Displaying posts published in

August 2019

Hamas-Allied Hate Group- The foreign election interference the Democrats don’t want to talk about. Daniel Greenfield

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274417/hamas-allied-hate-group-influencing-2020-dem-daniel-greenfield

After disrupting a Holocaust Remembrance Day event at U.C. Berkeley, Hatem Bazian told supporters to look at all the Jewish names on the buildings, “take a look at the type of names on the building around campus — Haas, Zellerbach — and decide who controls this university.”

In 2017, Bazian, the founder of hate groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine and American Muslims for Palestine, retweeted anti-Semitic memes from a Holocaust denial Twitter account.

After the backlash, the Islamist hate group leader claimed that he had Jewish friends.

Next year, Bazian’s Jewish friends came out of the closet when he boasted through a megaphone outside Senator Kamala Harris’ office, while protesting in support of Hamas attacks on Israel, that, “AMP and IfNotNow are coming together.”

AMP was Bazian’s own hate group, whose board members had been accused of supporting Hamas. The organization has been sued by the parents of David Boim, an American teen murdered by Hamas.

IfNotNow is an anti-Israel hate group notorious for targeting Jewish charities and organizations. A member of the hate group had just recited a mock Kaddish, the Jewish prayer for the dead, for what the two hate groups falsely claimed was a massacre of civilian protesters in Gaza. In fact, Hamas had admitted that 50 of the 62 killed in the attacks on Israel were members of the terrorist organization.

Officially, If Not Now claims to be a Jewish protest movement against the “occupation”. In July, Max Berger, its radical co-founder, faced his own backlash over a tweet declaring that he, “would totally be friends with Hamas”. Berger had praised the violent Hamas riots and claimed that, “the biggest obstacle to peace in Israel-Palestine is the bigotry of American Jews.” The most politically prominent member of IfNotNow was New York State Senator Julia Salazar, the leader of a Christian campus organization, born into a Catholic family, who joined the anti-Israel hate group while falsely claiming to be Jewish.

How Feminism Paved the Way for Transgenderism written by Michael Biggs

https://quillette.com/2019/08/01/how-feminism-paved

In the last decade, in many parts of the English-speaking world, transgender advocacy has made substantial, and at times, expansive gains, with trans rights becoming embedded in institutions and enforced by the state. Like any significant historical event, this gender revolution has multiple causes. One is digital technology, providing virtual worlds which transcend physical reality and online networks for spreading activism. Another is academic theory: postmodernism and queer theory. I want to make the less obvious argument that transgenderism has been promoted by feminism.

Not all feminism, of course. From the start of the second wave, some radical feminists opposed the inclusion of male-to-female transsexuals under the general heading of “women.” Their argument culminated in Janice Raymond’s Transsexual Empire (1979): “All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact.” Transsexualism, she observed, was the creation of medical men like John Money and Harry Benjamin. As the current wave of transgenderism was building at the beginning of the 21st century, a handful of radical lesbian feminists warned that it was detrimental to the material interests of women. They included Sheila Jeffreys, an English political scientist then teaching at the University of Melbourne, and Gallus Mag, a pseudonymous American blogger. At the time, their warnings must have seemed hysterical; they now appear remarkably prescient.

These radical feminists argued that “trans activism is misogyny” and “a men’s rights movement.” They were correct about its objective consequences being bad for females, as set out by the philosopher Kathleen Stock and the journalist Helen Joyce. The end of segregation by sex threatens the dignity and safety of women rather than men, because men are more violent and sexually predatory than women. Men in prison, for example, have a huge incentive to claim a female identity. In sports, the physical advantages of men are so great that their entry into women’s competitions automatically takes places from females. Women who enter men’s competitions, by contrast, are destined to lose. In the realm of sexuality, young lesbians are vulnerable to aggressive pursuit by transwomen, which activists celebrate as “breaking the cotton ceiling.” There is no equivalent pressure on men, whether straight or gay.

