Displaying posts published in

December 2017

Guilt by Accusation is the New Norm Don’t believe all women or all men. Daniel Greenfield

Time has named #MeToo its ‘Person of the Year’ and every other day the hashtag lynch mob drags someone else in front of the spotlight. The accusations range from rape to harsh words. The evidence is hearsay. The target is shamed, fired from every job he ever held and purged from polite society.

Some are guilty. Some might be innocent. But we’ll never know because there’s no investigation. The time frame between accusation and purge is hours or days when it takes your average HR department a week to file a form. Just like in every totalitarian leftist state, the accusation is enough.

And then it’s on to the next one.

There’s nothing American about #MeToo. It’s the revolutionary justice of a leftist purge where random political violence against ideological enemies is used to heal social ills. If there’s poverty, shoot a few rich men. If there’s unhappiness, string up some priests. And if there’s sexual assault, destroy whichever names are passed along by a few influential, but enigmatic figures, Ronan Farrow, Yashar Ali, with ambiguous backgrounds and agendas, through pressure campaigns aimed at their employers.

And don’t ask any questions. Only bad people ask questions. Only bad people want proof. Only bad people don’t instantly believe an accusation. And you’re either with #MeToo or with its targets.

But maybe we should start asking a few questions.

Six years ago, I was stopped by a reporter and asked if I believed a rape victim.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund who was likely to be the next president of France, had been arrested for sexually assaulting a hotel maid. Local tabloids and cable news quickly descended on the case of the suave powerful man who had assaulted a refugee hotel maid who had been gang raped in her own African country.

The French reporter who accosted me asked me if I believed the victim. He wanted to know what Americans thought should happen to Strauss-Kahn. I told him that in this country we put people on trial and we get all the facts before we punish them.

France didn’t wait for all the facts.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s political career ended. Sarkozy became the next President of France. And there were always rumors that the whole thing had been a setup by his political opponents. Nafissatou Diallo, the hotel maid, had managed to lie convincingly about almost everything. She had even lied about soldiers in Guinea gang raping her and what she had done right after the attack.

Finally, prosecutors gave up.

“In virtually every substantive interview with prosecutors, despite entreaties to simply be truthful, she has not been truthful,” they wrote about their own witness. “The nature and number of the complainant’s falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt.”

She lied.

Like many of the accused men, Dominique Strauss-Kahn appeared to have little control over his appetites. But his reputation had been destroyed based on an accusation.

And an accusation alone should not be enough to destroy a person.

In the longest and most expensive trial in American history, members of the McMartin family were prosecuted for Satanic child abuse. The Los Angeles case dragged on for 16 years. The whole thing proved to be groundless.

During the Iraq War, Hillary Clinton, Al Franken, Rachel Maddow and many other leftists championed the case of Jamie Leigh Jones who worked for a Hailburton subsidiary in Baghdad’s Green Zone. Jones claimed to have been gang raped by her fellow employees. After 6 years, the case completely collapsed.

The University of Virginia’s Phi Kappa Psi fraternity won millions from Rolling Stone after being vandalized and harassed because of the magazine’s recent rape hoax article. ‘Jackie”, the woman in question, had made the whole thing up. But by then the witch hunt had already been unleashed.

That’s why Believe All Women is a terrible idea.

Trump offers a daring program to restore US dominance US President proposes a muscular kind of global activism, fostering new alliances while reinforcing America’s existing commitments; plus a layered missile defence shield David Goldman

In a speech later today, US President Donald Trump will propose a shift in US national security strategy more profound than any proposed by his predecessors since Ronald Reagan. According to a preliminary copy of the president’s 2017 National Security Strategy obtained by the Asia Times, Trump envisions a radical upgrade in the US industrial base, large-scale support for scientific and technical education, and rebuilding of infrastructure, in response to China’s economic and strategic challenge.

In so many words, Trump’s 67-page summary of national security policy declares that America is a frog that will not be boiled. No doubt the report will be portrayed as war-like, although that is not its intention. “Competition does not always mean hostility, nor does it inevitably lead to conflict – although none should doubt our commitment to defend our interests. An America that successfully competes is the best way to prevent conflict. Just as American weakness invites challenge, American strength and confidence deters war and promotes peace,” the document states.

