Displaying the most recent of 89943 posts written by

Ruth King

Palestinian Campuses “More Hamas than Hamas” by Khaled Abu Toameh

While the anti-Israel activists are busy protesting against Israel on Western campuses, Palestinian students and professors are persecuted by their own Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas governments.

Let us redefine “pro-Palestinian.” Instead of bashing Israel, real pro-Palestinians will demand democracy for those they champion, and scream for public freedoms for Palestinians under the PA and Hamas regimes, which have always smashed dissent with an iron fist.

PA security forces systematically target students and academics under various pretexts. Hundreds of students have been rounded up. Many remain in detention without the possibility of seeing a lawyer or a family member.

Palestinians on campuses in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have once again been reminded that they remain as far as ever from achieving a state that would look any different from the other Arab dictatorships in the region. The campus incidents, which have hardly caught the attention of the international media and anti-Israel activists in the West, also expose the media double standard about human rights violations.

In the first case of its kind under the PA, Kadoori University in Tulkarem suspended a student who hugged his fiancé in public.

These are the days when everything is backwards. The “pro-Palestinian” activists on university campuses throughout the Western world have gotten into the spirit: Palestinian students and academics in the West Bank and Gaza Strip endure daily harassment by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas, because all that gets the activists going are “Israeli abuses.”

Apparently, today, to be “pro-Palestinian” one has to be “anti-Israel.”

For the self-appointed advocates of the Palestinians at Western university campuses, the Palestinian issue is nothing but a vehicle for spewing hatred toward Israel. In good, backwards form, Israel is castigated, and the PA and Hamas are free to abuse their own people.

What We Could Learn from Israel by Vijeta Uniyal

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7663/india-israel To become a successful nation, India realizes that we have to emulate the Jewish quest for spiritual and worldly learning. We need a nation of empowered men and women, free and fearless to develop social, technological, entrepreneurial and humanitarian creativity, even while under constant attack. When we see the restoration of Jewish State and […]

JIHAD IN BRUSSELS:JUDITH BERGMAN

Islam belongs in Europe…. I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture.” — Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Western narrative represents a complete refusal to examine the doctrines of Islam, out of fear of offending Muslims. This is not a purely […]

Why Belgium is Ground Zero for European Jihadis by Soeren Kern

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/ Growing numbers of Belgian Muslims live in isolated ghettos where poverty, unemployment and crime are rampant. In Molenbeek, the unemployment rate hovers at around 40%. Radical imams aggressively canvass in search of shiftless youths to wage jihad against the West. “When we have to contact these people [European officials] or send our guys over […]

INTERMISSION- MARCH 20 TO MARCH 28

The Trump Fiasco Demonstrates that the Republican Party Has to Change By Andrew C. McCarthy

About an eon ago, David Brooks coined the memorable phrase “status-income disequilibrium.” It diagnosed modern elites, politicians in particular, whose jobs endowed them with power that dwarfed the attendant financial compensation. It would seem quaint to fret over SID today, grubby pols having turned the monetizing of “public service” into an art form for which the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation is the national museum.

Ah, but there’s a new SID in town. Those closely following the GOP presidential sweepstakes have doubtless noticed the haggard Beltway Republicans in its throes: Status-Influence Disequilibrium.

The condition was in evidence Tuesday night, as Donald Trump rolled up another series of primary victories. Bewildered GOP strategists groped for a silver lining, in chorus with commentators who wear establishment sympathies on their sleeves — and never more openly than when denying that there is any Republican establishment.

Solace was sought in the triumph of Ohio governor John Kasich, who managed to win his home state primary with less than 50 percent of the vote, denying Trump a sweep of the night’s five contests. The glow was not exactly like “feeling the Bern.” With this victory, Kasich ran his record to one win and 28 losses (in the Kasich spirit of Christian charity, I’m just counting states and ignoring losses piled up in D.C., Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and so on). As competitors go, Kasich is the ’62 Mets. Yet, Ohio became a ray of establishment hope: an aberrational win by a candidate already mathematically eliminated from contention somehow means the home team still has a shot.

Trump’s ‘Riot’ Comments Disqualify Him from the Presidency By Heather Mac Donald

Imagine if Senator Barack Obama, facing a possible presidential convention battle, had warned that if he didn’t get the nomination: “I think you’d have riots.” Then, to be statesmanlike and magnanimous, he added: “I wouldn’t lead it but I think bad things would happen.”

Conservatives would have exploded in justified indignation at this threat of civil violence, which they would inevitably understand as carrying a racial subtext. Even Al Sharpton has never been so shameless as to warn explicitly that if, say, this or that cop isn’t indicted or convicted there would be riots. Instead, the riot threat from Sharpton and other black activists remains merely implicit in the “No Justice, No Peace” agitation.

So what is the difference when Trump overtly threatens riots? His supporters, both in the grass roots and the commentariat, have ignored or brushed off his reckless warning. Is it because white people don’t riot? Actually, they occasionally do, as the intermittent store-smashing during the “No Global” protests of the 2000s showed. To be sure, industrial-strength riots over the last year and a half and over the last four decades were overwhelmingly black. And the professional white anarchists who vandalize Starbucks and McDonald’s outlets during anti-globalization rallies are a very different demographic than Trump’s supporters.

