Displaying posts published in

January 2017

MY SAY: JUST CALL ME MISTER

I have to admit that the numbers….in the many hundreds of thousands of women’s protests throughout the nation are impressive but also depressive. Are so many women so shallow? They came, they howled, they carried signs and wore stupid “pussyhats” and they accomplished nothing, nada, zilch other than street theater.

I posted this in October 2012 Updated….and revised

Do women think that foreign policy, support for Israel, a looming debt crisis, a deficit, immigration policies that are out of control, crumbling infrastructure, energy independence, an economy choked with specious regulations, the threat of terrorism, and nukes in the hands of Islamic lunatics and a North Korean thug, are all men’s issues.”

“So…..just call me mister.”

Michael Galak Another Betrayal of Israel and the Jews

Last weekend’s Paris ‘summit’, which endorsed the hoary myth that the fabled ‘two-state solution’ is possible even as Hamas and Fatah remain at each other’s throats, was a parting ‘gift’ to Israel by Barack Obama. Once again, purported friends of the Jews’ betray them.

Representatives of more than 70 countries and organisations met in Paris last weekend to discuss and map out a way to a two-state resolution of the war between the Arabs and the Israelis, a war which the Arabs started in 1948 – the day after the Declaration of Independence by the newborn Jewish State. This is not the first time Jews are being betrayed by their ‘friends’.

This conference was not conducted in the French spa town Evian-les-Bains, where, in the Hotel Royal, on 6-15 of July, 1938, representatives of 32 countries slammed the door to safety in the face of desperate German Jewish refugees, under deadly threat from the Nazis. Every delegate rose to express sympathy for their plight, but no country, save the tiny Dominican Republic, offered refuge. The United States and Britain, citing economic concerns, were the undisputed leaders in refusing to admit people on the verge of the Nazi genocide. The other countries followed suit.

The significance of the Evian conference’s outcome, which astonished and delighted Adolf Hitler, was that it gave the Nazis carte blanche to conduct the Holocaust. The Evian conference conclusively demonstrated that no matter what Hitler did, Jews had neither powerful friends they could draw upon, nor could they resist his plans.

Despite the displeasure of some who feel that Jewish insistence on remembering the Holocaust is ‘too distressing’, history cannot be ignored nor forgotten. It certainly cannot be forgotten by the Jewish people, whose existence was threatened to the point of extinction.

The physical existence of the Jews has been threatened many times. It was threatened throughout their long, blood-spattered history in Europe: by Russian pogroms and the English, Spanish and Portuguese expulsions; by the 1506 massacre of Portuguese Jews in Lisbon; by the German gas chambers and by Polish hatred; by Hungarian deportations and Ukrainian massacres; by Vichy France’s collaboration with Hitler in expediting the transfer of Jews to the extermination camps; by the Lithuanian murder squads and many, many, many others, equally enthusiastic in manifesting their antisemitic hatred; and by the British Navy blockade, even after the horrors of the Holocaust, of the Palestine mandate.

And yet, and yet, even in the darkest hours of Jewish suffering, there were some decent people in every nation who helped Jews, placing themselves and their dear ones in mortal danger. That, along with the Jewish belief in One G-d, has confirmed the Jewish dream and the Jewish conviction that no matter what, there are people who refuse to behave like animals, and who deserve the high distinction of being called human – righteous amongst the nations.

Terror Attack in Australia? Driver Plows Vehicle into Pedestrians in Melbourne By Patrick Poole

Original Post: Breaking news out of Melbourne, Australia, that at least three people have died after a man plowed a vehicle into a group of pedestrians near a shopping mall.

According to one witness, the driver was screaming, “Allahu Akhbar, Allahu Akhbar, Allahu Akhbar!”

This event is reminiscent of the terror attacks last July in Nice, France, and more recently at a Christmas mall in Berlin.Remarkably, police have asked Melbourne Herald Sun reporter Andrea Hanblin to remove her video interview of the eyewitness who claimed the driver was shouting, “Allahu Akhbar, Allahu Akhbar!”