The contrast with the two previous administrations is stark. The Trump report praises American values and institutions but betrays no ambition to remake the world in America’s image after the fashion of George W. Bush. Nor does it accept the slow decline of American influence into a geopolitical mush of multilateralism per the “soft power” conceit of the Obama Administration. It is centered on the American economy, the American homeland, and American interests, but it proposes a rough-edged activism where American interests are threatened that will make the world a less predictable place during the next several years.

The report admonishes China and Russia on a number of grounds. Beijing and Moscow will take the report in stride, gauging carefully where Washington might alter the strategic balance. But the new report will cause alarm in Tehran. For the past dozen years – since Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as America’s Defense Secretary in 2006 – American policy has sought to include Iran in the regional security architecture. The Trump Administration’s strongest language is directed towards Iran, and the Shi’ite regime’s response is incalculable. Some analysts believe that Iran already is inclined to go to war with Israel, and the new report may prompt the militaries of several Middle Eastern nations to raise their level of alert.

The report embraces the term “America First,” by which Trump means that national security depends first of all on fixing what is wrong in America: a shrinking industrial base, disrepair in infrastructure, sagging innovation, inadequate scientific and technical education, and an excessive federal debt burden. Although the report promises a crackdown on forced technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and other forms of “economic aggression,” it identifies the problem and its solution in domestic US policy: tax reform, deregulation, innovation policy, budgetary controls and education.

Jerusalem: An Opportunity for Islamic Reformation? by Nonie Darwish

Despite the cries that Islam is a religion of peace, Islamic terror threat is everywhere; Muslims still teach hatred of Jews and Christians and they still preach jihad and killing the enemies of Allah. How can any sane person trust that Islam is moderate and is serious about wanting peace when the Muslim world is exploding with terror?

Only Trump could have done that at this moment — and with the help of brave Muslim leaders, a new milestone towards peace can begin.

It is not a surprise that all Arab leaders, including some of the closest Arab allies of president Trump such as president al-Sisi of Egypt, are publicly against the decision by president Trump to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Arab leaders understand a certain bloody backlash against them if they don’t. This is because Islamic law dictates that all land once occupied by Muslims must remain Muslim forever. Under Sharia Muslims have the right to take over land from non-Muslims but the reverse is considered an attack on Islam.

That is where the problem of Jerusalem stems from and it does not matter to Muslims if Jerusalem, or its other name Zion, is mentioned in the Jewish bible 850 times but never mentioned in the Quran not even once. It does not matter if Jerusalem is the holy land of the Jewish people, if it was Israel’s capital over 3000 years ago or that Jews pray facing Jerusalem while Muslims pray facing Mecca.

The Western world would do itself and the truth a favor if they, at least for once, stand united to support Israel in its right to Jerusalem as its undivided Capital. In fact, it is time for Muslims to accept that facts about Jerusalem and right historical wrongs. Not too long ago Arabs used to tell Jews when relations did not go well between Muslims and Jews in various areas of the Middle East, to go back to their holy land Jerusalem. Now that Jews have done so, Arabs are trying to rob them again and again of their holy land.

But with the historic announcement by president Trump to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, the Arab world has a great opportunity to prove to the world that Islam is a religion of peace and co-existence as they claim. The moment of truth has come to give a historical opportunity to Muslims to write the wrongs against the Jewish people.

Is the UK Overthrowing the Christian Basis of the West? by Giulio Meotti

As the progressive publication Prospect asked, “if we are no longer a Christian country, what are we?”

Christians in the UK are on course to be in the minority by the middle of the century.

What defines Europe are its boundaries – not physical but cultural. Without its culture, Europe could not be distinguished from the rest of the world. And the pillar of this culture is based on the Judeo-Christian heritage and values.

British Christian publications have been wondering if we are witnessing the “extinction of Christianity in Egypt”, where the Christian faithful have suffered persecution and terror attacks at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. Christian leaders also seem to be wondering if Christianity will be “extinct within a generation” in the UK, where religious people enjoy total freedom of worship and faith.

