Displaying posts published in

November 2019

The Radicalizing of Eric Ciaramella It starts at Yale and a professor of Arabic who romanticizes terrorism. by Anne Hendershott

https://spectator.org/the-radicalizing-of-eric-ciaramella/

While the lawyers representing Eric Ciaramella, the alleged “whistleblower” in the Trump impeachment fiasco, describe him as having spent his entire career in “apolitical civil servant positions,” the truth is that Eric Ciaramella has been involved in radical political behavior throughout his life — including his years at Yale.

In fact, long before he was digging up dirt with the DNC’s Alexandra Chalupa about President Trump’s mythical collusion with Russia, Ciaramella was involved in leading a protest over what he believed was the poor treatment of Bassam Frangieh, a radical professor of Arabic studies at Yale. On April 15, 2005, then first-year Yale student Ciaramella dressed in all white to lead a contingent of 10 similarly dressed first-year Yale Arabic students to the offices of the provost and the president of the university to demand that the university provide an incentive to encourage Frangieh to stay at Yale. The students were unhappy because Frangieh had decided earlier in the school year to accept a tenure-track position at the University of Delaware.

Ciaramella helped to organize a campus-wide letter-writing campaign on behalf of Frangieh, which “identified flaws in the administration’s policies regarding language instructors at Yale.” According to the Yale Daily News, Bassam Frangieh was looking for an opportunity to teach more of the classes that he would like to teach. One of the protesters said, “His specialty is Arabic language and literature, and he wanted to teach some classes on style and poetry.” A week after the protest, Yale’s administration announced that they had “upped the ante with an offer competitive enough to keep one of its star language instructors from leaving” Yale.

It is likely that Bassam Frangieh wanted to use literature to be able to shape Yale’s undergraduates’ views on what he called the “heroic Arabic poet-martyrs” battling against the unjust occupation in Palestine. In 2000, Frangieh published a chapter romanticizing terrorism in a book entitled Tradition, Modernity, and Postmodernity in Arabic Literature. Ciaramella’s favorite Yale Arabic professor praised the heroism of Abd al Rahim Mahmud, the “first Arab poet-martyr.” Mahmud, who is often used to inspire terrorism and suicide bombings among Arab youth, was described by Frangieh as “carrying his soul in the palm of his hand” as he “threw himself into the cavern of death.” Romanticizing his terrorism, Frangieh recalls Mahmud’s “premature death at age 35, fighting a battle in an attempt to keep Palestine free from foreign occupation, [which] brought dignity to the hearts of his people. Through his death he eliminated the gap between words and action … he shall remain a symbol of heroism and pride for his people.”

Watson Video: The Truth About Extinction Rebellion Dismantling European civilization. Paul Joseph Watson

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/paul-joseph-watson-video-truth-about-extinction-paul-joseph-watson/

In this new video, Paul Joseph Watson exposes the motives, fraud and hypocrisy of privileged, environmental fanatics who indoctrinate eco-anxiety among children — and lecture working class people on how to live their lives. Don’t miss it!

Schiff Denies Republican Requests for Testimony From Key Witnesses A pathetic embarrassment to the nation. Joseph Klein

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/schiff-denies-republican-requests-testimony-key-joseph-klein/

Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 65, dealing with impeachments in the House of Representatives and trials in the Senate, that during the impeachment phase there may often be “animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” He hoped the Senate would be able to determine guilt or innocence and serve impartially “between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS.” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, pressing hard for the House to formally become President Trump’s “accusers” and hand over articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial, is displaying the worst traits that Alexander Hamilton described.

The latest example is Schiff’s refusal to let the American people hear from the whistleblower, whose complaint containing a secondhand account of President Trump’s July 25, 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky gave rise to the impeachment inquiry against President Trump in the first place. The whistleblower’s testimony is “redundant and unnecessary,” Schiff said in a letter to Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes rejecting House Republicans’ request for the whistleblower to testify during the public phase of the impeachment inquiry hearings. Schiff claimed that the impeachment inquiry already “has gathered an ever-growing body of evidence — from witnesses and documents, including the president’s own words in his July 25 call record — that not only confirms but far exceeds the initial information in the whistleblower’s complaint.”

As usual, Schiff is lying to rationalize the extreme one-sided way he is conducting his sham hearings. Originally, Schiff himself had said the whistleblower would appear before Congress “very soon,” but changed his mind after reports surfaced of the whistleblower’s contacts with members of Schiff’s staff before filing the complaint. The whistleblower’s testimony as to the identity of his or her sources is highly relevant to ensuring a fair proceeding and making a complete record for the Senate to consider as the trier of fact. So are the whistleblower’s biases and motives for coming forward and filing a complaint after having first contacted members of Schiff’s staff. Who did the whistleblower talk to, what did they say to the whistleblower that became the basis for the whistleblower’s complaint, and where did the whistleblower’s sources tell the whistleblower they got their information about the July 25th call?