The Pointless Paranoia of the Women’s Marches By Roger L Simon

I am no stranger to protesting, having marched so often in the sixties and seventies that I sometimes felt as if I were chanting “Hey, hey, LBJ” in my sleep. But I have come to think over the years that too much demonstrating can get to be a bad habit, like smoking.

Now I’m not talking here about the Gloria Steinems and Michael Moores, for whom protest is so much a way of life they couldn’t exist without it. Or the Madonnas who, like other entertainment stalwarts, have business reasons for constantly reminding us they are still have their “edge” even as they age, liberally dropping the f-bomb and speculating about bombing the White House in the process.

I’m talking about the rest of us, especially, this weekend, a fair percentage of the women of America who descended on our nation’s capital and elsewhere in impressive numbers.

Excuse me if I don’t get it. What exactly was motivating them?

Oh, right, Donald Trump, that vulgar misogynist who bragged about pu**y grabbing (asterisks to dissociate myself from Madonna, even though I’m aging too). I’m going to skip over the obvious – these same women almost all ignored Bill Clinton actually doing (not just mouthing off about) similar activities in the Oval Office, not to mention on numerous other occasions, some of which we know about and some of which we may not. Further, these women didn’t have much to say — no demonstrations, no marches, maybe a few hashtags — when radical Islamists of various stripes regularly kidnapped large numbers of women (Nigerians, Yazidis, Kurds, etc., etc.) from their homes and took them as sex slaves, often beheading them after they finished raping them. Nor did they even pipe up when honor killings were going on in their own backyard.

I could go on. But those are just, shall we say, a few of the minor inconsistencies mixed with, perhaps, a soupçon of cognitive dissonance. Something more must be motivating these hundreds of thousands of women.

Oh, yes, reproductive rights. Break out your clothes hangers. The Donald is going to bring back the era of backroom abortions

Rubbish.

The idea that Trump, given his life and background, is a social conservative is almost silly. His primary issues were — need I reiterate what must be drilled in all our brains — bringing back jobs, lowering personal and corporate taxes, cutting excessive business and environmental regulations, ending illegal immigration, repealing and replacing Obamacare, rebuilding the military, extreme vetting of immigrants from countries where terrorism is prevalent, an America-first foreign policy (no nation building) and revived infrastructure.

On the campaign trail, the social issues were almost completely ignored. I listened to at least twenty of his speeches (probably a lot more) and can’t recall his mentioning same-sex marriage even once. (He was known to be favorable to it years before Obama and Hillary “evolved” on the issue.)

As for abortion, Donald has evolved toward being pro-life to some extent, but so have, apparently, a majority of Americans. They have shown this by their actions. According to a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute, the abortion rate in America has decreased precipitously from 29.3 per 1000 women in 1980 to 14.6 in 2014. Whether this steep decline was caused by the advent of advanced sonograms making the emergent human being more visible and palpable in the womb or because of more accessible birth control (probably both), these facts-on-the-ground are far more important than any legislation or judicial ruling. Abortion is gradually disappearing as fewer and fewer want it. It’s hard to imagine Trump expending any political capital to speed up this process, assuming he wanted to and if it were even possible, both of which are highly unlikely.

So back to square one. What was the purpose of Saturday’s demonstrations? None, I think, meaning nothing substantive in the provable sense. They were propaganda. Basically the protests were media and social media ginned-up events intended to continue opposition to the myth, not the reality, of a Trump administration for political purposes. (Some were even claiming he was about to put people in concentration camps.)

The success of the demonstrations in terms of size attests to the power of mutually reinforced paranoia. This paranoia is of course magnified by the extraordinarily fractured nature of our society with almost everyone living inside their own echo chamber with fears building upon themselves, much in the manner of the Salem Witch Trials.

This makes demonstrations to a great degree pointless because the demonstrators make little attempt to reach out beyond the converted and convince their opponents of the rightness of their cause. If fact, they rarely even try. Instead, they parade their “rightness,” their superiority, to impress themselves, as did the myriad women in the pink pudenda beanies Saturday. They are mostly showing off.