GILLETTE TUMBLES AFTER “TOXIC MASCULINITY” AD

Some months ago, much to the surprise of men everywhere, the Gillette company decided to inform its core customers just what rotten, sexist and generally appalling specimens they are. It seemed an odd strategy at the time, and parent company Proctor & Gamble’s latest financial reporting confirms as much. Ad industry website Campaign Brief reports:

Gillette’s infamous “toxic masculinity” ad may cost Procter & Gamble more than anyone imagined in January, reports The Washington Times.

The year that Gillette launched its “We Believe” campaign and asked “Is this the best a man can get?” has coincided with P&G’s $8 billion non-cash writedown for the shaving giant.

Chief Financial Officer Jon Moeller attributed much of the losses on “new competitors” offering “prices below the category average,” Reuters reported.

Observers such as Red State’s Brandon Morse responded by essentially likening the public stance to a lie by omission — the “toxic masculinity” ad punctuated news cycles for weeks and was repeatedly mocked on social media.

“Perhaps P&G isn’t willing to come forward yet with the fact that they made a monumental error in assuming men would take the ‘toxic masculinity’ commercial well, but they should soon,” Mr. Morse wrote Wednesday for the conservative website. “The brand is damaged enough to lose billions, and men aren’t coming back, especially with cheaper alternatives embracing men for who they are and not assuming the worst about them.”

Islam’s Crusade Against Free Speech

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/08/islams-

Now that a religious discrimination bill is being proposed, there is a considerable risk that the Prime Minister might be contemplating the enactment of legislation to ban so-called ‘hate speech’ on the basis of severe criticism of a religion. As reported by the media, Scott Morrison has been urged by Islamic groups to extent to religious grounds the existing sanctions against those who offend people on the basis of race, gender, age, or disability.[1]

For Australians who have been following the Prime Minister’s approach to freedom of speech, this certainly comes as a very disturbing development.[2] After all, they would know among other things that, in a in December 2017 interview with the then-Fairfax Media, Morrison expressed his unconditional support for further restrictions on religious grounds. The now-Prime Minister declared:

It all starts when you allow … mockery to be made of your faith or your religious festivals — it always starts innocently and it’s always said it is just a joke — just like most discrimination does. And I’m just gonna call that out …  I’ve just taken the decision more recently, I’m just not going to put up with that any more, I don’t think my colleagues are either. Where I think people are being offensive to religion in this country — whichever religion that might be … well, we will just call it out and we will demand the … respect that people should provide to all religions.[3]

The ongoing push for laws that protect religionists from feeling “offended” comes primarily from Islamic groups. Grand Mufti Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohamed has called on the Prime Minister to push for new laws to extend greater protection to Muslims against so-called “Islamophobia”.[4] He told SBS Arabic 24 that, as the country’s highest Islamic authority, he has personally asked the Prime Minister for laws that would make it illegal to strongly criticise Islam.[5]

This is confirmed by a leaked video of the Prime Minister meeting with Dr Mohamed and other Islamic leaders at Lakemba Mosque. The video shows him being warmly received by the Muslim leadership and urged by them to extend the notorious Section 18C to religious grounds. It shows the Grand Mufti sitting next to Morrison and directly instructing him to create a federal law against “discrimination” based on religion.[6]

Lies, Democrats’ Damned Lies About Wages, And Statistics by J. Frank Bullitt

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/02/democrats

As is their well-practiced custom, the Democratic presidential candidates continue to screech about stagnant wages, and an economy that doesn’t work for everyone.

We’re not saying they’re lying. Let’s just say the truth is out there and they’re missing it.

In the first set of debates, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker said that he was seeing “every single day that this economy is not working for average Americans.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, groused about “an economy that does great for those with money and isn’t doing great for everyone else.”

Tuesday night, the first evening of the second round of debates, Ohio Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan complained that union members’ “wages have been stagnating.” The following evening, Julian Castro, secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Obama, was quite sure that “the idea that America is doing just fine is wrong.” 

