Displaying posts published in

July 2019

Tlaib blasts Israel for ‘dehumanization and racist policies’

https://worldisraelnews.com/tlaib-blasts-israel-for-dehumanization-and-racist-policies/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1563119813&pushcrew_powered=1

“I see more Americans understanding the plight of Palestinians,” the Michigan congresswoman tells  Jacobin.

In her latest comments against the State of Israel, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) says that she “can’t separate” the Civil Rights Movement in her hometown of Detroit from the lack of equality in Israel, which she refers to as Palestine.

“My African-American teachers and others used to show me neighborhoods and communities that were segregated, where if you were a biracial couple you couldn’t live or work or eat in certain places, you couldn’t eat in certain places,” the Muslim congresswoman told Jacobin, which describes itself as “a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture.”

“So my dad only went up to a fourth-grade education, my mom an eighth-grade education, and both were born in Palestine. My mom grew up in the West Bank in the occupied territories,” she says of her background.

“I can tell you when I was in Palestine with my mother and she had to get in a separate line,” says the Michigan representative, without elaborating on where this happened.

Then, she adds, “there are different colored license plates if you are Palestinian or Israeli,” referring more accurately to the days before Palestinians living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza were granted self-rule. Since the 1993 understandings which set the stage for the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, those different license plates have indicated that the motorist is a resident of a Palestinian entity.

“There is continued dehumanization and racist policies by the state of Israel that violate international human rights but also violate my core values of who I am as an American,” she says, this time referring to the Jewish State by its name, but adding that “‘separate but equal’ doesn’t work.”

Within Israel, ironically, the left-wing argues that separation is necessary between Israelis and Palestinians, while right-wing nationalists are more likely to support Arabs and Israelis living together in Judea and Samaria.

“I know that my ancestors were killed, died, uprooted from their land. That’s something that no one even wants to acknowledge that had to happen to create the state of Israel,” she said.

“Do I want to see that happen to other people? Absolutely not!” she continues, in a more conciliatory tone. “But I want there to be a recognition that it happened and from there on, do some sort of healing process and understanding that it needs to then lead to equality and freedom for my grandmother who still lives there,” Tlaib told Jacobin.

“I see more Americans understanding the plight of Palestinians, in a way that doesn’t dehumanize or degrade Israelis either but does hold the leadership of the Israeli government accountable,” she said.

The truth about sex and Isil – from the ex-soldier who rescued 70 jihadi brides from its ‘giant brothel’ John Carney

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/truth-sex-isil-ex-soldier-rescued-70-jihadi-brides-giant-brothel/

“Islamic State with its torture, brutality and evil hypocrisy may no longer exist as a territorial power, but it will rise again and we in the West must be vigilant.”

After a long day patrolling the Isis border with a Kalashnikov, what the young jihadi fighter looks forward to is getting back to the ‘women’s guesthouses’ for a shower and a one-night ‘pleasure marriage.’

If he happens to bring a loaf of bread or a bar of chocolate, skinny-ribbed girls will line up to be blessed by an imam before climbing into the bridal bed. The marriage will last a couple of hours and be annulled in the morning so the woman can be passed on to someone else.  

This is just one of the many stories I heard from the 70 or so women, children and disaffected fighters I helped to rescue from the so-called Islamic State, over three years.

The religious one-night-stand, if you will, tells so much about its twisted morality: religious piety is key, and sex outside of marriage is forbidden, yet jihadi fighters could sleep with dozens of women – be they locals, European converts or Yazidi slave girls – all while preaching purity.

From 2014 until the collapse of the self-declared Islamic Caliphate in March 2019, thousands of young women made the unconscionable decision to leave their families and travel in secret across Europe to Iraq and Syria. 

Under the spell of Isis lies and propaganda, they went for the promise of love, adventure and jannah – the paradise on earth predicted in the Quran. What they found was a living hell. 

In the scores of interviews I conducted, I heard how girls as young as 15 were sold in Isis slave markets to drug-fuelled jihadis boasting how they intended to score their 72 virgins on earth rather than wait for martyrdom. Raped, starved and beaten with canes, most had watched beheadings. One girl caught with a mobile phone was stoned to death and her sister brides had to join, in terror. 

