Monday, September 1, 2014

Reveal UNRWA's Deceptive Veneer of Legitimacy

by Dr. Einat Wilf

It was quite ironic that during the fighting in Gaza, the Israel Defense Forces was shot at from facilities of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, and had to return fire, as over the years no one defended the existence of UNRWA more than the IDF and the Israeli defense establishment. But now, with the fighting over, it is time for Israel to do what it should have done decades ago -- remove the layer of protection and legitimacy it grants to UNRWA. Israel should recognize UNRWA for what it is -- a hostile Palestinian organization that perpetuates the dream of the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel -- and treat it accordingly.

Israel's policy on UNRWA was set by the defense establishment. It was based on the premise that UNRWA was "the lesser of two evils" -- or as a Defense Ministry official put it to me, "UNRWA is crap, but Hamas is more so." This is a narrow view of the issue. Even if UNRWA itself does not attack the IDF directly, it ensures that there will always be someone to do so in the future. Under a thin veil of humanitarian activities, UNRWA acts with a clear political agenda, aimed at perpetuating the situation of Palestinian refugees and fostering the dream of their return to Israel. This is how UNRWA builds the ideological foundation for the next generation of fighters against Israel.

Officially, UNRWA provides educational, health and social services to the around 5 million Palestinian refugees living in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. In reality, UNRWA is directly responsible for the fact that 5 million people are registered as Palestinian refugees, a large number of whom continue to live in refugee camps. UNRWA works to inflate the number of registered refugees in two ways. First, the descendants of refugees from 1948, already the fifth generation, are automatically "entitled" to refugee status. And second, UNRWA thwarts any attempt to absorb refugees where they currently live or in third countries. If UNRWA operated the same way as the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, which is responsible for all other refugee groups in the world, today there would be only tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees, rather than millions.

When Israel changes its policy and removes the protection it grants to UNRWA, it will be possible to bring about a dramatic change in the organization and its political activities. The reason for this is that UNRWA does not get its budget directly from the U.N., but rather its continued existence depends on donations totaling around $1 billion per year from Western nations, including around $250 million from the U.S. and more than $500 million from Europe.

Over the years, various Western officials have asked the obvious question: Why do Western taxpayers fund an organization which acts in stark contrast to the policy of finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? But every time even the slightest possibility arises of cutting funding to UNRWA, Israel intervenes to ensure that the funding continues to flow, due to the defense establishment's concern that any decrease to the funding will lead to a conflagration on the ground and a new intifada.

If Israel expects, as it should, that any future peace agreement with the Palestinians include final recognition of the Jewish people's right to their own state in their historical homeland, then it must act in accordance with that principle and cease its protection of UNRWA -- an organization whose goal is that Israel will never win legitimacy as the state of the Jewish people. 

Dr. Einat Wilf is a senior fellow with the Jewish People Policy Institute and a former member of Knesset.


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

The Two Faces of Islam

by Richard Butrick

One face is for Islam’s useful idiots the other is for Islam’s faithful.

The Koran is not arranged in chronological order. When it is arranged in chronological order it is clear that the Koran undergoes a serious transition after Muhammad’s first real triumph on the battlefield at Badr in 624. The period following that battle is called the Medina period of the prophet’s life. Conceptually this transition can be seen as a transition from the Old Koran to the New Koran. Unlike the transition from the Old to the New Testament, the transition from the “Old” Koran (pre-Medina) to the “New” Koran (Medina) is a transition to a more vengeful, demanding, supremacist God.
He who at Mecca is the admonisher and persuader, at Medina is the legislator and the warrior, who dictates obedience, and uses other weapons than the pen of the Poet and the Scribe. [link]
In practice, Quranic abrogation results in a known doctrinal footprint that subordinates the milder, more moderate verses of the Quran from the Meccan period of revelation, to the later and violent verses of the Medina period. Islamic law is substantially derived from the Medinan period. Where a conflict exists, anything said during the Medinan period overrules anything on the same subject in the Meccan. And anything said in the later part of the Medinan period either overrules or controls anything said in the earlier part. [link]
In an attempt to polish Islam's image, Muslim activists usually quote verses from the Quran that were written in the early days of the Islamic movement while Mohammed lived in Mecca. Those passages make Islam appear loving and harmless because they call for love, peace and patience. Such is a deception. The activists fail to tell gullible people that such verses, though still in the Quran, were nullified, abrogated, rendered void by later passages that incite killing, decapitations, maiming, terrorism and religious intolerance. The latter verses were penned while Mohammed’s headquarters was based in Medina. [The Quran's Doctrine of Abrogation -- Abdullah Al Araby]
A clear-cut example of this principle of abrogation is the oft quoted passage from the Old Koran, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” (Q 5:99) which is abrogated by  chronologically later passages such as these:
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction."
And on it goes. Apologists for Islam insist these passages refer to retaliatory measures to be taken when attacked.