VIDEO: THE AL BAGHDADI DOG

https://www.youtube.com/watcah?v=orAGU04T0rc

The Palestinian Christmas Show by Bassam Tawil

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15150/palestinian-christmas-show

“The Palestinian Authority has been offering us money to remain silent. They are trying to bribe us so we would remain silent about the crimes of the police.” — Marian al-Hajal, video on Facebook, October 2019.

“We want a civil and humane state based on the rule of law and justice.” — Palestinian Professor Jamal Harfoush, who currently lives in Latin America.

As far as Marian is concerned, the PA police version is nothing but an attempt to cover up for their criminal behavior. She and many Christians want the world to know, particularly on the eve of Christmas, that Christians have become easy prey under the PA in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

As far as PA President Mahmoud Abbas is concerned, it is business as usual. The cries of the Christian family in Bet Jala seem entirely lost on him…. Abbas may be worried about the future of the hefty funding he gets from Christian countries and organizations, if they find out what his police did…. What he seeks is to continue ensuring the success of the Palestinian lie that Christians are fleeing because of Israel.

Will the international community and press continue to swallow — as they have done year after year — the diet of lies that the PA leaders and spokesmen feed them?

In a few weeks’ time, the Palestinian Authority (PA) will perform its annual Christmas deception show. As is its custom, the PA will invite foreign journalists and diplomats to Bethlehem, where its spin doctors will wax poetic about good relations and harmony between Christians and Muslims in the city on the eve of Christmas. PA officials often seize this opportunity to blame Israel for the “plight” of Palestinian Christians, who make up only one percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

There is one incident, however, that the PA officials will do their utmost to keep under wraps. It is the story of 63-year-old Terez Ta’amneh, a Christian woman from the town of Bet Jala, near Bethlehem, who died when PA police officers raided her home to arrest her son, Yusef, for unpaid debts.

The story of Ta’amneh is one of those that cause serious damage to the PA’s propaganda machine, which is, instead, preoccupied with blaming Israel for the fact that a large number of Christians have left the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the past few decades.

Austria: Will Politics Enable a Minority to Impose an Agenda? by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15154/austria-kurz-agenda

The Greens would be happy to replace Europe’s Judeo-Christian cultural order with a radical multiculturalism that includes an acceptance of, and presumably a possible replacement by, the laws of Islam.

Replacing Europe’s historical values could be the very path that [former Austrian Chancellor Sebastian] Kurz and his party have claimed to oppose.

Austria’s recent general election has implications for the West as a whole. The snap legislative election, held on September 29, was spurred by what has come to be called the “Ibiza scandal” – a scandal named after the location of a shady meeting that took place earlier in the year between Heinz-Christian Strache — Austria’s deputy chancellor and head of the right-wing Freedom Party (FPÖ) — and a woman claiming to be the niece of a Russian oligarch.

According to a video that surfaced in May of the clandestine meeting, the woman indicated her wish to take control of Austria’s leading daily newspaper, Kronen Zeitung, and Strache said that he could assist her through governmental contracts in exchange for the financial backing of his party.

When the video emerged, Strache resigned and Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz — leader of the conservative, Christian-democratic Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) — terminated his partnership with the FPÖ, causing the coalition to dissolve and the government to fall.

Subsequently, Kurz himself was removed from office by a no-confidence motion in parliament, and new elections were called.

No Safe Spaces: What Happens When Common Sense and Values Disappear By Lauri B. Regan

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/emno_safe_spacesem_what_happens_when_common_sense_and_values_disappear.html

The new documentary No Safe Spaces, starring conservative thinker, radio host, and writer Dennis Prager and liberal, comedian, and podcast host Adam Carolla, is a must-see for anyone concerned with the long-term viability of the First Amendment’s free speech protections.  While primarily focusing on the hostility to free speech laying siege to America’s college campuses, vividly illustrated with compelling clips of violent protests and civil unrest by students from Berkeley to Yale, No Safe Spaces powerfully illustrates how the movement to limit speech has moved into mainstream arenas as well.

Prager and Carolla recognize that “common sense and values” are disappearing for the first time since our country’s founding.  There are appearances by figures on both sides of the ideological spectrum including liberals Barack Obama, Van Jones, Cornell West, Dave Rubin, and Alan Dershowitz, all of whom recognize the dangers to the country when progressive notions of microaggressions and safe spaces become the new normal.

Prager appreciates how unique free speech is on the world stage.  Across Asia, Europe, and even Canada, First Amendment rights are either nonexistent or limited, yet the highly educated elites have decided that our historically exceptional freedoms are now dangerous.  Prager observed:

What’s happening now in the United States, you are not to be heard on a college campus, or at your place of work. This is brand new. This is one of the few things one could say we have no precedent for in the United States.

The Media Holds A Massive Double Standard About Naming Whistleblowers Ben Weingarten

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/11/the-media-holds-a-massive-double-standard-about-naming-whistleblowers/

As for the media, can we attribute its devotion to respecting the privacy of the Ukraine whistleblower to anything other than politics? The evidence suggests not.