Neutralizing Ngo: The Apologetics of Antifascist Street Violence written by Ernest Nickels

https://quillette.com/2019/07/11/neutralizing

In Politics and the English Language, George Orwell observed that “political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible.” He detailed how certain manners of diction are employed to that end—dying metaphors, verbal false limbs, pretentious and otherwise meaningless words all work to constitute a kind of inflated, euphemistic style of expression. This divests language of plain meaning in order to obscure brutal realities and to hide the “gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims.” As these habits are adopted and spread, clear thinking and good communication become more difficult and the process self-perpetuates. Stupid, ugly, and oppressive ideas actively distort language to create a semblance of reason and respectability; in turn, the corruption of language further predisposes people to uncritically accept and conform to the same sorts of orthodoxies.

In a vein similar to Orwell’s lexicology of apologetics, criminological theory may help inform an understanding of how speech is used in defense of the indefensible at another level of analysis—that of rhetorical strategies. Specifically, what follows is a look at the online discourse surrounding the recent assault of a journalist by antifascist demonstrators, as viewed through the lens of Neutralization Theory.

Neutralization

The crux of Neutralization Theory is this: acts that would violate accepted laws or norms, or otherwise contradict one’s beliefs or self-image, carry the threat of guilt and shame. That threat can be neutralized, allowing for such violations to occur, using rationalizations that deny the disparity between one’s values and actions. In a sense, these rationalizations are coping strategies for managing moral dissonance, quieting one’s conscience in the pursuit or defense of expedience.

Neutralization Theory was originally conceived as an explanation of juvenile delinquency by Gresham Sykes and David Matza. It has since been broadly expanded and applied to adult and white-collar crime, and to other acts of deviance and subcultural divergence. It has been used to examine honor crimes as well as the coping strategies of domestic violence victims, the denial of elderly abuse by both victims and abusers, the perpetration of right-wing violence and online ideological extremism, and even genocide and intergenerational war guilt.

Neutralization Theory “transcends the realm of criminology…[with] ‘universal applicability,’ as it can be applied to any situation where there are inconsistencies between one’s actions and beliefs,” whether individually or collectively. And so, while it has not yet been formally applied to the kind of context examined here (i.e., apologetic framings of leftist political street violence), the sheer breadth of the literature seems to suggest a cursory exploration in that direction may be warranted and fruitful.

Read of the day: A strong dose of reality on Israel By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/07/read_of_the_day_a_stron

I strongly recommend a long interview with Michael Oren, and American-born Israeli, who has served as Israel’s ambassador the United States and currently is a Member of the Knesset and Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office. He speaks very frankly on many issues, and provides perspectives that I found fascinating and useful.

I had never before seen the website (https://octavianreport.com/article/michael-oren-israel-world-power/?) that published the interview, but I am impressed with it and will be returning.

Here is a short sample of Oren’s perspectives on matters of current concern:

About five years ago, when Secretary of State Kerry was traveling back and forth between Israel and the Palestinians, he almost invariably paused before getting on a plane back to the United States to issue a not-so-veiled threat against the state of Israel. The threat was, and we understood it as a threat, that if Israel did not make concessions to the Palestinians, we would be isolated internationally. To quote the Secretary: “isolated on steroids.”

Today, you’ll find that Israel today is pointedly and emphatically less isolated than at any other time in its history. To the best of my knowledge, we’ve yet to make peace with Palestinians.

Our relationship with Latin America is at an unprecedented high. We’ve had the Prime Minister be the first Israeli Prime Minister to visit any country south of the United States of America. Now he’s visited four.

There are 51 countries in Africa, most of which cut off relations with us after the Arab boycott of the 1970’s, that have renewed relations with us. They’re standing in line to strengthen those relationships with us. Our relationships with Eastern Europe, the former Soviet bloc countries, are excellent.