Regarding these passages, it is to be noted that the Koran is the word of God and not a testament as are the Old and New Testaments and is thereby much less subject to “interpretation.” Moreover, it is axiomatic in Islam that Muhammad is the perfect male to be emulated as much as possible by all male Muslims. The post-Meccan Muhammad is a warrior, raider, conqueror, and subjugator of the non-Islamic world. The mission of all good Muslims is, correspondingly, the spread of Islam any means possible.

The great divide between the Old Koran, which is relatively tolerant and accepting of Jews and Christians, and the New Koran which views Jews and Christians as vermin worthy only extermination or servile groveling before their Muslim masters, enables the supremacist mandate in Islam to present one face to the West’s useful idiots and another to the faithful.

It has worked.

The Old Koran is used to piously claim that terrorism, suicide bombing, and persecution of religious minorities and disempowerment of women are “un-Islamic.”

What is the useful-idiot version of Islam? Here it is a culled version based on quotes from President Bush’s comments on Islam:
Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion. It's a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It's a faith based upon love, not hate. Mohammad's word has guided billions of believers across the centuries, and those believers built a culture of learning and literature and science. All the world continues to benefit from this faith and its achievements.
And here is President Obama solemnly declaring that Islam is based on the principles “of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

But here are the real five pillars of Islam for the faithful:
I. Islam is to dominate over all other religions Q9:33, 61:9, 8:39
2. Muslims are to purify all of Arabia of its Pagans who can convert or be killed Q9:5 3. 3. Muslims are to fight and subjugate other non-Muslims and subdue and make them inferior second-class citizens (Dhimmis) to pay jizya (humiliation tax) to save their lives. Q9:29
4. Muslims are to have hatred and enmity forever for non-Muslims until they worship Allah alone Q60:4, they should fight those unbelievers close to them and let them find harshness in the Muslims Q9:123
5. Muslims must engage in this jihad (struggle) as this fighting is ordained for them even if they dislike it 2:216 and they are told they can overcome much greater enemies to a multiple of 10 times or more Q8:65
From George W. Bush to Hillary Clinton the “hijacked Islam” or “un-Islamic” meme has infected U.S. foreign policy and enabled creeping Sharia at home. It seems to have gotten to the point that exonerating Islam is the primary concern of U.S. foreign and defense policy with regard to terrorist activity from ISIS to Fort Hood to Boko Haram. The first order of business is to insure that “us folks” understand that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Just after the terrible treatment of Yazidis and the beheading of Foley, practically the first words out of President Obama's mouth were that “ISIL speaks for no religion.”

The Obama crew has been suckered, bamboozled, and taqiyyaed into believing the Islam of the Old Koran is the real Islam. But as the menacing face of the Islam of the New Koran turns fully into view it is becoming increasingly clear that it is the Obama team of useful idiots who have been hijacked. Even CNN has published a report showing that al Qaeda affiliated groups are gaining strength:
Last year's most lethal incidents were carried out by the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, Nigeria's Boko Haram, al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and ISIL
That was in April, before ISIL showed its real power. And wait till we pull out of Afghanistan. It will be brutally clear that it is not ISIL but Obama and his crew of Islam’s useful idiots that “speak for no religion.”

Richard Butrick


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

WaPo: President's Incompetence 'Alarming' and 'Dismaying'

by Rick Moran

Say what you want about the liberal slant of the Washington Post - and there's a lot to say - but in recent months, the Post has been edging toward an out and out break with the Obama administration.

This editorial may be it.

