Displaying posts published in

October 2017

SYDNEY WILLIAMS: THE MONTH THAT WAS SEPTEMBER 2017

Hurricanes in the Caribbean and the U.S., earthquakes in Mexico and forest fires out west dominated the news. The New York Times, in reporting on the devastation and sounding like an Old Testament prophet, noted, people could be excused for believing that an angry God (perhaps Al Gore?) had let loose His wrath for destroying what He had created – God, that is, not Al Gore. Hyperbole sells news, so perhaps the folks at the Times could be excused for trying to make an extra buck out of other people’s misery.

Torrents were not limited to Mexico, the Caribbean and the Texas/Florida coasts. At the United Nations, President Trump gave a Reagan-like speech, as he did in Poland. He praised the work of the UN, and cited the principles on which it was founded: “pillars of peace, sovereignty, security and prosperity.” He spoke of its cooperation: “Strong sovereign nations let diverse countries with different values, different cultures and different dreams not just coexist, but work side by side, on the basis of mutual respect.” He reminded those listening that Americans “have paid the ultimate price to defend our freedom and the freedom of many nations represented in this great hall.” He emphasized he was an American leader, not a world leader.

He warned that if the UN is to be an effective partner reform is necessary to confront those who would dismantle the world we know: “Too often the focus of this organization has not been on results, but on bureaucracy and process. In some cases, states that seek to subvert this institution’s noble ends have hijacked the very systems that are supposed to advance them.” He reminded his audience that “some governments with egregious human rights records sit on the Human Rights Council.”

President Trump called out North Korea for what they are, a country that impoverishes its people and risks catastrophe in the Pacific region. Bully’s intimidate, he asserted, and must be confronted. He did add a sentence, the last part of which became headline news in much of the media: “The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” Most press accounts left off the final two sentences of the paragraph: “The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary. That’s what the United Nations is all about. That’s what the United Nations is for. Let’s see how they do.” Mr. Trump spoke frankly of the Maduro regime in Venezuela, using two of the best sentences in the speech: “The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented. From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, whenever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.”

As do many in politics, Mr. Trump has multiple personalities, like Joanne Woodward as Eve in, “Three Faces of Eve,” or the two faces of Janus. He reminds one of Dr. Doolittle’s Pushmi-Pullyu. We do not know which way he is headed. The weekend after his speech to the UN, he became embroiled in an argument with NFL players, who prefer to kneel rather than stand during the National Anthem. Mr. Trump is right about the disrespect they show, but who cares what those morons do? Don’t we have bigger issues, like economic growth; addressing the inequities embedded in the miss-named Affordable Care Act; fixing Dodd-Frank, which has allowed “too-big-to-fail” banks to proliferate, or doing something about our unsustainable debt? Should not tax reform take priority, or the geopolitical concerns in the Middle East and Southeast Asia? Why take on the NFL? My father warned me: never argue with an idiot, for a passerby would be unable to distinguish between the two. The consequence for Mr. Trump was that a great speech disappeared into a miasma of kneeling, self-righteous, juvenile football players.

#8 The Humanitarian Hoax of Sanctuary Cities: Killing America With Kindness by Linda Goudsmit

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States for eight years by persuading America to accept his crippling politically correct sanctuary city policies as altruistic when in fact they were designed to destabilize and destroy civil society. His legacy, the Leftist Democratic Party and its “resistance” movement, is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism.

The term “sanctuary city” originated in the 1980’s when San Francisco passed a city ordinance forbidding city police or city magistrates from assisting federal immigration officers in enforcing immigration policies that denied asylum to refugees from Guatemala and El Salvador. The mission of the sanctuary city was to protect innocent refugees from deportation – although these immigrants were in the U.S. illegally they had not committed any other crimes.

Today sanctuary cities are actually sanctuary jurisdictions because they include cities counties and states. Over 300 sanctuary jurisdictions exist in America today actively hindering federal authorities from seizing illegal criminal aliens, rapists, murderers, terrorists, and drug dealers for deportation. https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States?gclid=CjwKCAjw3rfOBRBJEiwAam-GsD2uPe-uPrWOlMdFDq0LYvwCvixywYOVsMkcW8duyH1bcVH9vGqFEhoCJiEQAvD_BwE

The shocking murder of 21 year old Kate Steinle on July 1, 2015 publicized the danger of sanctuary jurisdictions. The shooter, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico with seven felony convictions had been deported five times and intentionally sought shelter in San Francisco. Yet officials in “sanctuary city” San Francisco refused to turn him over to federal authorities for deportation and instead released him into society enabling him to kill Kate Steinle.