Ironically, these women’s marches are strangely behind the times in today’s America and therefore largely irrelevant, though the participants may not realize or acknowledge it. More women have been going to college than men for several years and are just now surpassing them in law school as well. Hillary Clinton may have lost the election but women are well on track to win the war. Within a very few years, historically we may be living in a matriarchy of sorts. Instead of freaking out over an election, these women should relax and enjoy their coming power. It’s manifested all over the Trump administration already in the persons of Kellyanne Conway (she could run for president herself — and win) and Ivanka Trump (so could she).

Imagine Ivanka allowing her father to backpedal on abortion rights. Not happening.

Which leads me to a final point — people who demonstrate all the time should consider they risk morphing into a collective version of the boy who cried wolf. When there’s something really worth protesting, no one believes them anymore.

Roger L. Simon is an award-winning novelist, Academy Award-nominated screenwriter and co-founder of PJ Media. His latest book is I Know Best: How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn’t Already. Follow him on Twitter @rogerlsimon

This Is Just a Little Pit Stop,’ Obama Says Before Leaving D.C. By Bridget Johnson

JOINT BASE ANDREWS, Md. — Former President Obama declared to staffers and members of the military that “yes we did, yes we can” after taking his last helicopter ride around the Capitol and before departing for California.

President Trump and first lady Melania Trump walked the Obamas down the Capitol steps after the inauguration, as is customary, and waved as the now-former first couple took off in the Marine helicopter.

It took a spin around the Washington Monument before heading to Andrews, where Obama quipped that he and Michelle have “really been milking this goodbye thing.”

“Some folks didn’t think we could pull it off. There were those who felt that the institutions of power and privilege in this country were too deeply entrenched,” he said. “And yet, all of you came together in small towns and big cities, a whole bunch of you really young, and you decided to believe. And you knocked on doors and you made phone calls, and you talked to your parents who didn’t know how to pronounce Barack Obama.”

“And you got to know each other. And you went into communities that maybe you’d never even thought about visiting. And met people that on the surface seemed completely different than you — who didn’t look like you or talk like you or watch the same TV programs as you. And yet once you started talking to them, it turned out that you had something in common.”

Obama said his change movement was “infused with a sense of hope,” and his staff and supporters “proved the power of hope.”

“And all the amazing things that happened over these last 10 years are really just a testament to you in the same way that when we talk about our amazing military and our men and women in uniform, the military’s not a thing, it’s a group of committed patriots willing to sacrifice everything on our behalf. It works only because of the people in it,” the former president said.

“As cool as the hardware is, and we’ve got cool hardware, as cool as the machines as weapons and satellites are, ultimately it comes down to remarkable people, some of them a lot closer to Malia’s age than mine or Michelle’s. Well, the same thing’s true for our democracy. Our democracy’s not the buildings, it’s not the monuments, it’s you being willing to work to make things better and being willing to listen to each other and argue with each other and come together and knock on doors and make phone calls and treat people with respect.”

The ‘ladies’ of the Women’s March: Not powerful, not tough By Richard F. Miniter

We last saw these women – liberal, largely white, and middle- or upper-middle-class – sobbing their eyes out in the early morning hours of November 9. Now here they are again in the streets of D.C., channeling Lena Dunham – not posing for the camera while squatting on a toilet bowl eating cake, but close, giving everybody the finger while chanting obscene, filthy slogans and screaming about how powerful they are and how they’re not going away.

Well, they’re not that powerful, because otherwise they would have carried the election for Hillary. And they certainly aren’t tough – not tough like the many male police officers who make it safe for them to run this way, and that in the streets of our nation’s capital, in order to pretend they are. Not tough like the really tough women either running or helping to run American farms and ranches and an endless variety of other endeavors across this land. Not tough like my immigrant grandmother, who, if she were alive today, would likely be arrested for washing their mouths out with Kirkman’s soap. Not tough like my tough wife, my tough daughter, and my tough granddaughter, who keep kicking my can down the road. Not tough as Mother Teresa was tough or Margaret Thatcher or Joan of Arc was tough, or, God bless her soul, Edith Cavell.

And certainly not tough like “Mad Dog” Mattis, who might just save their sorry butts from some pretty bad hombres even less impressed with them than we should be.

Richard F. Miniter is the author of The Things I Want Most, Random House, BDD. See it here. He lives and writes in the colonial-era hamlet of Stone Ridge, New York; blogs here; and can also be reached at miniterhome@gmail.