What set them off was the president's acknowledgement that he doesn't have a plan to deal with ISIS in Syria.
This argument with his own administration is alarming on three levels.
The first has to do with simple competence. One can only imagine the whiplash that foreign leaders must be suffering. They heard U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power denounce Russia as “today . . . they open a new front . . . Russia’s force along the border is the largest it has been . . . the mask is coming off.” An hour later, Mr. Obama implicitly contradicted her: “I consider the actions that we’ve seen in the last week a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now . . . it’s not really a shift.”
Similarly, his senior advisers uniformly have warned of the unprecedented threat to America and Americans represented by Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq. But Mr. Obama didn’t seem to agree. “Now, ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and to people throughout the region,” he said. “My priority at this point is to make sure that the gains that ISIL made in Iraq are rolled back.” Contrast that ambition with this vow from Secretary of State John F. Kerry: “And make no mistake: We will continue to confront ISIL wherever it tries to spread its despicable hatred. The world must know that the United States of America will never back down in the face of such evil.”
There is an obvious disconnect between the president and his foreign policy people. That's because Obama's approach to everything is ad hoc. There is no overall, overarching strategy - no vision, if you will.

This is why the president is constantly telling us what the US government cannot do, rather than what it can do:
The discrepancies raise the question of whether Mr. Obama controls his own administration, but that’s not the most disturbing element. His advisers are only stating the obvious: Russia has invaded Ukraine. The Islamic State and the Americans it is training are a danger to the United States. When Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says the threat they pose is “in some ways . . . more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general,” it’s not because he is a warmonger or an alarmist. He’s describing the world as he sees it. When Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge the reality, allies naturally wonder whether he will also refuse to respond to it.
Which is, in the end, the most disturbing aspect of Mr. Obama’s performance. Throughout his presidency, he has excelled at explaining what the United States cannot do and cannot afford, and his remarks Thursday were no exception. “Ukraine is not a member of NATO,” he said. “We don’t have those treaty obligations with Ukraine.” If Iraq doesn’t form an acceptable government, it’s “unrealistic” to think the United States can defeat the Islamic State.
Meanwhile, as the president informs us what he can't do, Putin and ISIS are simply "doing." 

Unlike the New York Times which marches to its own far-left drummer, the Washington Post reflects the thinking of official Washington more than any other media outlet. And it's pretty obvious that official Washington is becoming frightened as the realization finally dawns on them that the disengaged incompetent man sitting in the Oval Office may be leading us to disaster.

Rick Moran


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

Basting Turkey's new Prime Minister

by Daniel Pipes

Recep Tayyip Erdogan just ascended to the presidency of Turkey and, his handpicked successor, Ahmet Davutoglu, simultaneously assumed his old job of prime minister. What do these changes portend for Turkey and its foreign policy? In two words: nothing good.

In June 2005, when Davutoglu served as chief foreign policy adviser to Erdogan, I spoke with him for an hour in Ankara. Two topics from that conversation remain vivid.

He asked me about the neoconservative movement in the United States, then at the height of its fame and supposed influence. I began by expressing doubts that I was a member of this elite group, as Davutoglu assumed, and went on to note that none of the key decision-makers in the George W. Bush administration (the president, vice president, secretaries of state and defense, or the national security adviser) was a neoconservative, a fact that made me skeptical of its vaunted power. Davutoglu responded with a subtle form of anti-Semitism, insisting that neoconservatives were far more powerful than I acknowledged because they worked together in a secret network based on religious ties. (He had the good grace not to mention which religion that might be.)

In turn, I asked him about the goals of Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East in the era of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) that had begun in 2002, noting Ankara's new ambitions in a region it had long disdained. He conceded this change, then took me on a quick tour d'horizon from Afghanistan to Morocco, noting Turkey's special ties with many countries. These included the presence of Turkic-speakers (e.g., in Iraq), the legacy of Ottoman rule (Lebanon), economic symbiosis (Syria), Islamic ties (Saudi Arabia), and diplomatic mediation (Iran).

What struck me most was the boastful optimism and complete self-assurance of Davutoglu, a former professor of international relations and Islamist ideologue. He not only implied that Turkey had been waiting for him and his grand vision with baited breath, but he also displayed an unconcealed delight at finding himself in a position to apply his academic theories to the great canvas of international politics (a privilege that occurs surprisingly rarely). In sum, that conversation inspired neither my confidence nor my admiration.