The three young Muslim migrant boys who savagely raped and urinated in the mouth of an innocent five year old girl in Twin Falls, Idaho last year were protected as well. No jail, no deportation, in fact these monsters were shielded by the mainstream media and local city officials who tried to cover up the case and pretend that Twin Falls was a model for multiculturalism. Wendy Olson, Obama-appointed U.S. attorney for Idaho stunned the country by threatening to prosecute Idahoans who spoke out about the heinous crime in ways SHE considered “false or inflammatory.” Judge Thomas Borresen issued an equally stunning gag order that denied the right of anyone in the courtroom to speak about the sentencing even AFTER the case ended.

Twin Falls is one of two Muslim refugee relocation centers in Idaho. Rather than identifying themselves as a “sanctuary city” Twin Falls has chosen the equally disingenuous name of “welcoming city” and declared themselves to be a “neighborly community.” REALLY? Protecting rapists and censoring free speech is definitely not neighborly for the victims!

The word sanctuary implies safety from a threat – it does not mean shelter for immigrant criminal felons, rapists, murderers and terrorists who threaten the safety of law abiding citizens. Why would any law abiding citizen endorse the protection of these criminals whether they are illegal aliens or legal citizens? The answer lies in the active participation by the mainstream media in the humanitarian hoax of sanctuary cities. The media has deliberately romanticized sanctuary cities as humanitarian havens for the oppressed instead of honestly reporting them as despicable safety zones for criminal aliens. The colluding media has duped the trusting American public and exploited their compassion and good will.

What Catalonia Tells Us By Mike Konrad

The news from Catalonia — at the time of this writing, Sunday night in America — is not good. There has been violent confrontation over the independence referendum.

Hundreds injured in Catalonia as Spanish police crack down on referendum vote…
Police acting on orders from the Spanish government to stop the voting across the country’s northeastern region clashed with Catalans who were attempting to stop them from confiscating ballots. Videos that emerged Sunday on social media appear to show police using brutal force on people attempting to cast their vote.

Catalonia’s health service said Sunday night that at least 844 people were injured today by the evening — nearly half of them in the Barcelona region, where police fired rubber bullets near at least one polling station, according to The Associated Press. Spanish authorities said 11 police officers were injured in the melees.
— ABC News

For weeks, the Spanish state had been doing all it could to obstruct and suppress the then upcoming October 1st vote. The Madrid government had been threatening people, arresting Catalan officials, and had stepped in to take over the province’s finances.

Spain has taken control of Catalonia’s finances to prevent funds being used for an independence referendum it deems illegal, a move that limits the region’s autonomy and puts in doubt the payment of thousands of public workers’ salaries. — TheLocal.es, September 20, 2017

On October 1st, Madrid followed through with its threats of force should the referendum go ahead.

What immediately comes to mind is that Madrid did not act as forcefully as Franco would have. Franco would have sent in tanks and just killed people. The present Spanish response might have been thuggish, but it was measured. Likewise, the response of the Catalan people and their representatives were also measured.

It was not totally clear how the vote was going to swing. Pro-Madrid media were accusing the Catalans of suppressing local anti-Independence sympathies; and there seemed to be a degree of truth to that, as the data indicated. Still, however, Catalonia had a long history of striving for independence. There seemed to be real local sympathy for their cause. While most anticipated a victory for the pro-independence side, there was also the precedent of how the referendum for Scottish independence failed in 2014. Recently, even the Catalan government produced some disturbing poll results.

Opinion polls are hard to come by but the clearest indication came in July, when a public survey commissioned by the Catalan government suggested 41% were in favour and 49% were opposed to independence. — BBC

Quick! Read This Article Before It’s Banned*! By Boris Zelkin

It could be that I’m from the Soviet Union, or it could be that I love dystopian literature, but I was always under the impression that a “ban” was a prohibition. When a book was banned, its publication, possession, consumption, and often mere mention were criminal offenses. A book ban, from my understanding of the term, was a top-down, government-led censorship that attempted to stop certain ideas from finding their way into the consciousness of the people. Certainly, most regimes and governments that ban books tend to use those metrics.https://amgreatness.com/2017/09/30/quick-read-this-article-before-its-banned/

But here we are and another year’s “Banned Book Week” in America is winding down.

Judging by the press for the event, the modern history of the United States is replete with book bannings. Almost every book you love was probably banned at some point. And what’s more, they were banned recently.

