovery as being that of “Judah, an ancient kingdom situated around what is now Jerusalem.” This seems like an awful lot of words to substitute for the word, “Israel.”

The article credits Israeli scientist [quote], “Erez Ben-Yosef, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University,” with analyzing much of the information, but yet again, avoids mentioning that he is an Israeli scientist. In other articles, I find no shortage of phrases such as, a French scientist, or a scientist at Britain’s Oxford University, and so forth.

It is perhaps possible that I am being a bit overly sensitive in my appraisal of this one article, but I noticed its omissions largely because the piece fits the mold of many other science articles I have read over the past year, articles which in my view are ever more politically oriented toward leftist opinions.
For example, some time ago, in American Thinker, I quoted this:
“As Scientific American has reported in the run-up to the election, Trump's views on science, health and medicine appear unformed at best, ignorant and destructive at worst.”
To be sure, science journalists are entitled to their political opinions, right, left or otherwise -- but the danger is that their partisan agendas can easily come into conflict with actual science. It happened in the old Soviet Union, where thankfully, communist scientists set back their nation’s progress far enough to help result in an American victory in the Cold War.

It could easily happen here, where for so many scientists, the competition is fierce and unrelenting. The dictum is, “publish or perish.” The chase for government grant money, much of it wasted, goes to research into the mating habits of this or that exotic species of salamander and the like. Literally billions of taxpayer dollars are at risk, if these grants are closely scrutinized, which is likely to happen under a Trump presidency.

We already find that meteorologists who question global warming are threatened with loss of their livelihoods by those who do not dare to question its dogma. How much longer will it be before we find that grant money for research into life-saving medications is given only to scientists, however mediocre they might be, based largely on their unquestioning endorsement of liberal propaganda?

Many of our future scientists are being trained in universities which have become leftist indoctrination centers, where independent thinking, an absolute necessity for scientific progress, is often discouraged, and in some cases, forbidden. How can that not have an adverse impact on the direction taken by science?

If President Trump can break through the bureaucracy of politically motivated scientists, he will have done science a great favor.

Robert Arvay

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/science_journalism_is_going_full_leftist.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

France's Muslim Demographic Future - Yves Mamou




by Yves Mamou

France's Muslim population could quickly grow to close to 15-17 million, but no one can know precisely unless the law prohibiting the official collection of ethnic data is changed.

  • France's Muslim population could quickly grow to close to 15-17 million, but no one can know precisely unless the law prohibiting the official collection of ethnic data is changed.
  • These figures do not take into consideration the Muslim population that immigrated to France from North Africa in the 1960s and early 1970s. There are a few million of them -- nobody knows how many exactly. For demographers, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are not regarded as immigrants anymore. These Muslims are, rather, integrated into statistics as French citizens born of French parents. They are Muslim, but under the statistics radar.
From time to time, France's National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Insee) offers a glimpse of the ethnic composition of French society. The study, "Being born in France to an immigrant parent" (Être né en France d'un parent immigré), published in February 2017, is one of them.

Like few other glimpses, the Insee study offers a partial view of the ethnic composition of the French population. A statistical breakdown -- with the answer to the perennial question: how many Muslims in France? -- would be perceived as discriminatory and outrageous. Given France's "integration model," nobody should dare identify people by their origins, religion, color of skin and so on. A Frenchman is a Frenchman, whatever the color of his skin or his religion, and any measurement of the sub-Saharan population -- for example, their level of education, that of their children, the type of jobs their parents are doing, how many times they go to mosque or if they have spent time in prison -- is illegal, discriminatory and racist. Sub-Saharan populations must disappear in aggregate data about French people.

The study, however, provides some telling information. In 2015, 7.3 million people born in France had at least one immigrant parent (11% of the population). Of these 7.3 million people, 45% are of European origin, most of whom are children of immigrants who arrived in France from Spain (8%) or Italy (12%) as early as the 1930s, or from Portugal in the 1970s onwards. One can assume, although it is not written in the study, that these people are of Christian origin.

Another group is composed of Africans. 42% of the 7.3 million children born in France to an immigrant parent are of African background, mainly North Africa. They came from Algeria (15%), Morocco (11%), Tunisia (5%) and sub-Saharan Africa (11%). Although it is also not specified in the study, it would seem that the great majority are Muslim.

Another group, children from Turkish migrant families, represent 4% of the 7.3 million. These people are classified as Asian; they are not included in the African and Muslim group. Most of these Turks are also presumably Muslim.