While Davutoglu has done remarkably well for himself in the intervening years, he did so exclusively as consigliere to his sole patron, Erdogan. His record, by contrast, has been one of inconsistent policy and consistent failure, a failure so abject it borders on fiasco. Under Davutoglu's stewardship, Ankara's relations with Western countries have almost universally soured, while those with Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Egypt, and Libya, among other Middle Eastern states, have plummeted. To top it off, Turkish rule is endangered even in its own northern Cypriot satrapy.

Symbolically, Turkey is slipping away from the NATO alliance of democracies and toward the shoddy Sino-Russian grouplet known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. As Kemal Kilicdaroglu, leader of the opposition, sadly notes [ADD LINK:], "Turkey has grown lonely in the world."

Having failed as foreign minister, Davutoglu now -- in an application of the Dilbert Principle -- ascends to a heady but subservient leadership of both the AKP and the government. He faces two major challenges: As AKP leader, he is tasked with producing a great victory in the June 2015 parliamentary elections to modify the constitution and turn the semi-ceremonial position of president into the elected sultanate Erdogan lusts for. Can Davutoglu deliver the votes? Color me skeptical. I expect that Erdogan will rue the day he relinquished his prime ministry to become president, as he finds himself ignored and bored living in the sprawling presidential "campus."

As Turkey's 26th prime minister, Davutoglu faces a bubble economy perilously near collapse, a breakdown in the rule of law, a country inflamed by Erdogan's divisive rule, a hostile Gulen movement, and a divided AKP, all converging within an increasingly Islamist (and therefore uncivil) country. Moreover, the foreign policy problems that Davutoglu himself created still persist, especially the Islamic State hostage emergency in Mosul.

The unfortunate Davutoglu brings to mind a cleanup crew arriving at the party at 4 a.m., facing a mess created by now-departed revelers. Happily, the contentious and autocratic Erdogan no longer holds Turkey's key governmental position; but his placing the country in the unsteady hands of a loyalist of proven incompetence brings many new concerns for the Turks, their neighbors, and all who wish the country well.

Daniel Pipes ( is president of the Middle East Forum.


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

Britain, NATO Ready to Support Jordan against Islamic State

by Ariel ben Solomon

Saudi Paper says Jordan handed NATO secret security reports showing the expansion of extremists in Iraq, including ideas to counter group’s advance towards its territory.

Syrian waves an Islamist flag in celebration after Islamic State 
militants took over Tabqa air base Photo: REUTERS
The British ambassador in Amman said that his country and NATO would help Jordan deal with any threat from the Islamic State, a Saudi newspaper reported on Sunday.

Jordan handed NATO secret security reports showing the expansion of the terrorist group in Iraq, including ideas to counter the group’s advance towards its territory, the Saudi newspaper Okaz reported.
A NATO Summit is scheduled to begin on Thursday in Wales.

The British ambassador to Jordan, Peter Millet, said his country and NATO are ready to coordinate with Jordan to deal with the danger it faces from the Islamic State. Millet added that the stability and security of the Hashemite Kingdom are a top priority for his government.

Around 1,200 Jordanians are fighting in Syria with Islamic State, according to the report.
Jordan's powerful intelligence services appear to be deploying their full range of tools to counter the threat. King Abdullah has said the country has never been better prepared to face the radical threat sweeping the region.

Islamic State's gains have sparked a fierce debate among Jordanian Islamists from the Salafist movement on whether to back the group, whose brutality has been criticized even within radical Islamist circles.

But buoyed by territorial gains, Islamic State’s sympathizers appear to be winning the argument.

Meanwhile, King Abdullah met a visiting US congressional delegation on Sunday to discuss bilateral relations and developments in the region.

Abdullah emphasized the importance of the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in order to achieve a two-state solution, Jordan News Agency Petra reported.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Ariel ben Solomon


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

A President’s Global Warming Treaty Tyranny

by Arnold Ahlert


In yet another demonstration of contempt for the Constitution, President Obama and his administration are pursuing what the New York Times characterizes as a “sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions” — absent any input from Congress.

The Constitution requires a two-thirds majority approval by the Senate to ratify any legally binding treaty. The Obama administration plans to sidestep that requirement by calling the agreement a “politically binding” deal that would substitute for an actual treaty. It would consist of voluntary pledges, combined with obligations from a 1992 U.N. treaty known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Control. That 22-year-old agreement was reached at the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The U.S. Senate ratified the agreement on October 7, 1992, and President Bush Sr. signed it six days later, making it legally binding.