It’s a familiar beef. Not long ago, Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders claimed that “for the last 45 years the average American today has not seen a nickel more in real wages than he or she got 45 years ago.” More recently, Warren has lamented “a generation of stagnant wages.”

Even President Trump has brought up “decades of flat wages.”

The numbers don’t seem to back the narrative, though. Factcheck.org, using Bureau of Labor Statistics data, has shown that after falling for about 20 years, wages have been climbing since the mid-1990s.

Not all agree that the measurement used by Factcheck.org is the best way to determine if we’re better off than we were in previous decades. So forget for one moment the data and think about what today’s wages can bring compared to wages in the 1960s and 1970s.

No, The Israel Boycott Movement Isn’t All About Free Speech By Melissa Langsam Braunstein

https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/02/no-israel-boycott-movement-isnt-free-speech/

Americans are used to politicians lying, but at a certain point we need to start calling out the falsehoods our lawmakers use in describing the anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement.

Americans are used to being spun. Heck, we’re also familiar with being straight-up lied to. But at a certain point, we need to start calling out the falsehoods our elected officials use in describing the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement.

For starters, let’s consider Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday. It included numerous problematic moments, starting with Tapper asking the Michigan Democrat about her support for BDS.

Tapper explained BDS to his audience as “an anti-Israel movement.” Tlaib corrected Tapper, saying that “it’s criticizing the racist policies of Israel,” which would be fine, but it isn’t quite true.

All About Israel

If you read the words of those who founded or are involved with BDS, it’s clear this is an anti-Israel movement at its core. The anti-BDS resolution the House passed last week directly quoted BDS founder Omar Barghouti, saying, “We oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.”

This is not a crowd that’s into coexistence, even if Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) labels BDS as among “nonviolent forms of protest,” and menacingly suggests that “being overly punitive” toward BDS “forces people into other channels, and I would hate to be a part of, you know, paving that kind of path.” Indeed.

California Removes Arrest Reports From Kamala Years Routine website redesign obscures Democrat’s record on criminal justice Charles Fain Lehman

https://freebeacon.com/politics/california-removes-arrest-reports-from-kamala-years/

A redesign of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation website will make it harder for voters to inspect Sen. Kamala Harris’s controversial record as the state’s top cop.

The department removed public access to a number of reports on incarceration in the state, including when presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D.) was California’s attorney general. Twice a year, the CDCR releases information about the number of new individuals incarcerated in the California prison system as part of its “Offender Data Points” series. These reports provide important information on demographics, sentence length, offense type, and other figures relevant to criminal justice and incarceration.

Until recently, these reports were publicly available at the CDCR’s website. A search using archive.org’s Wayback Machine reveals that as of April 25, 2019—the most recent indexed date—ODP reports were available dating back to the spring of 2009. As of August 2019, the same web page now serves only a single ODP report, the one for Spring 2019. The pre-2019 reports have been removed.

The changes matter in part because the reports contain information about Harris’s entire time as state A.G., 2011 to 2017. Harris has taken fire from multiple opponents for her “tough on crime” record as California’s top cop, an image that she has tried to shed as a far-left senator and presidential candidate.

One particularly brutal attack came Wednesday night when Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hi.) laid into Harris for her record on criminal justice. Gabbard cited a Washington Free Beacon analysis — based in part on the ODP reports — that found that more than 1,500 Californians were sent to prison for marijuana-related offenses while Harris was attorney general.

CNN Host Don Lemon Demonizes Black Pastor Who Won’t Call Trump Racist By Tyler O’Neil

https://pjmedia.com/trending/don-lemon-demonizes-black-pastor-who-wont-call-trump-racist/

CNN Tonight
✔ @CNNTonight

“President Trump does not attack people because of color. He attacks anybody he feels need it.” – Rev. Bill Owens says Trump’s meeting with African American pastors was not an attempt to insulate himself from his recent attacks on Rep. Cummings and his Baltimore district.”