Last year, the Church of England began to formulate a religious revolution. Its canonical laws require that British churches hold their functions every Sunday. The dramatic crisis of Christianity in the UK, however, is pushing the Anglican church to rewrite those rules, in order not to officiate in empty and abandoned churches.

A quarter of the British rural parishes now have fewer than 10 regular members of the faithful on Sunday. There are no more children in 25% of the Church of England’s congregations, as new figures have just shown. On average, nine children attended each church service across all Anglican churches in 2016. Generally speaking, churchgoers have dwindled in the UK by 34,000 in just one year.

What Is Really to Blame for Palestinian Violence? by Ruthie Blum

Rather than engage in institution-building, which the United States, Europe and even Israel funded with billions of dollars, PA President Mahmoud Abbas – Arafat’s successor – made no effort to reform Palestinian civil society, including the education system.

In fact, textbooks for the 2017-2018 academic year are even more filled with incitement to violence in the name of Allah than in years before…. “Children are expendable.”

The crux of this report is that Palestinian education is for war and against peace with Israel. When educators employ blood libels to provide a rationale for terrorism against innocent Israelis — and the PA leadership backs these up by paying salaries to terrorists and their families — the only process you are going to get is one of war.

At a rally in Orlando, Florida shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump’s historic declaration recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, an activist at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)-sponsored event ranted, “[Jews] are the crappiest piece of shit on this planet.”

The activist was Said Lufti, uncle of Rasha Mubarak, Orlando Regional Coordinator for CAIR-Florida, and one the protesters in attendance, many of whom were wearing keffiyehs [checkered men’s headscarves] and waving Palestinian flags.

Lufti continued:

“You [Jews] are baby-killers. You Jesus-killer…You Christians, walking behind Jesus-killers… Jesus’s blood [is] on your hands… You crucified Jesus!… Record me! You are Jesus-killers!… Jesus’ blood on this piece of crap Jew [the man filming the clip] hands. And [addressing a non-Jew behind the camera] you’re walking with him? You are a Christian?… Your people [the Jews] killing everything that walks on this planet…”

Despite US President Donald J. Trump’s assurance that his giving presidential approval to the Jerusalem Embassy Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1995, was not tantamount to a delineation of borders, Lufti’s comments illustrate that the true enmity towards Israel based on long-standing, deep-seated Jew-hatred. This will not surprise anyone who follows the material being taught in schools, preached in mosques and spread by the media in Muslim-majority states whose regimes exercise total control over their populaces.

Does Trump Threaten Science? Part 1 By Peter W. Wood

The American Association of University Professors has issued a short thunderclap of a report accusing President Trump of undermining the natural sciences. By itself, this would be pretty bad, but according to the AAUP, Trump’s hatred for science extends by means of foreign policy to damaging intellectual inquiry, economic prosperity, and human health worldwide, and maybe also planetary survival. This sort of breathless denunciation may be the sort of thing one expects from soapbox speakers at Climate Change rallies, but the AAUP usually aims a little higher.https://amgreatness.com/2017/12/16/does-trump-threaten-science/

This is first of three essays in [read Part II here]which I will examine the background, meaning, and import of what the AAUP has done in “National Security, the Assault on Science, and Academic Freedom.” In this part I present the historical context, namely the left’s attempt to brand conservatives in general as “anti-science.”

The AAUP’s route to this destination is the claim that science is at risk.

On this general point I and my organization, the National Association of Scholars (NAS), actually agree with the AAUP. We disagree, however, on a few details. Is the patient at risk of drowning or incineration? Should we assist the drowning man with a life preserver or a 200 pound anvil? Is the conflagration to be met with a fire extinguisher or a good soaking in kerosene?

I exaggerate perhaps a little. Science doesn’t really face mortal danger. No one is trying to kill it, and even if the Armies of Darkness were laying siege to all the shrines of science from Aristotle to Newton, and Francis Bacon to Stephen Hawking, science as an enterprise would continue. Darwin and Einstein wouldn’t vanish, and people would still attempt to plumb the mysteries of DNA, exo-planets, and superconductors. The thirst for knowledge cannot be drowned or burnt to cinders. Moreover, the NAS and the AAUP do agree substantially on a key point: one threat to the integrity of scientific inquiry is the politicization of science.