The Obama administration contends that simply adding the additional voluntary pledges to the agreement obviates the need for another ratification process. “There’s some legal and political magic to this,” said Jake Schmidt, an expert in global climate negotiations with the Natural Resources Defense Council, a leftist advocacy group. “They’re trying to move this as far as possible without having to reach the 67-vote threshold.”

Not magic. Just another attempt by the Obama administration to kick Congress to the curb in pursuit of an agenda that has absolutely no chance of getting majority approval in Congress, much less a two-thirds vote of approval in the Senate. In 1997, the Kyoto climate control treaty was rocketed into oblivion with a 96-0 bipartisan vote. Another effort was undertaken in Copenhagen in 2009, but once again the attempt to forge a legally binding agreement failed. Obama attended that conference, hoping to put America in alignment with the global community, but he did so with no support whatsoever from Republicans, along with opposition from several Democrats representing states that rely heavily on coal power for energy and jobs. Democrats made it clear they wouldn’t accept any treaty or agreement threatening that status quo. In 2010, “cap and trade” legislation failed in the Senate for the same reason.

The Obama administration is undeterred by such inconvenient realities. In June, once again absent any input from Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed regulations aimed at cutting existing greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants 30 percent by 2030. The move has engendered lawsuits in the in the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia from at least a dozen coal-reliant states. It has also engendered a warning from North Dakota Democrat Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, whose state relies on coal-generated electricity for a whopping 80 percent of its power needs. “When that is done, and the stake is through the heart of coal, they will come for you next,” Heitkamp told representatives from the natural gas industry. She also added a dose of reality to the mix. “In my lifetime we will not transition away from coal,” she contended.

That remains to be seen, given the Obama administration’s penchant for “transitioning” away from the rule of law. Yet even this patchwork quilt of an agreement will suffer the same affliction that bedevils many of the administration’s efforts, as in a disconnect from geopolitical reality. The premise behind this pact is to “name and shame” countries who do not meet their reduction requirements. Thus the administration is relying on the idea that “embarrassed” nations will fall back in line, regardless of the economic consequences for doing so.

It’s not going to happen. As the Washington Times correctly explains, “China and India, each with more than a billion people and swathes of horrific poverty of a sort not seen in the West, have been particularly outspoken in their refusal to agree to any mandatory carbon-emission cuts, which would limit their development and prosperity.”

In addition, the poorer nations of the world are also unlikely to abide by any agreement that does not bind richer nations to a massive wealth transfer aimed at assisting their development of dams and levees to guard against coastal flooding from rising seas, or provide food aid during droughts that are invariably attributed to global warming.

Global warming itself has been subjected to a series of “readjustments” in recent years. In 2009, there was the “Climategate” scandal in which the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit was found to have suppressed data contradicting their assessment of global warming. Last year, a series of leaked emails revealed that scientists working on a U.N. climate change report were struggling to explain why global warming has decreased over the last 15 years, even as greenhouse gas emissions keep rising. That same year, a paper asserting that there was a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming was revealed to have been doctored by warming alarmists and their media allies. In June, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) quietly reinstated data showing July 1936 as the hottest month on record, after insisting in 2012 that July of that year was the “all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.” And last week in Australia, scientists with the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) were accused of manipulating data to create an artificial warming trend, using a process called “homogenization” that ostensibly corrects anomalies in raw temperature data. The BOM insisted that it was “very unlikely” that such homogenization affected overall outlooks.

Countering such realities requires a certain level of hysteria. The so-called paper of record was more than up to the task. “The strategy comes as scientists warn that the earth is already experiencing the first signs of human-caused global warming — more severe drought and stronger wildfires, rising sea levels and more devastating storms — and the United Nations heads toward what many say is the body’s last chance to avert more catastrophic results in the coming century,” the New York Times reports.

A U.N. report to be released in early November is equally dire, noting that the world is on the cusp of “irreversible change” due to global warming.

Hence the “last chance” efforts continue. Last year, dozens of countries reached a deal in Warsaw that allow them to make “contributions” to reducing global warming, as opposed to “commitments” for doing so. Thus countries like China and India won more lenient guidelines for reducing emissions than desired by the United States and Europe. This deal was seen as a springboard for the upcoming one, to be hammered out next year in Paris, following a December meeting in Lima, Peru to draft the agreement.