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S EXACT WORDS TO OCASIO, OMAR AND TLAIB

https://pjmedia.com/trending/trump-to-aoc-omar-and-tlaib-go-back-to-the-totally-broken-and-crime-infested-places-you-came-from/

President Donald Trump has angrily responded to Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s and Congresswoman’s Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s ridiculous accusations against the American people, calling them “racists” who treat “dogs” better than immigrants, and of forcing immigrant children to drink from toilets. In what’s truly an epic Twitter-rant, the president tells Omar and AOC that they’d do better to “go back” to the country they came from.

“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, and most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fils the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.”

“These places need your help badly,” he continued. Adding that “you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements.”

It is not exactly presidential in the traditional interpretation of that phrase, but who cares? This is glorious — and it’s also precisely why Trump won the elections in 2016 and will be reelected in 2020. He’s not sugarcoating any of it. Reps. Ilhan Omar and AOC hate America and routinely insult the American people; the very same people and country to whom they owe everything they have.

Things Keep Getting Worse For The Fake “Science” Of Human-Caused Global Warming

https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&id=a

If you follow closely the subject of hypothesized human-caused global warming, you probably regularly experience, as I do, a strong sense of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, you read dozens of pieces from seemingly authoritative media sources, as well as from important political officeholders, declaring that the causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and rapidly rising global temperatures is definitive; declaring that “the science is settled”; and further declaring that impending further increases in temperatures over the next decade or several decades are an “existential crisis” that must be addressed immediately through complete transformation of our economy at enormous cost.

On the other hand, you studied the scientific method back in high school, and you can’t help asking yourself the basic questions that that method entails:

What is the falsifiable hypothesis that is claimed to have been empirically validated? You can’t find it!

What was the null hypothesis, and what about the data caused the null hypothesis to be rejected? You can’t find that either!

Where can you get access to the methodology (computer code) and the full data set that was used in the hypothesis validation process; and are those sufficient to fully replicate the results? You can’t find these things either!

You learn that there have been major after-the-fact adjustments to the principal data sets that are used to claim rapidly warming global temperatures and to justify press releases claiming that a given year or month was the “hottest ever.” You look to see if you can find details supporting the data alterations, and you learn that such details are not available, as if they are some kind of top secret from the Soviet Union. (You can read my 23-part series on this subject at this link.)

POLL: Which real-life example of government spending do you find most outrageous? 

https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?u=2cf2a73e6220e59e3c1c4a60c&id=0a8b28dab1&e=0c8ccf8e98

In the past six months, two of our reports have shot to the top of our most-downloaded list. 

It comes as no surprise that they both contain eye-opening numbers about exactly how the federal government is spending your tax money… 

Like giving Ivy League schools $26 billion in federal funding over a six-year period.

Schools that already have a collective endowment that’s large enough to give their entire undergrad student body full-rides for the next 51 years… without any additional funding.

And that’s just the beginning. Use the links below to download two of our most popular reports – free of charge. 

ICE deportation raids underway in New York City, ‘number of jurisdictions,’ official says By Travis Fedschun

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ice-deportation-raids-begin-nationwide

A nationwide crackdown to apprehend thousands of illegal immigrants across the country began late Saturday in the nation’s largest city and several other places, according to an official.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) resumed its previously announced plan to apprehend thousands of illegal immigrants who’ve been given orders to leave the country, targeting people in at least 10 cities.  The ICE raids began late Saturday and into the early morning hours on Sunday in “a number of jurisdictions,” not just New York City, a senior administration official confirmed to Fox News.

In an exclusive interview on “FOX & friends,” Acting ICE Director Matt Albence said while he couldn’t speak to anything specifically from an operational perspective, the overarching concern when the agency conducts any sort of enforcement operation is “the safety and security of both our officers that are conducting the operation as well as the public.”

“We are doing targeted enforcement actions against specific individuals who have had their day in immigration court and have been ordered to be removed by an immigration judge,” Albence told Fox News’ Griff Jenkins. “We are merely executing those lawfully issued judge’s orders.”

Acosta’s Sweetheart Deal Likely to Foreclose Epstein’s SDNY Prosecution By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-case-double-jeopardy-rules/Double-jeopardy rules almost certainly prohibit settling a federal case and then prosecuting it again in federal court.