Banning books, according to the narrative, isn’t something that only happens in repressive regimes, dystopian novels, or in our dark past. No. Upon entering any library or book retailer this week (the latter being places that, as it happens, have loads of “banned books” to sell you) you will learn that the banning of books is a real and present danger in the United States. It is happening at this very moment and we must be vigilant to prevent more book banning from occurring. The very earnest librarian or bookstore employee will tell you so.

What Kind of ‘Ban’ is This?
Leading the list of “banned books” are most often Harry Potter and Captain Underpants—which apparently were banned so much in the United States that they outsold almost all the other books during the years of their initial publication and hardest banning. If this isn’t shocking enough, we see classics such as Huckleberry Finn and The Great Gatsby occupy places of distinction among the banned. Reading one of the “banned books” is presented as a kind of revolutionary act of defiance. Curl up with a copy of Harry Potter, and suddenly you’re a part of The Resistance.

Trouble is, none of these books were ever actually banned in the United States. At least not in the sense that any rational person understands the term. These books have all enjoyed full and relatively uninterrupted publishing runs, and are readily available for purchase (and nowhere more readily than at the stores celebrating “Banned Book Week”). Reading them hasn’t landed anyone in jail and there is a surfeit of real-world and online discussion groups and book clubs dedicated to their content.

So how is it that so many books can be on a “banned” list (with more being added every year) if these books weren’t ever banned?

The answer is in the power of purposely misusing language to mislead. They’re lying.

Well, to be fair, as Whoopie Goldberg would say, it’s not lying-lying. It’s just a redefinition here and a conflation there. You might call it “marketing.”

Congratulations! You’ve Been Banned*
What the American Library Association (ALA) has done in fostering “Banned Book Week” is to broadly repurpose the culturally and emotionally charged word “banned” and then to conflate their already watered down redefinition with other language in service of selling a narrative . . . and books.

If we look past the headlines, the buzz, and the store shelf endcap advertising, we see that “book ban” for the ALA campaign does not mean government or official prohibition on the general production, consumption, or discussion of a work. The ALA has redefined “banned book” to mean that the work was removed from a library or school curriculum as a result of a challenge. The books aren’t prohibited, they’re just not offered or promoted in certain places at certain times, often to particular audiences.

This is a far cry from the popular conception of a book ban with government-sponsored book burnings, government inquisitions, and prisons. Frankly, the ALA’s use of the word “banned” is so distant from our common cultural perception of it that they should probably follow it up with an asterisk.

The ALA website states that Banned* Books Week celebrates “your freedom to read” when in fact nothing is stopping you from reading. Not. A. Thing. These days, with an ever-increasing variety of sources available for information acquisition, it’s ludicrous to argue that the exclusion of a book from a library somehow makes that book impossible to get.

If that weren’t enough, most of the banned* books listed on the ALA’s website don’t even rise to the level of their redefinition of the word “banned”! Many of the books included on the list of banned* books were never actually removed from libraries. Merely being challenged lands a book on the list. That means anyone (including someone clever enough to realize this is a good way to sell books) might land a title on the list by simply questioning a librarian or school officials about a book.

The ALA is trying to lure their audience with the romance of the oppressed while simultaneously playing fast and loose with language in ways that any current or former denizen of an oppressive state where books are really banned would warn against. There are real consequences to this kind of campaign. Nowhere is this more obvious than in education.

Librarians Versus Parents
According to the ALA’s own stats, only 2 percent of challenges come from government. Turns out, the vast majority of challenges come from parents concerned about their kids’ education and are centered around schools and school libraries. But every good narrative needs a villain. Apparently, the ALA thinks concerned parents who want to be involved in and supervise their children’s education fit that bill.

Edmonton police investigate ‘acts of terrorism’ after officer stabbed, pedestrians run down ‘Hatred has no place in Alberta’ says Alberta premier Rachel Notley By Alexandra Zabjek,

Politicians and Muslim community leaders are cautioning against potential community backlash after a suspected terrorism attack in Edmonton Saturday night.

A 30-year-old man is in custody following a high-speed chase just before midnight through streets filled with bar patrons and football fans. A man stabbed a police officer with a knife and deliberately plowed into pedestrians on Edmonton’s busiest downtown strip, police say.

Abdulahi Hasan Sharif is the man accused in the attacks, multiple sources tell CBC News.

The chase ended after a white U-Haul van the man was driving struck four pedestrians and flipped on its side. Cst. Mike Chernyk was the officer injured in the violent altercation, sources tell CBC News.

Edmonton police Chief Rod Knecht confirmed that a black ISIS flag was seized from a car where the police officer was attacked. The officer was not critically injured. The condition of the four pedestrians is not known.