Republicans have little use for a pact that ignores the rule of law and tramples the concept of national sovereignty in the process. “Unfortunately, this would be just another of many examples of the Obama administration’s tendency to abide by laws that it likes and to disregard laws it doesn’t like–and to ignore the elected representatives of the people when they don’t agree,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in a statement.

When there’s a planet to save—and an American economy to ruin in the process—such “banal” considerations must be cast aside. Obama and his administration are determined to fulfill his promise of “skyrocketing” electricity prices, along with his one to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” Delivering the nation into the clutches of UN bureaucrats, while kicking Congress and the Constitution to the curb, is the latest effort to fulfill that agenda. It won’t be the last.

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to, and He may be reached at


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

Hillary Joins the Ferguson Lynch Mob

by Matthew Vadum

Breaking her calculated silence on the issue, Hillary Clinton said young Michael Brown was a victim of police brutality in Ferguson, Mo., the latest in a long line of helpless black victims mowed down by racist cops who are part of America’s corrupt criminal justice system.
It’s just more left-wing sloganeering, staples of which are knee-jerk cop hatred and making excuses for black criminals.

Clinton, wife of the man some used to call America’s “first black president,” has a long history of race-baiting and race-based pandering. She patronized black Americans in her insultingly awful mock African-American accent when she gave her infamous “I don’t feel no ways tired” speech.

The all-but-declared candidate for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president’s media-hyped public epiphany about Ferguson and Michael Brown comes days after 18-year-old Brown was laid to rest following a grotesque political rally led by the abominable racial arsonist Al Sharpton.

The former U.S. secretary of state embraces the politically correct lie that a helpless 6’4″ 292-lbs. Brown was shot in cold blood, arms raised while attempting to surrender to white police officer Darren Wilson, instead of the less convenient truth that Brown was trying to crush the decorated cop’s skull with his bare hands and reaching for the man’s handgun. Left-wingers like Clinton also prefer to ignore that fact that minutes before he attacked Wilson, Brown was captured on video bullying a much smaller East Indian shopkeeper during a robbery, an act that some might consider a hate crime. And the public is still waiting for Brown’s not-yet-released postmortem toxicology report.

The myth that Brown was a gentle giant won’t die. The racial-grievance industry, egged on by President Obama and his fellow radicals, won’t let it go. They need rampant racial tension and cop-hatred to persist in order to motivate their political base if Democrats are to have any hope of maintaining control of the U.S. Senate after the November congressional elections.

Clinton, the Benghazi bungler whose studied nonfeasance on Sept. 11, 2012, got four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, killed by Muslim terrorists, told a San Francisco audience:
“This summer, the eyes of our country and indeed the world have been focused on one community in the middle of the American heartland, Ferguson, Missouri. Watching the recent funeral for Michael Brown, as a mother, as a human being, my heart just broke for his family, because losing a child is every parent’s greatest fear and an unimaginable loss.
But I also grieve for that community and for many like it across our country. Behind the dramatic, terrible pictures on television, are deep challenges that will be with them and with us long after the cameras move on. This is what happens when the bonds of trust and respect that hold any community together fray. Nobody wants to see our streets look like a war zone, not in America. We are better than that.”
Although black violence is a persistent problem in America, Clinton, as always, has nothing to say about anything that might actually help black communities. They are always victims in the leftist narrative. She and her comrades have done everything in their power for the last half century since the War on Poverty was launched to weaken black families, yet they are always calling for more government programs and social engineering to cure the problems that they themselves have created.

Clinton spoke of the violence in Ferguson as if it had materialized in response to some kind of injustice, ignoring the role of what police called “outside agitators” played in driving the nightly street battles with police. She continued:
“We saw our country’s true character in the community leaders that came out to protest peacefully and worked to restrain violence. The young people who insisted on having their voices heard and in the many decent and respectful law enforcement officers who showed what quality law enforcement looks like. Men and women who serve and protect their communities with courage and professionalism, who inspire trust, rather than fear. We need more of that, because we can do better.”
Apart from her perfunctory praise of law enforcement officials and denunciation of violence, Clinton’s wording implies that Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson, who shot Brown in self-defense, is not one of the “many decent and respectful law enforcement officers.” According to Clinton’s reasoning, Wilson must be a racist villain who is part of the problem.
Then Clinton began to sound like Barack Obama and other believers in the kooky legal philosophy known as Critical Race Theory, pretending that violent crimes in this country are not disproportionately committed by blacks. She ignores the fact that in some communities blacks receive heightened scrutiny from police because they seem to fit the profile of wanted suspects. If black crime were not prevalent in a specific area, chances are blacks would not receive much attention from police. But logic is not something left-wingers are often blessed with. They prefer to explain social ills by blaming white people.