A lex Acosta did a bad job on the Jeffrey Epstein case. This column was nearly finished when news broke Friday that he would resign as labor secretary. I was going to argue that his lapses did not justify joining the nakedly political mau-mauing by Democrats who have no interest in exploring the behavior of Democrats who are neck-deep in a monstrous pedophile’s activities. My friend Jennifer Braceras has ably addressed that point in a Washington Examiner column. I was also going to add that I’d shed no tears if President Trump forced Acosta out — easy for me to say, since I think (a) he should never have been nominated in the first place, and (b) his commitment to Trump’s deregulation agenda has never been sufficiently ardent.

Under the circumstances, I’ll spare you a few hundred words of critique on Acosta’s indecorous performance. Instead, to cut to the chase, I do not believe we can yet total up the wages of the sweetheart deal he cut for Epstein while he was U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida (SD-Florida). The commentariat is glibly assuming the courts will give the feds a second bite at the apple by allowing the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to prosecute the charges that Acosta forfeited. I don’t think so.

Double Jeopardy
On Monday, Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that his office has now charged Epstein. While the SDNY indictment may be new, Epstein’s crimes are not. They are the same offenses from which Acosta agreed to spare Epstein from federal prosecution if he pled guilty to state prostitution charges — which Epstein proceeded to do, in reliance on Acosta’s commitment. There is thus a very good chance, based on the Constitution’s guarantee against double jeopardy, that the SDNY case against Epstein will be voided by the SD-Florida non-prosecution agreement (non-pros).

To be sure, the SDNY has a counterargument, and it will be vigorously made. It has two components. First, there is language in the non-pros that appears to limit the agreement to SD-Florida, to wit: “prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida” (emphasis added). Here, “deferred” effectively means forfeited — the same effect for double-jeopardy purposes as a conviction or acquittal — because of Epstein’s compliance with the requirement that he plead guilty in the state case. Second, there is jurisprudence in the Second Circuit (which controls in the SDNY) holding that one federal district’s agreement does not bind another.

Acosta’s Resignation May Result in More Losses for Prosecutors by Alan M. Dershowitz

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14536/epstein-acosta-resignation

Experienced lawyers with whom I have discussed the case — both prosecutors and defense attorneys — worry that the thumb of media and political pressure will be placed on the scales of justice when it comes to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and the decision to try or settle a case.

Consider the situation of a prosecutor today or tomorrow who has a weak federal case involving sexual allegations. He has two options: the first is he can try to make a deal based on the relative strength of his case and of the defense case. But if he makes that deal, he risks criticism for being too soft on sex offenders. His second option is to take the weak case to trial and risk losing. But even if he loses, the risks to him personally are less great because he can blame the loss on the judge or the jury. A deal, on the other hand, is totally attributed to the prosecutor, as evidenced by the Acosta resignation. So, a simple cost-benefit analysis will incline a prosecutor to litigate rather than settle.

In the post-Acosta world, prosecutors will bring cases to trial even if the likelihood of a conviction is questionable, as it was in the Epstein case. The result of this change will be more trials, more crowded courtroom dockets and fewer convictions. That is not good for defendants, victims or for the rule of law.

The forced resignation of Alex Acosta based on the plea deal that he made with Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyers (of which I was one) may have serious unintended effects on our system of criminal justice. The criticism of Acosta — whether warranted or not — for making the deal will cause other prosecutors to go to trial in relatively weak cases in which the chances of losing are considerable.

The deal accepted by Acosta was based on the weakness of the government’s federal case. In order for sex with underage persons to be prosecuted federally, as distinguished from prosecution by a state, there has to be compelling evidence of an interstate nexus. Merely having sex with underage females in a local context does not constitute a federal crime. In the Epstein case, this would have required credible testimony or documentary evidence proving transportation of underage females in interstate commerce, or the use of interstate communications such as telephone calls, emails, or the wiring of funds. There was scant evidence of such an interstate nexus in the Epstein case at the time the deal was made. Perhaps there is more now, but that remains to be seen.