Does the public have a right to know the name of the man who commenced the current effort to impeach the president of the United States? The Trump-hating media, following the lead of Trump-hating House Democrats, seems to think not. It seems they believe he should be held to a different standard than other whistleblowers.

Indeed, many legacy media refuse to run the presumed name of the so-called Ukraine whistleblower in spite of ample evidence as to his identity. Likewise, Twitter is trying to deter users from divulging his name by punishing select accounts that have done so. YouTube has similarly banned mentions of his name across their entire site.

Such entities appear to have fallen in line with Rep. Adam Schiff, leader of the illegitimate impeachment inquiry. Schiff was prepared to give the complainant a public hearing before doing an abrupt about-face after it was revealed the congressman and his staff had coordinated with the whistleblower prior to the complaint being filed, and then lied about it.

Revelations about the ties of both the presumed whistleblower, as well as one of his lawyers, to Russiagate and the broader apparent rolling coup against the president only further undermine the credibility of the impeachment process and its underlying substance. Consequently, it is unclear whether the whistleblower will even respond to written questions from House members.

Dems Have No Good Reason to Hide the Whistleblower

Will Health-Care Federalism Ever Have a Chance? By Robert VerBruggen

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/will-health-care-federalism-ever-have-a-chance/

A Democrat proposes a mirror image of conservative health-care thinking.

R epresentative Ro Khanna (D-CALIFORNIA DISTRICT 17) just introduced a bill whose premise conveys a sense of déjà vu. It would allow states to take the health-care money they already receive from numerous federal programs and use it to provide health care in the way they think best, rather than the way Washington prescribes.

It’s funny, because Khanna is a Democrat who openly admits he has no chance of passing his bill under a Republican president, and the last time we encountered this notion, it was in a Republican bill with zero Democratic support. Both sides want to give freedom to the states, but they can’t seem to agree on how.

Khanna’s bill is a pretty clean illustration of “federalism for me, but not for thee.” The bill offers states access to an amazing amount of federal funding, including the money that currently flows into their borders via Obamacare, Medicaid, and even Medicare. The government would waive a lot of regulations for these states, too.

But in order to get that leeway, states would have to pursue a very specific, very lefty goal: a single-payer program that provides comprehensive coverage to 95 percent of the population within five years and the rest of the population soon after that. The bill’s drafters seem blissfully unaware that red states might want more freedom to experiment, too — and that there might be Republican votes to be had granting them some.

For all their many flaws, Republicans weren’t so selfish when they floated their own most recent attempt at federalism, the Graham-Cassidy proposal that went down in flames about two years ago. A major feature of this plan was that it replaced Obamacare’s funding with block grants to states that they could use to meet their own health-care needs — even if that meant single-payer.

Nikki Haley Has a Point By Michael Brendan Dougherty

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/nikki-haley-has-a-point/

In our constitutional order, unelected insiders do not set foreign policy.

Nikki Haley isn’t a Deep Stater. She’s not a saboteur. She wouldn’t undermine the duly elected president, no siree! That’s the message that comes along with Haley’s new memoir With All Due Respect. In that book, she gives the politician’s review of her career so far, shares some details about her brief Trump-era time serving as U.S. ambassador at the United Nations, and gives some ideas about her life story.

The juiciest detail is that then–secretary of state Rex Tillerson and then–White House chief of staff John Kelly approached Haley and tried to involve her in their intrigues to “save the country” from the president himself. She tries to explain their rationale. “It was their decisions, not the president’s, that were in the best interests of America, they said,” she writes. “The president didn’t know what he was doing. . . . Tillerson went on to tell me the reason he resisted the president’s decisions was because, if he didn’t, people would die.”

Haley rebuffed their approach, though she doesn’t say she reported their insubordinate attitude to the president. “I was always honest with the president, even when others around him weren’t.”

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake decodes Haley’s revelation for esoteric meaning. Yes, Haley is emphasizing that she wasn’t disloyal to the president, Blake notes. But she’s also confirming that concerns about Trump’s fitness and the wisdom of his decisions goes “right to the top.”

At The Week, Joel Mathis looks at the political implications of Haley’s disclosures. In “Nikki Haley Is Plotting a Loopy Path to the Presidency,” he sees her following a strategy that involves “a careful balancing act, simultaneously demonstrating her loyalty to Trump and her independence from him.” This is, Mathis contends, Haley’s way of playing to Trump’s base while also making it safe for people who don’t like Trump to trust her.

I think both observations are correct as far as they go. There is a political calculation at work in Haley’s book and the speeches that have gone with it. Interestingly, Haley doesn’t highlight her policy disagreements with Trump so much as her disagreement with his rhetoric and choice of words. In her book, Haley retells the story of the president’s reaction to the violence in Charlottesville after the tiki-torch parade. She said that at the time she felt that the president’s words “had been hurtful and dangerous.” And so she “picked up the phone and called the president.”