A conclusion therefore would assume that 46% of the descendants of immigrants are Muslim and 45% are Christian. The remaining 9% are from East Asia or the Americas.


A new study from France's National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, "Being born in France to an immigrant parent," provides some telling information on the ethnic composition of French society.

Criticizing the limited data of this study, Michèle Tribalat, a French demographer, published some personal conclusions in Atlántico, a news website. First, Tribalat expressed her regrets "not to have the population figures of persons of foreign origin for two generations". But, she said, it is not so difficult to compile it one's self.
"If we add the two generations (immigrants and children of immigrants), this gives a total of 13.5 million, or 20.4% of the population. Thus, we have slightly more than one inhabitant out of five of foreign origin, across two generations, in 2015".
Asked by Gatestone how she came to the 13.5 million figure, she replied:
"Very simple. I added the 2015 migrant population (6.2 million) to the Insee's 7.3 million children of immigrants, and it came to 13.5 million."
In her Atlántico article, Tribalat maintains that more important than the 2015 data picture, is the growth-rate that led to the 2015 figure. Tribalat calculated her own estimates of this growth, with starting points in the years 1986, 1999 and 2011, coming up with figures of a stunningly fast growth for the number of migrants over two generations: the 13.2 million migrants of 2015 (20.5%; 300,000 that are "missing" are from French overseas territories), were 12.1 million four years earlier and 9.8 million in 1999. In other words, 19.2% in 2011 and 16.8% in 1999. The population of French persons of foreign origin would therefore have increased, when looking at two generations, by 9% between 2011 and 2015 alone.

For the same period, French children born in France to parents born in France increased by only 2.6%, writes Tribalat.

Consequently, France's population is increasing significantly only because of immigration. But which immigration? Christian or Muslim? Tribalat continues:
"I showed that the annual average rate of increase of immigrants was almost zero between 1975 and 1999. But it is not the same story from 1999-2015. ... The population of sub-Saharan origin is the one that grows more quickly. In four years (2011-2015), looking at two-generations (immigrants and children of immigrants), the sub-Saharan population seems to have increased by 43%. This population is extremely young. In 2015, 80% of the children of sub-Saharan immigrants are under 25 years of age". (Author's emphasis)
These conclusions are confirmed by another Insee study, "Demography of the descendants of immigrants" (Démographie des descendants d'immigrés), published in 2014.
"The Turkish and sub-Saharan African population is growing at an extremely rapid rate (which could lead to a doubling in less than 10 years if this continues).... The total fertility rate of women born in Turkey is approximately 3, as it is for women born in sub-Saharan Africa. It is closer to 3.5 for women born in North Africa, while it is only 2 for women born in Europe, especially in France."
In other words, if the Muslim population of France can be estimated at around 6 million today, it could grow to 12 million by 2020-2025.

This figure does even not take into consideration the Muslim population that immigrated to France from North Africa in the 1960s and early 1970s. There are a few million of them -- nobody knows how many exactly. They became French very early, and for demographers, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are not regarded as immigrants anymore. These Muslims are, rather, integrated into statistics as French citizens born of French parents. They are Muslim, but under the statistics radar.

France's Muslim population could quickly grow to close to 15-17 million, but no one can know precisely unless the law prohibiting the official collection of ethnic data is changed.

These questions are not spoken about openly in the fierce pre-election presidential debate raging in France. The question is not politically correct. But in these times of expanding Islamism, they weigh silently in favor of Marine Le Pen.

Yves Mamou is a journalist and author based in France. He worked for two decades for the daily, Le Monde, before his retirement.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9964/france-muslim-future

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Hope for a real solution? No wonder Europe’s dismayed - Melanie Pillips




by Melanie Phillips

-- what [Trump's] gut is telling him about the Arab-Israel conflict is that, first, the US has too often done the wrong thing there and second, that it had no business being involved there at all.

President Trump’s comments to Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu about the solution to the Israel-Arab impasse produced consternation and contempt in equal measure.

At the press conference after their meeting at the White House, Trump said: “So I’m looking at two state and one state, and I like the one that both parties like. I can live with either one. I thought for a while the two-state looked like it may be the easier of the two. But honestly, if Bibi and if the Palestinians, if Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I’m happy with the one they like the best.”

Uproar then ensued. Trump had single-handedly destroyed decades of American commitment to the two-state solution and therefore peace. Apparently. At the same time, by raising the spectre of a one-state solution Trump had single-handedly destroyed Israel’s future as a democratic Jewish state. Apparently.