Does Trump Threaten Science? Part 2 By Peter W. Wood

On December 7—a date presumably chosen because it is Pearl Harbor Day and thus resonates with general alarm—the American Association of University Professors issued a thirteen-page statement, “National Security, the Assault on Science, and Academic Freedom.” The aim of the statement is to call out President Trump in particular and conservatives in general for their “anti-science” attitudes and policies. In Part I of this three-part essay, I gave the historical background to the popular leftist attack on conservatives for their “anti-science” positions. In Part II, I take a closer look at what “anti-science” really means. https://amgreatness.com/2017/12/17/does-trump-threaten-science-part-2/

Passions and Padlocks

In principle, science padlocks political passions in a cage from which they cannot escape to disrupt experiments or analysis. But that principle is often violated, and it also turns out not even to be all that good as a principle.

Sometimes those political passions protect science from running off the rails. Our rules that prevent involuntary human experimentation, for example, are grounded in respect for human life and dignity, not in science. Science pursued entirely as a quest for knowledge has no capacity to distinguish right from wrong. Curing a disease and creating a new disease are indistinguishable as far as the ends of science go. We rely on our human passions and non-scientific human reasoning to prevent science from going off in malign directions, and we rely on politics to give organization and force to those positive passions.

But once having granted the legitimacy of some non-scientific principles to govern the aims and uses of science, where do we stop? This is the deep question lurking behind most of the political contention over science.

Fracking. There is scant evidence that hydraulic fracturing is dangerous to humans or to the environment, yet politicians in some blue states, including New York, have banned it. Their position is “anti-science” plain and simple, though few would openly use that term. The opponents of fracking act on an irrational fear—though again, few would own up to its irrationality. Instead they would spin a web of “what ifs” and “maybes.” Is this this a case where an irrational fear should be given weight in light of a larger non-scientific principle? It is hard to say what that principle would be. Some prominent members of the movement avow their hostility to the extraction of any hydrocarbons from the earth on the grounds that growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere pose a danger to health and safety. This indeed is a principle but one that stands on conjectures, hypotheses, and models that have not been treated kindly by the accumulating facts.

Mueller goes over the cliff By J.R. Dunn

With the news that his people illegally obtained the Trump transition emails – many of them having no conceivable bearing on his “inquiry” — Robert Mueller’s investigation proceeds even further into disintegration.

This is not at all how it was supposed to turn out. Hillary, the DNC, and the #NeverTrumpers no doubt hoped that the special counsel would result in the ouster of Donald Trump, or at least the crippling of his administration. For his part, Mueller very likely foresaw a few easy convictions and the humiliation of a president followed by the customary best-selling book, lucrative lecture tour, and a secure place in the pantheon of left-wing heroes somewhere between Woodward, Bernstein, and Valerie Plame.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, Mueller’s effort lurches unstoppably toward the abyss, while the counsel himself more and more closely resembles Captain Edward John Smith, standing rooted on the bridge while the iceberg glides inevitably closer.

The Mueller team’s lunge into criminality reveals exactly how desperate they’ve become. (and despite what you may have heard from Our Loyal Media, seizing those emails was in fact a crime – presidential transition materials remain private by federal statute. Mueller never should have been allowed near those messages.) Soon enough, they’ll be accused of more crimes than anybody they’re investigating

Even if Mueller were somehow to stumble across actual wrongdoing, the voting public would never, at this point, believe it. Donald Trump would have had to have been smuggling Russian nukes into New York on behalf of Czar Vlad to justify the activities of Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Ohr, and company. Thanks to arrogance and his willingness to hire every Clinton zombie in the federal bureaucracy, Mueller is looking at a wrecked reputation, if not the opportunity to model an orange jumpsuit. (This, unlikely though it may seem, is in no way an impossibility, since Mueller clearly has no control over his staff and no idea what tricks they’ve been pulling, or what they might pull tomorrow.)