Clinton continued:
“We can’t ignore the inequities that persist in our justice system that undermine our most deeply held values of fairness and equality. Imagine what we would feel and what we would do if white drivers were three times as likely to be searched by police during a traffic stop as black drivers. Instead of the other way around; if white offenders received prison sentences 10 percent longer than black offenders for the same crimes; if a third of all white men, just look at this room and take one-third, went to prison during their lifetime. Imagine that. That is the reality in the lives of so many of our fellow Americans and so many of the communities in which they live.”
Whether the specific statistics Clinton cites are valid is an arguable point, but what is not arguable is that violent black crime in America is far more prevalent that violent crime committed by whites. The statistics for young black males are particularly horrifying.

As liberal Democrat academic John McWhorter, a black American, wrote last year:
“[Y]oung black men do commit about 50% of the murders in the U.S. … Hardly uncommon are cases such as the two black guys who doused a white 13-year-old with gasoline and lit him on fire, saying “You get what you deserve, white boy’ (Kansas City, Mo.) or 20 black kids who beat up white Matthew Owens on his porch ‘for Trayvon’ (Mobile, Ala.) … [I]t’s just fake to pretend that the association of young black men with violence comes out of thin air. Young black men murder 14 times more than young white men. If the kinds of things I just mentioned were regularly done by whites, it’d be trumpeted as justification for being scared to death of them.”
But Hillary Clinton would never beat up a key political constituency. She’s too busy inflaming black voters, making them feel good about their dysfunctional communities, and reinforcing the worst pathologies of inner cities.

Of course Clinton is completely supportive of Eric Holder’s witch hunt in Ferguson, where Justice Department and FBI officials have been busy gathering evidence to use in what promises to be a high-profile trumped-up civil rights prosecution against Officer Wilson. Clinton said:
“I applaud President Obama for sending the attorney general to Ferguson and demanding a thorough and speedy investigation, to find out what happened, to see that justice is done, to help this community begin healing itself. We should all add our voices to those that have come together in recent days to work for peace, justice and reconciliation in Ferguson, and beyond, to stand against violence and for the values that we cherish. We can do better.
We can work to rebuild the bonds of trust from the ground up. It starts within families and communities. It was 51 years ago today that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr called us to live out true meaning of our creed, to make the dream real for all Americans. That mission is as fiercely urgent today as when he stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in the hot August sun all those years ago.”
Except that Clinton, a Saul Alinsky adherent just like Barack Obama, has no interest in rebuilding bonds of trust. Like Obama, she wants to tear down America in order to rebuild it and replace it with a socialist state. Talk of “equality” and “healing” are merely arrows in her rhetorical quiver.

Clinton’s attempt to stoke the flames of racial resentment came as up-and-coming independent investigative journalist Charles C. Johnson announced he has filed a lawsuit after two law enforcement sources told him Michael Brown’s juvenile criminal record is under seal in a St. Louis court. Johnson also wonders why the so-called gentle giant opted to attend the most violent high school in the St. Louis area when he could have easily gone elsewhere.

Meanwhile, black leftists are plotting further unrest to ensure the survival and flourishing of their narrative of cop-hatred.

At a Washington, D.C. branch of Busboys and Poets, owned by celebrated radical leftist Andy Shallal, an NAACP official and other neo-communist radicals like Hugo Chavez-loving actor Danny Glover vowed to escalate their activities.

The town hall-style meeting was titled, “Ferguson and Beyond – The Way Forward: A Town Hall Meeting on Police Killings of Black Men.”

Dr. Ron Daniels, former executive director of the Marxist public interest law firm, the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been essential in the Left’s long-running drive to dismantle the Global War on Terror, seemed to sum up the feelings of participants.

“We need to get ungovernable,” Daniels said. “We’ve been too tame.”