“Based on evidence at the scenes and the actions of the suspect … it was determined that these incidents are being investigated as acts of terrorism,” Knecht said.

The incident triggered a torrent of hate messages on social media, much of it targeting Muslims.
‘Hatred has no place in Alberta’

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley thanked first responders for bravery during the chaotic night and urged the public to avoid lashing out.

“The horrific events last night in downtown Edmonton have left us shocked and angry,” Notley said in a statement. “It’s left us shocked at the indiscriminate cruelty and angry that someone might target their hatred at places where we gather with our families and friends.

‘Alberta we must stand together in defence of our loved ones, friends and neighbours’3:12

“Hatred has no place in Alberta. It’s not who we are. We are in this together and together we are stronger than any form of hate.”

Edmonton Mayor Don Iveson called for vigilance and urged the community to remain calm.

“To the best of our knowledge this was a lone wolf attack,” Iveson told a news conference Sunday. “Terrorism is about creating panic and sowing divide and disputing people’s lives, so we can succumb to that or we can rise above it.”

Edmonton suspected terror attack likely a ‘lone wolf’ incident, says Mayor Don Iveson

Members of Edmonton’s Muslim community are strongly condemning the attacks and calling for solidarity within the community.

Edmonton human rights activist Ahmed Abdikadir said he felt “anger and frustration” at news the violence may have been the work of a terrorist. He fears the attack may result in a backlash against the city’s minority communities.

‘The Word “Jew” is a Common Insult in Norway Today’ (video)

I’ve stumbled across this video from earlier this year, on Jews in Norway, which I think deserves a look.

‘TV 2 Norway investigate Norwegian anti-Semitism. The word “Jew” is a common insult in many communities in Norway. What role does the neo-Nazis’, muslim immigrations and the – BDS (boycott Israel) movement play – if any? And: Can old prejudices be joked away?’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q4tnJmHzk0

GORAN ADAMSON : ON MULTICULTURALISM IN SWEDEN VIDEO

“The Official Discourse Was That the Jews in Malmö Were Harassed by Swedish neo-Nazis” (video)

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/

Ten minutes of sheer good sense. Left-leaning Swedish intellectual Göran Adamson, who was sacked from his academic post as a political sociologist for offending the tyrants of political correctness, here gives a searing critique of multiculturalism (“It ought to be a good thing for certain cultures to change”) and the suppression of free speech and of truth itself, that its tsars have imposed on western societies (“You no longer have a discussion about things”).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=jMUduwZdrDs

Trump Tells Tillerson Talking to North Korea Is A Waste of Time The president, in tweet, also says the U.S. will ‘do what has to be done’ with North Korea By Felicia Schwartz

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump said he didn’t think it was worth pursuing negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, a day after his secretary of state revealed the U.S. was in direct contact with Pyongyang.

“I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man,” Mr. Trump said on Twitter on Sunday, using a disparaging reference to Mr. Kim. “Save your energy Rex, we’ll do what has to be done!”

The president and his top diplomat have sent differing signals about North Korea before, as well as on other topics. In August, Mr. Trump warned of unleashing “fire and fury” on North Korea, raising questions about potential nuclear war, amid worries that Pyongyang may target Guam. Mr. Tillerson later told reporters there was no new threat from North Korea and that Americans should “sleep well at night.”

Mr. Tillerson has been interested in pursuing lines of communication with North Korea, but that approach has been largely rejected by Mr. Trump, whose advisers have warned about the signal it would send after North Korea sent a pair of missiles over Japan this summer and tested what it claimed was a hydrogen bomb.

Mr. Trump also tweeted on Sunday, “Being nice to Rocket Man hasn’t worked in 25 years, why would it work now? Clinton failed, Bush failed, and Obama failed. I won’t fail.”

Hundreds Hurt as Catalans, Spanish Police Clash Amid Independence Referendum Spanish police forcibly remove people from polling stations, had fired rubber pellets By Jon Sindreu, Pietro Lombardi and Jeannette Neumann

BARCELONA—Spain stood on the brink of a political and constitutional crisis after clashes between national police and Catalan voters seeking to cast ballots in an independence referendum for Catalonia deepened a long-running secessionist struggle that has riven Spain.

Catalan officials say millions of people cast ballots in Sunday’s vote in defiance of the Spanish government, which outlawed the ballot and sent thousands of police to the restive region to stop the vote. More than 760 people were left injured, according to Catalan officials, while the Spanish government said 11 police officers were also hurt.