World Council of Churches Favors Nationalism and Anti-Semitism The Kairos Palestine Document and Alternative Tourism by Petra Heldt

The immediate two aims of the Kairos Document are: 1) to boycott Israel and the Jewish historical connection to the Land of Israel; 2) to neutralize the support of Christian Zionists and any other Christians for Israel.

The World Council of Churches (WCC) Secretariat targets Israel’s tourist industry and aspires to re-direct pilgrims from Israel to the Palestinian area, and to guide pilgrims from having a positive outlook on Israel to having a negative reactions to the Jewish State.

Many faithful Christians, including a good portion of the fine Lutheran Church of Hannover, are hardly aware of the degree of deception employed by the WCC Secretariat. They would be scandalized to know that they were being used for the Secretariat’s scheme of nationalism and anti-Semitism.

The Christian faith is known for holding aspects of the divine commitment to the Jewish people by seven biblical covenants: six unconditional ones with Abraham (Gen 12, 1-3), the Land (Gen 12, 1), the Levites (Num 25, 10-13), David (2 Sam 7, 10-16), Israel and Judah (Jer 31, 31-34), Jerusalem (Ez 16), and one conditional one at Sinai (Ex 19, 5). Those commitments are preceded by the universal covenant with the whole creation (Gen 9, 12-17). Many attempts which try to re-draw that celestial union of universality-cum-Israel-particularity fall, unswervingly, into the trap of nationalism and anti-Semitism.

Two recent divine-restructuring efforts of that kind count the Christians in Nazi -Germany and some Palestinian Christians. The former attempt ended in the Holocaust; the latter is now sponsored by the World Council of Churches (WCC) through two major engines, the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme to Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), and the Kairos Palestine Document with its spin-off, “Alternative Tourism.” These two programs are of interest here.

The Problem with ‘Sanctuary Campuses’ – Universities con students into acting against their own best interests By Michael W. Cutler,

Open borders activists and immigration anarchists have, since the Carter administration, tried to blur the distinction between illegal aliens and lawful immigrants. These social justice warriors portray themselves as “immigrants’ rights” activists regardless of the legal status of foreigners.

As I’ve mentioned in previous Social Contract articles, President Carter issued an edict that all Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) employees stop referring to aliens illegally in the United States as “illegal aliens” per se, but refer to them as “undocumented immigrants.”

The motive for this terminology directive was not “political correctness,” but to achieve the Orwellian goal of creating a lexicon of “Immigration Newspeak” to obfuscate the truth and confound any effort to have an honest discussion.

The term “alien” is not a pejorative. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the term alien simply means, “Any person, not a citizen or national of the U.S.”

Open borders advocates eschew the term “alien” because it provides clarity to the issue of immigration. Con artists are masters of obfuscation. By using the term “undocumented immigrant” to describe illegal aliens, it becomes a simple matter for immigration anarchists to accuse advocates of effective immigration enforcement of being “anti-immigrant.”

Before we go any further, it is critically important to understand that there are three distinct ways that aliens may be subject to removal (deportation) from the U.S.

1. Aliens who gain entry into the U.S. illegally—either as stowaways on a ship or running our borders—are obviously subject to removal.

2. Aliens, who are lawfully admitted as nonimmigrants (temporary visitors) become illegal aliens when they violate the terms of their admission. This includes remaining after their authorized period of admission, accepting unlawful employment, or, in the case of foreign students, failing to attend the schools where they were admitted to attend or otherwise failing to maintain their status as a student; and

3, Aliens who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence may live and work in the U.S. forever. However, such immigrants, upon conviction for serious crimes, may be subject to deportation (as may nonimmigrants), even if they have not overstayed their authorized period of admission.

When aliens run our borders they do not, as the open borders advocates claim, “enter undocumented.” That term can only be found in the “Immigration Newspeak Lexicon.”

Aliens who run our borders and evade the inspections process enter the United States without inspection.