Why won’t Donald Trump debate Ted Cruz? By Robert K. Wilcox

Is he chicken? Is he afraid?

His people will make excuses: it’s the smart thing to do. What if he accidentally flubs and stops momentum? Why take the chance?

I don’t buy it. He exited Fox’s forthcoming debate, formerly scheduled for next week, because he fears that Cruz, who is in second place in the GOP presidential race, will beat him. That’s the way it looks. In schoolyard terms, he’s running from a one-on-one, a mano-a-mano. That’s not the way to win respect – especially from the tough, politically incorrect base that seems to make up much of his support. I’m surprised they aren’t making a fuss. If Trump is going to kick butt in Washington and make America great again, what’s he doing backing down from mild-mannered Ted Cruz?

Cruz isn’t Hulk Hogan. He isn’t Albert Einstein.

The problem is, Cruz knows conservatism, has lived it, and has put his political life on the line for it. He’s also a champion debater, a lawyer who has argued in front of the Supreme Court, and a man who speaks from the heart – because he believes what he’s saying. Trump certainly speaks from the heart. But he doesn’t know the issues like Cruz? At best, he’s learning.

Whatever the reason, he won’t meet Cruz on the playing field. He’s backed out, canceled his appearance on what was to be the next Fox debate. This lack of courage on Trump’s part is a travesty. It’s a disservice to the very people he hopes to win and lead. Fear of making a wrong move on the debate stage is not the way a potential president of the United States should be thinking.

Sweden’s Palestinian Lobbyists by Nima Gholam Ali Pour

The Swedish municipality of Malmö, with only 318,000 inhabitants, is providing tens of thousands of dollars in tax revenues each year to organizations that spread extreme anti-Israeli messages.

Apelgårdsskolan elementary school in Malmö lends its premises on Sundays to an association called Framtidsföreningen [“The Future Society”]. The organization holds a Sunday school, where, among other things, maps are handed out to children where Israel has been removed, and schoolbooks are distributed in which “resistance” against Israel is celebrated. Framtidsföreningen has also received $4500 from Malmö’s recreational board since 2014.

That pro-Palestinian organizations will use tax-funded operations as a tool to spread hatred against Israel is a given. This means that organizations that spread hatred against Israel in Sweden in many cases have tax revenues at their disposal at several levels.

There are no effective lobbying organizations in Sweden that fight for the cause of Israel.

In recent years, aid that finances hatred against Israel has received much attention. Organizations such as NGO Monitor have shown time and again how European countries and international organizations provide financial support to projects in which the sole purpose is to spread lies about Israel and erode its legitimacy as a nation.

MY SAY: SILVIO CANTO JR. GETS IT RIGHT “ONLY TRUMP CAN ELECT HILLARY”

Back in 1992, I was having lunch with a bunch of disenchanted GOP friends. We were looking at October 1992 polls and desperately seeking something to get excited about. One guy said: “[Expletive deleted] Ross Perot.” He spoke for all of us!

I hope I’m not looking at October 2016 polls and saying, “[Expletive deleted] Trump!”

Go ahead and tell me that March polls are meaningless. Or that Megyn Kelly of Fox News hates Trump. Or whatever other excuse is going around these days.

The GOP will be running against the weakest candidate on the other side.

Let’s look at Clinton, according to Doug Schoen:
Mrs. Clinton appears to have a virtual lock on the Democratic nomination. She leads Bernie Sanders with 1,561 pledged and superdelegates to his 800 (though superdelegates can defect, as Mrs. Clinton found out in 2008). In the latest WSJ/NBC News poll she beats the GOP front-runner, Donald Trump, by 13 points. But dampening this good news for the Clinton campaign is a sobering reality: The candidate’s base of support is shrinking, and it may not be broad enough for her to win a national election. Mrs. Clinton retains the core of her husband’s presidential constituency, doing best among moderates—but in 2016 these are a diminishing portion of a Democratic base increasingly dominated by more-liberal voters. Bill Clinton drew support in large numbers from white men, independents and young people. Mrs. Clinton struggles with those groups.

Even among the ultimate Democratic Party voting bloc—blacks—she is showing signs of erosion both in support and enthusiasm for her candidacy. Since her 80% take of African-American voters in South Carolina and Mississippi in recent weeks, Mrs. Clinton has seen her black support in other states drop by about 10 percentage points. In Michigan, Mr. Sanders pulled in 30% of the African-American vote and broke even with Mrs. Clinton among black voters under age 45.
This trend continued on Tuesday: Mr. Sanders took 32% of black support in Missouri, 30% in Ohio and 29% in Illinois, highlighting a significant gap in Southern and Northern black support for the former first lady.
Mrs. Clinton is the weakest Democrat candidate since Governor Dukakis had the misfortune of running against V.P. Bush in 1988, or President Reagan’s third term.
Mrs. Clinton creates zero excitement, turnout is down, and supporters are scared that she will start coughing at a moment’s notice.
So why is she leading Trump by 13 points? Why is Trump down 6 in the RCP average?