The government of Catalonia, a prosperous region in northeast Spain, is set to announce results of the referendum Monday or Tuesday, with most expecting Catalans to have voted in favor of secession. Carles Puigdemont, the Catalan president, has pledged to declare independence 48 hours after a ‘yes’ vote, throwing down a challenge to Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy.

Stark scenes of national police battling civilians could fuel animosity in Catalonia, while also threatening to sap the political support for Mr. Rajoy, who heads a fragile minority government.

“It would have been easier for everyone to turn a blind eye while they carried out a serious attack on our democracy,” said Mr. Rajoy late Sunday. “We did what we had to do.”

The Spanish crisis is also an irritant for other European Union members, many worried that a vote in favor of secession could fuel discontent in independence-minded regions such as the U.K.’s Scotland and Belgium’s Flanders. And if it distracts Mr. Rajoy from dealing with economic problems dogging Spain, such as very high youth unemployment, it could take the shine off one of the region’s brightest recovery stories.

Pro-independence groups defied the Rajoy government Sunday, opening thousands of polling stations in schools and other local buildings for a ballot on whether Catalonia should break free of Spain. Starting Friday evening, thousands of referendum supporters—including families with small children—occupied more than 1,000 polling stations throughout Catalonia to avoid their closure for Sunday’s vote, said Catalan officials. Officials from the central government said the figure was closer to several hundred. CONTINUE AT SITE

Campus Speech and Anti-Klan Laws Have you been censored or shouted down? You may have legal recourse. Here’s a handy guide. By Jay Weiser

A brawl broke out in an “Empathy Tent” at the University of California, Berkeley last week, marking the official start of college riot season. Last week Attorney General Jeff Sessions braved protesters at Georgetown Law Center, where he promised to intervene in campus free-speech cases and urged students and universities to “stand up against those who would silence free expression by violence or other means.” The targets of suppression have ways to hold colleges and rioters to account using civil-rights statutes and common-law torts.
Illustration: David Gothard

Administrators often “coddle” and “encourage” censorship, Mr. Sessions observed. That’s nothing new. After the Civil War, white students at what is now Washington and Lee University in Virginia attacked blacks associated with the Freedmen’s Bureau. The college president, Robert E. Lee, offered pieties and looked the other way. In response to similar incidents, Congress safeguarded civil rights with legislation known as anti-Ku Klux Klan acts.

Public universities are subject to the full sweep of the anti-KKK laws, as well as more recent civil-rights statutes. At San Francisco State University, Jewish students have filed suit under Section 1983 of the federal civil-rights law, alleging disruption of their events violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The First Amendment requires public universities to treat speech neutrally, regardless of the message. Administrators may not tell police to stand down in the face of a “heckler’s veto.”

In 2013 at New York’s University at Buffalo, police let counterprotesters shut down a pro-life demonstration. This June the university settled, paying the plaintiffs’ attorney fees and promising to refrain from viewpoint discrimination in the future.

But universities are responsible only for taking reasonable precautions. A target of last semester’s antispeech riots, Bret Weinstein, was mobbed and hounded out of Evergreen State College after refusing to comply with a college-sponsored “Day of Absence” in which white people were “asked” to stay off campus. While Mr. Weinstein claimed that Evergreen State violated his right of free speech, the college could have argued that it acted reasonably because violent antispeech protests were still novel and Mr. Weinstein was physically threatened in class only once. He and his wife, also an Evergreen professor, settled their claim for $500,000 and an agreement to resign. Public universities now have notice of their duty to provide security, which UC Berkeley and the University of Utah just fulfilled for conservative writer Ben Shapiro.

Private universities have no First Amendment obligation to provide a forum for speech. But many riots purport to attack white “supremacy” or “privilege,” and if private universities act with deliberate indifference to racially motivated attacks, they may be liable to students or speakers. Colleges are subject to antidiscrimination statutes such as Section 1981, an anti-KKK act that would cover student and speaker contract rights. If they accept federal funding—and all but a handful do—they are also subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Institutions are not the only prospective defendants. Campus rioters themselves may be liable under Section 1985(3), which covers private conspiracies and targets those who, like masked Antifa attackers, go in disguise—“a common tactic also used by the detestable Ku Klux Klan,” as Mr. Sessions noted. The statute applies most clearly to racially motivated physical attacks or efforts to exclude persons. Evergreen State is a classic case: After disrupting Mr. Weinstein’s class, students detained the college president and apparently posted photos of themselves brandishing baseball bats on Facebook . Some faculty members demanded disciplinary action against Mr. Weinstein and later assembled with masked Antifa members who attacked counterprotesters. CONTINUE AT SITE