According to one British commentator, he displayed “the know-nothing insouciance of a man who is not even aware of the extent to which he is out of his depth”, with “absurd” remarks that showed “he knew nothing at all about the problems of the region”. Apparently.

As usual, people fail to understand both the style and substance of this President’s statements. This is a man who doesn’t do detail, nor does he take care with the words he uses. He thinks with his gut and speaks from pretty well the same place. And what his gut is telling him about the Arab-Israel conflict is that, first, the US has too often done the wrong thing there and second, that it had no business being involved there at all.

On both matters, his gut instinct is correct. On both matters, however, it runs directly counter to a consensus which has been overwhelming for decades but which has been no less overwhelmingly wrong for decades. 

In his remarks with Netanyahu, Trump was not withdrawing support for a state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. He was neither espousing nor disavowing a two-state or any other solution. He was simply standing back and saying it was not for the US to create or impose any solution. It was instead for Israel and the Arabs to agree a solution between them. 

This is, or should be, blindingly obvious. The fact that it is not, and that it has now caused such uproar, indicates the extent of the error the west has committed over the Israel-Arab impasse. 

Since well before the rebirth of the State of Israel in 1948, the west has responded to the Arab war of extermination against the Jewish homeland by attempting to impose a division of the land which rewarded and incentivised genocidal Arab aggression and punished its Jewish victims. Getting this catastrophically wrong from the start, the west has made precisely the same mistake over and over again. That is why the Arab-Israel impasse has continued without end.

Ripping up that consensus now potentially opens the way to fresh thinking which might therefore produce a real solution. No longer is a Palestine state to be considered an essential precondition for peace. That is a crucial and long overdue corrective. If such a state were ever a solution to the Arab-Israel conflict, it would have brought it to an end as long ago as 1936 when an Arab state alongside a Jewish state to be carved out of Palestine was first proposed. 

It cannot be a solution for the simple reason that, having been repeatedly offered it, the Arabs have consistently rejected it and continued instead to murder Israelis and try to destroy Israel. The idea that it was ever central to a solution was always ludicrous. It only took centre stage because western progressives adopted the Palestinians and their fake narrative as their cause of causes. 

Trump has provoked unease in hawkish Israeli circles by saying more than once that he thought settlement expansion was unhelpful. But he has also said that the settlements themselves are not the main obstacle to a solution to the conflict. It appears that he simply views further expansion as an unnecessary further complication at this stage. 

Whether or not one agrees with that view, given the significance of his overall policy shift this would seem a small price to pay. For he is essentially sending the Palestinians right back to their own miserable drawing board. He has made it clear he will no longer fund their incitement to the mass murder of Jews. No less important, he has also made it clear he will hold the UN’s feet to the fire and will no longer stand by while it uses American money to sanitise and incentivise the demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel. 

The Palestinians’ strategy therefore lies in ruins. In Gaza, an even harder Hamas hard man has now come to power who doubtless will redouble efforts to rain down missiles upon Israeli citizens. Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority thought it was so clever in pretending, by contrast, to have clean hands by adopting the diplomatic route to destroy Israel – courtesy of the UN and with a nod and a wink from the Obama administration. Now they are staring at a UN which itself is suddenly all too aware that its own hate-mongering, extermination-conniving party may finally be over.

Moreover, developments in the region mean that the Palestinians suddenly find themselves friendless in the Arab world. Their usefulness as the devilish threat to be cynically brandished in order to protect Arab rulers against the fury of their own enslaved populations has come to an abrupt end. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, now engaged in a fight to the death against Iran, are building an alliance with none other than the State of Israel; and now also with America.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Adel al Jubeir, today accused Iran of being ”the single main sponsor of terrorism in the world”. He went on: “We look forward to working with the Trump administration on all issues. I believe progress can be made in the Arab Israel conflict, if there is a will to do so. We know what the settlement looks like, if there is just the political will to do so. And my country stands ready with other Arab countries to work to see how we can promote that.”

Of course there can be no illusions about Saudi Arabia, the primary source of Sunni Islamic radicalisation and the principal exporter of jihadi Islamism around the world. And the previous Saudi peace initiative was an elephant trap. Nevertheless, between these tectonic regional shifts and the hurricane in the White House, the Middle East log-jam has been smashed. There is accordingly now more hope for a just and realistic solution to the Arab war against Israel than there has ever been.

No wonder Europe is so dismayed.


Melanie Phillips

Source: http://melaniephillips.com/hope-real-solution-no-wonder-europes-dismayed/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.