On Tuesday evening, CNN’s Don Lemon spoke with Rev. Bill Owens, founder of the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP). Owens had met with Trump earlier that day. Yet it quickly became clear Lemon had no intention of learning anything about the meeting. Lemon, seemingly obsessed with Trump’s recent tweets attacking Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), pressured the pastor to talk about the Cummings tweets, something Owens considered irrelevant. After Owens resolutely refused to condemn Trump as a racist, Lemon launched into personal attacks against him.

“What did the president say about his attacks against these leaders of color and did any of the faith leaders raise concerns about that?” Lemon began.

“Well, I think something was said in passing. I don’t tune in to negative talk from any side,” Owens responded. “I took the position that we as black pastors should go down to Baltimore and see what we can do to help.” He said he grew up “in a two-room house, no water, no lights … so I know poverty.”

Yet again, the CNN anchor asked, “Did anybody there raise concerns about what he has been saying lately about people like Elijah Cummings or anyone?”

“Well, that was not the purpose of the meeting today. Today, the meeting was how can we help the black community. That is my concern and that was the purpose of the meeting. That was the reason I came to Washington and that is my focus: helping our inner-city young people especially, our children, our young people,” the pastor replied.

Trump Pulls John Ratcliffe’s Director of National Intelligence Nomination By Jack Crowe

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-pulls-john-ratcliffes-director-of-national-intelligence-nomination/

President Trump announced Friday that Representative John Ratcliffe (R., Texas) is withdrawing from contention to be his next director of national intelligence to escape the media scrutiny surrounding the already-contentious confirmation process.

“Our great Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe is being treated very unfairly by the LameStream Media. Rather than going through months of slander and libel, I explained to John how miserable it would be for him and his family to deal with these people….”

Donald J. Trump

✔ @realDonaldTrump

….John has therefore decided to stay in Congress where he has done such an outstanding job representing the people of Texas, and our Country. I will be announcing my nomination for DNI shortly.”

Senator Josh Hawley Reveals the Nasty Truth Behind Confucius Institutes By Rachelle Peterson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/senator-josh-hawley-reveals-the-nasty-truth-behind-confucius-institutes/

They function as organs for dissemination of Chinese Communist propaganda.

Chinese-government-sponsored Confucius Institutes are “a tool for China to spread influence and exercise soft power,” “a known threat to academic freedom,” and “a danger to our national defense and security,” says Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) in a letter sent last week to the University of Missouri and Webster University. Both institutions host Confucius Institutes, campus centers that teach Chinese language and culture and are funded and partly staffed and overseen by the Chinese government. Hawley urges the universities to “reconsider” those relationships.

Hawley’s conclusions aren’t just his own personal notions. He cites FBI director Christopher Wray, who for the last year and a half has publicly warned colleges about Confucius Institutes. Just last week Wray testified, in response to questioning from Hawley, that Confucius Institutes are “part of China’s soft power strategy and influence” because they “offer a platform to disseminate Chinese government or Chinese Communist Party propaganda, to encourage censorship, to restrict academic freedom.”

Hawley cites Li Changchun, a senior member of the Chinese Communist Party, who famously declared Confucius Institutes “an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up.” He cites North Carolina State University, which canceled an event with the Dalai Lama under pressure from its Confucius Institute. And he cites the fact that ever-increasing numbers of American colleges and universities — now 24 of them — have cut ties with their Confucius Institutes. (Hawley also cites an article I wrote, based on my 2017 report Outsourced to China: Confucius Institutes and Soft Power in American Higher Education.)

Hawley’s concerns, well grounded and substantial, are nothing surprising. What is surprising are the reactions of Mizzou and Webster. After several years of growing evidence that Confucius Institutes are all-round a bad deal for colleges, they are doubling down in defense of their Confucius Institutes.