Hillary Clinton, who is determined to carry on Barack Obama’s agenda of racial antagonism, wholeheartedly agrees.

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


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

Sorry to Remind You, but Golda Meir Was Right - Part IV of IV

by Burak Bekdil

In Turkey however, the protests were not peaceful. They included smashing a sculpture than was neither Jewish nor Israeli.
It was the usual "We-Muslims-can-kill each other-but-Jews-cannot" hysteria.
If Turkish crowds were protesting against Israel in a political dispute, why Koranic slogans? Why were they protesting in Arabic rather than their native language? Do Turks chant German slogans to protest nuclear energy?

Finally, Adolf Hitler is a Turkish hero! With the current pace of events, a boulevard in Ankara can be named after him.

But the Turks' newfound Holocaust-fetish is not a response to one of the 20th century's greatest crimes; nor is their love affair with the funny moustached little man.

The Fuhrer also once said something that might perfectly fit Turkey seven decades later: "I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few."

Turks love Hitler because they hate Jews (not Israelis or the Israeli government). Why, otherwise, would Turks be targeting, in every way possible, Turkish Jews -- who are full Turkish citizens like themselves?

Bulent Yildirim, for instance, one of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's favorite Islamists, said that, "Turkish Jews will pay dearly for Israel's actions."

According to Prime Minister Erdogan, Israel, with its offensive on Gaza, which has killed more than 2000 people, "has gone beyond Hitler." Mr. Erdogan knows that 2000 is not greater than 6 million. So what makes him think that the deaths of 2000 Palestinians is "genocide" but the killing of hundreds of thousands by his good friend Omar al-Bashir in Sudan was not genocide? Well, Mr. Erdogan once explained that Muslims don't commit genocide. Good.

Mr. Erdogan's top Islamic cleric, however, has offered a different -- and, no doubt, more accurate account -- about Muslim deaths. Professor Mehmet Gormez, head of the Religious Affairs Directorate, said: "A thousand Muslims are being killed each day, and 90% of the killers are other Muslims."

If Professor Gormez is not a Zionist agent, Mr. Erdogan's (and half the Turks') Jewish witch-hunt cannot be a response to "Muslims are being killed": no one, for instance, has even attempted to destroy the diplomatic missions of Iraq where the latest Gaza death toll could be merely any month's count.

It was the usual "We-Muslims-can-kill-each-other-but-Jews-cannot" hysteria. In a way, "it's religion, stupid."

During the past few weeks, there have been democratic protests against Israel's Operation Protective Edge in many cities across the world -- except in Arab cities.

In the West, protesters marched, chanted slogans, carried placards and protested Israel peacefully -- over political disagreements. Because for them this is a political dispute and they side with the Palestinians. That's all perfectly democratic.

In Turkey, however, the protests were not peaceful. They included smashing a sculpture that was neither Jewish nor Israeli. But the Turkish protests featured something different from the others and quite revealing: they were constantly accompanied by Koranic rehearsals, Muslims prayers and the famous Arabic slogan "Allah-u akbar" [Allah is the greatest].

Anti-Israel protesters in Istanbul are shown waving the flags of Hamas and the PLO, as well as the black flag of jihad, July 19, 2014. (Image source: PressTV YouTube video screenshot)

If the Turkish crowds were wherever they were to protest against Israel for killing Palestinians in a political dispute, why Koranic slogans? Why were they protesting in Arabic rather than their native language? Do Turks chant German or Portuguese slogans when they gather to protest nuclear energy, or negligence regarding the deaths of more than 300 miners in Soma? So, what makes Arabic the lingua franca at every anti-Israel (more realistically, anti-Jewish) protest? Is this a mere coincidence that repeats itself every time, everywhere?

The title of this four-part series was intended to be a forceful reminder at times like this that Hitler was right to think that (religious) emotion is reserved for the many and reason for the few.

Golda Meir, the fourth prime minister of Israel, had a perfectly realistic point when she said that peace in the Middle East would only be possible "when Arabs love their children more than they hate us." I now think her line was incomplete: Peace won't come just when Arabs love their children more than they hate Jews; it may come when they also love their children more than they hate 'other' Muslims.

Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily News and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

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

A "Captive Mouthpiece" Demonizes Israel

by Dexter Van Zile

Dexter Van Zile


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

Share It