DENMARK CLAMPS DOWN ON REFUGEE CHILD MARRIAGES By David Frankenhuis

Denmark’s parliament yesterday passed a draft forbidding people to marry a person under the age of consent. In addition to this, Copenhagen decided it will no longer accept marriages that have previously been registered abroad if one of the persons involved in such a union is under the age of 18 years old. https://gatestone.eu/denmark-marriage/

Denmark initiated a similar law in February 2016, but unfortunately for the child brides, the Danish Immigration Service (DIS) decided to reunify them with their ‘husbands’ in September 2016, after the government had made a sudden U-turn on the issue. Copenhagen ‘justified‘ the reversal of its position by stating that preventing this type of child abuse might amount to an infringement of the fundamental refugees’ rights.

“In some of these cases it has been assessed that it would not be compatible with Denmark’s international obligations to maintain the separate living quarters, thus these couples have been offered to be housed together.”

But the Danish legal crusade against child marriage has been renewed, and is still based on reports from 2016 showing Danish asylum centres accommodate some 27 ‘married’ juveniles, writes The Danish Local. Previous accounts made mention of 14-year-old girls who entered Denmark as refugees and then became the brides of men that were more than ten years their senior.

Naser Khader, from the Conservatives, last year told Metro Xpress that he was “outraged” by the situation:

“That’s what you call ‘pedophilia’ when you have made a 14-year-old pregnant and are allowed to stay with the girl. The men should not be able to apply for asylum in Denmark. We can give asylum to the 14-year-old but should kick their grown men out. In Holland, you can, according to what I’ve been told, not be granted asylum if you have a child bride. So it must be in Denmark.”

The tightening of the laws on Thursday nevertheless still offer room for legal loopholes. A marriage will not be rejected when there’s “a compelling argument” for the union.

The above mentioned supposedly successful Dutch government is still struggling with the issue as well. Holland banned child marriages in 2015, but in the four months that followed the implementation of the law, some 60 Syrian-born child brides entered the Netherlands, according to RTL.

The Two-State Solution: A Greater Threat to Palestinians than to Israel By Prof. Hillel Frisch

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Most observers, when debating the pros and cons of a two-state solution, focus exclusively on its potential impact on Israel and its Jewish citizens. Much less attention is paid to the solution’s potential impact on the Palestinians. Leftists, right-wingers, conservatives and liberals all tend to assume that two states would naturally be in the Palestinians’ interest. Think again.https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/396-frisch-two-state-solution/

As was apparent at the recent Paris conference, the world refuses to acknowledge that the two-state solution has already failed the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority (PA), established in 1994, came to rule over all of Gaza in the summer of 2005 after the complete Israeli withdrawal and destruction of Israeli settlements. The PA also had exclusive control over the major cities in Judea and Samaria/the West Bank and their environs, comprising some 95 percent of these territories’ population.

However, that unified Palestinian entity, which was supposed to be the Palestinian side of the two-state equation, proved extremely short-lived. Within two years of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas took over Gaza completely. In the summer of 2007, after several rounds of fighting that began soon after Hamas’s electoral victory in 2006, the Islamist group established its own exclusive government in Gaza.

Thus, the Palestinians partitioned themselves into two bodies: an autocratic entity headed by Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank, and a Hamas theocracy in Gaza. Almost unnoticed, the two-state solution had given way to a three-state solution.

European states – like France, for example, which convened the Paris conference – will no doubt clam that that was all in the past, and the past can always be corrected.

It is certainly true that the Palestinians are always allowed by the international community to have yet another chance. But a two-state solution is simply no longer feasible.

A relatively bloodless civil war has been raging between the two entities day in and day out since their bloody 2007 confrontation, offering a constant illustration of why there cannot be a single Palestinian state. If the two sides were to attempt to reunite, that war would become very bloody indeed. The Palestinians themselves realize this, which explains the succession of failed attempts to bring the sides together.

As separate entities, the two sides make do by utterly subduing the opposing group. The cost of this suppression has been relatively low so far: several deaths of tortured political prisoners in Hamas and PA prisons, a few extrajudicial killings, and the occasional closing down of professional or charitable organizations linked to the opponent. The PA, the economic clout of which is financed by the international community, has blocked projects like the creation of a new Israeli electric grid line into Gaza and the creation of a modern port that would considerably improve Gazans’ standard of living.