‘Palestinians’ Lie and Count on Your Ignorance By Dan Calic

In the Arab-Israel conflict, one issue which rises above every other is the accuracy of what is presented. The Palestinians are relying on people not knowing history in order to advance their narrative. Israel on the other hand is relying on people knowing history. From where I sit, over the past two or three decades, it appears most people do not know history very well. Thus, the Palestinian narrative has gained popularity and has shaped much of public opinion.

What’s especially troubling is that the mainstream media has adopted most of the Palestinian propaganda, or seems to sympathize with it. Sadly, the days of objective news reporting appear to be gone. Today’s reporting has pretty much turned into op-eds, rather than simple straightforward news.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, we hear noble words such as “just solution,” “dignity,” “peace,” etc. on a regular basis. Who has fault with these?

Yet, if this conflict ever stands a chance of being resolved, isn’t it incumbent upon the world to know the actual facts and to stand for the truth, so these noble goals actually apply to its resolution?

If so, we need to understand whose narrative reflects the truth and whose are false. For this we need to unpack what we frequently hear and apply a litmus test.

For example:

CLAIM: Palestinians are an ethnically unique people or nationality

The Facts:
The Palestinians are Arabs. They are a mix of Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrian, etc. Several hundred thousand of them were displaced, many by choice, as result of the 1948 and 1967 wars. In both wars, the goal of the Arab nations was to destroy the Jewish state. They failed. Eventually their tactics changed. Not that destroying Israel militarily was dropped, it remains their goal. However, in 1964 the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), was formed for the specific purpose of destroying the Jewish state of Israel.

After the devastating defeat in the Six Day War, and the refusal of the surrounding Arab nations to absorb the displaced Arabs, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat embarked on a campaign to bring their plight to the world stage. Part of his effort included calling them “Palestinians.” This took root and the world bought into calling them Palestinians to this day.

Answer to the claim: FALSE

Why I Quit Teaching By David Solway

Some years back, I decided I had to quit the teaching profession to which I had dedicated half my life. The modern academy, I felt, was so far gone that restoration was no longer possible. Indeed, I now believe that complete collapse is the only hope for the future, but as Woody Allen said about death, I’d rather not be there when it happens.

Three reasons determined my course of action. For one thing, administration had come to deal less with academic issues and more with rules of conduct and punitive codes of behavior, as if it were a policing body rather than an arm of the teaching profession. Woe betide the (male) student accused of sexual assault or misconduct; the administration will convene an extra-judicial tribunal to punish or expel the accused, often with a low burden of proof. It will find ways to shut down conservative speakers. It will browbeat faculty and students to attend sensitivity training sessions on matters of race and gender. It will strike task forces to deal with imaginary issues like campus rape culture and propose draconian measures to contain a raging fantasy. The administration is now beset by two basic compulsions: to expand its reach at the expense of the academic community and to ensure compliance with the puritanical norms of the day. I thought it prudent to take early retirement rather than wait for the guillotine to descend.

For another, colleagues were increasingly buying into the politically correct mantras circulating in the cultural climate. The dubious axioms of “social justice” and equality of outcome, the postmodern campaign against the Western tradition of learning, and the Marxist critique of capitalism now superseded the original purpose of the university to seek out truth, to pursue the impartial study of historical events and movements, and to remain faithful to the rigors of disciplined scholarship. Most of my colleagues were rote members of the left-liberal orthodoxy: pro-Islam, pro-unfettered immigration, pro-abortion, pro-feminist, anti-conservative, anti-Zionist, and anti-white. Departmental committees were now basing their hiring protocols not on demonstrated merit, but on minority and gender identities, leading to marked pedagogical decline. Professional hypocrisy could be glaring. Case in point: The most recent hire speaking at a department meeting was a white woman advocating for more brown and black faces on staff – though, as a recent hire, she had never thought of stepping aside in favor of minority candidates vying for her position. In any event, faculties were and are progressively defined by firebrands on the one hand and soyboys on the other – partisans rather than pedagogues, plaster saints all. I found I could no longer respect the majority of people I had to work with.