Displaying posts categorized under



Tufts BDS Supporters Plan ‘Direct Action’ Against Pro-Israel Students Tufts SJP labeled Students Supporting Israel “literally a hate group.”

Over the past two weeks, the David Horowitz Freedom Center has targeted chapters of the terrorist-funded organization Students for Justice in Palestine on ten campuses. On Tuesday night, posters exposing the links between Students for Justice in Palestine and the anti-Israel terror group Hamas went up around the campus of Tufts University in Boston.

Tufts University hosted the SJP National Conference in 2014 at which students were instructed how and when to take “direct action” against supporters of Israel. Tufts SJP has repeatedly supported anti-Israel terrorism in its published works and statements and holds an annual “Israeli Apartheid” hate week during which the Hamas-inspired BDS movement against Israel is promoted. Tufts SJP also attempted to delegitimize supporters of Israel by labeling the pro-Israel campus group Students Supporting Israel “literally a hate group.”

The Freedom Center’s poster operation distributed posters across the campus which exposed the organization Students for Justice in Palestine as a campus front for Hamas terrorists and the Hamas intermediary American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). AMP was revealed in recent congressional testimony to be funneling terrorist dollars to Students for Justice in Palestine to support the Hamas-sponsored, anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign in America. Images of the posters hung at Tufts and at other campuses across the nation may be viewed here.

The posters are part of a larger Freedom Center campaign titled Stop the Jew Hatred on Campus which seeks to confront the agents of campus anti-Semitism and expose the financial and organizational relationship between the terror group Hamas and Hamas support groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine. As part of the campaign, the Freedom Center has placed posters on nine other campuses including San Diego State University, Brooklyn College, San Francisco State University, and the University of California-Los Angeles. The campaign also recently released a report on the “Top Ten Schools Supporting Terrorists,” which may be found on the campaign website, www.StoptheJewHatredonCampus.org. Tufts University is among the campuses listed in the Top Ten report. The section of the report demonstrating Tufts University’s support of anti-Israel terrorists follows below.

Supporting Evidence:

June 02, 2016: Tufts SJP added its name to a letter from SJP National protesting a decision by the San Francisco State University administration to investigate the actions of a pro-Palestinian group known as the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) who disrupted a speech by the Mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barkat, on April 6th by shouting exhortations to terrorist violence. SFSU students involved in the protest entered the auditorium carrying Palestinian flags and wearing checkered kaffiyehs which are associated with anti-Israel terrorism. The demonstrators then proceeded to shout “Intifada,” a call for terrorism against Israel, and chanted “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!” a slogan advocating for the destruction of Israel.

Trump Threatens Democracy! Where are Trump’s critics about Obama’s executive tyranny and Hillary’s promises to swell the Federal Leviathan? Bruce Thornton

As expected, Trump’s refusal to make a pledge accepting the outcome of the election stirred up the usual hysteria on the left and the right. According to the New York Times, Trump’s response was “a remarkable statement that seemed to cast doubt on American democracy.” The other P.R. firm for progressives, the Associated Press, said Trump was “threatening to upend a fundamental pillar of American democracy.” Prominent NeverTrumper John Podhoretz was even more vehement: “It was a shocking and cravenly irresponsible thing to say, the sort of thing that threatens to rend our national fabric, and for that alone, Trump has earned his place in the history of American ignominy.” Right alongside Benedict Arnold and John Wilkes Booth, I guess.

All these hyperbolic responses are curiously similar to Hillary’s during the debate. Sniffing political opportunity with all the olfactory acuity of an outhouse rat, Hillary thundered, “Horrifying . . . He is denigrating [sic]. He is talking down our democracy. And I for one am appalled that someone the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position.” As opposed to trading uranium mines to a Russian firm in exchange for donations to her family foundation? Once again, over-the-top rhetoric that serves political interest substitutes for clear thinking and moral distinctions when it comes to Donald Trump.

Indeed, these preposterous claims of “threat to democracy” and an unprecedented violation of a “democratic tradition” conjure up apocalyptic scenes of Alt-Right and KKK and Survivalist battalions swarming from basements and Klaverns and foothills with their gun-show “assault rifles” to spark a civil war in the streets, while Vladimir crawls out of his coffin in the Kremlin and dispatches legions of little green bats to destroy the Republic and anoint Donald “Renfeld” Trump as dictator. All the while that Hillary’s corruption and subversion of the Constitution––genuine threats to democracy––are tsk-tsked then swamped by anti-Trump hysteria.

Not that Trump should be let off the hook for his typically thoughtless reply, a bad habit that might cost him the election. Chris Wallace’s question was ambiguous, asking if Trump “will absolutely accept the result of the selection” and claiming “no matter how hard fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner.” But what did Wallace mean? After the results of the voting have been certified by the states, according to each state’s laws? Or after results are announced by the media and the states, but not yet certified? And doesn’t the “campaign end” on November 7, which suggests Wallace meant the latter?

Oh, That War on Cops By Jack Dunphy

“46 police officers have been shot to death in the United States so far this year, a staggering 55 percent increase over the number seen at this time in 2015”

Writing in the Washington Post thirteen months ago, Radley Balko assured his readers that, contrary to widespread belief, there was no “war on cops.” He cited a Rasmussen poll taken the week before that found 58 percent of respondents believed there was indeed such a war while just 27 percent did not. Public opinion was at odds with the truth, Balko wrote, and he had the data to support his position: FBI statistics showed that officer deaths from gunfire and non-fatal assaults on police had been declining for years. Balko wrote that 2015 was “shaping up to be the second safest year for police ever, after 2013.”

It’s good to be reminded when the actual statistics run counter to public perception. Police work is after all concerned with seeking the truth, and law enforcement is not served when hysteria is fomented by misleading information. That said, what would Balko say about this year? Has the war whose existence he denied last year now begun?

According to the Officer Down Memorial Page, 46 police officers have been shot to death in the United States so far this year, a staggering 55 percent increase over the number seen at this time in 2015. Balko would perhaps argue that this is an aberration, a statistical blip on an otherwise downward trend, like a brief rally in a long-term bear market. And maybe it is, but whatever the multi-year trend may be, a 55 percent increase surely bears examination. Even the skeptics of the “war on cops” must admit that there has been a change in attitudes regarding crime and policing over the last several years, a change that became all the more pronounced with the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014. Lest we forget, the officer who shot Brown was acting completely within the law when he did so. Despite this, the Brown shooting brought the Black Lives Matter movement to prominence, and despite its origins in the poisonous lie of “hands up, don’t shoot,” it continues to shape both perceptions and policy in American policing.

New York Times: Trump triggering mass hysteria among rape victims By Ed Straker

The New York Times is reporting that many victims of rape are running to therapists because of the mere possibility that Donald Trump could get elected president.

For women, particularly those who have been victims of sexual assault, the election has triggered painful memories. Ms. Elias [a therapist] said that after the second debate, “many of my female patients came in and wanted to talk about Trump.” She said patients felt that Mr. Trump seemed to stalk Mrs. Clinton and invade her space. Some patients needed to process incidents in which they had felt belittled or harassed by men in their lives.

“Women said their hearts were racing during the debate, they were that triggered,” Ms. Elias said. “Some came in complaining of having had nightmares.”

First there were trigger words, words that liberals simply could not endure. Now we have trigger people, people whose mere existence causes panic! And Donald Trump is one of them.

Thankfully, this triggering experience is limited to the thought of Donald Trump and no one else.

Women do not report being triggered by the thought of accused rapist Bill Clinton returning to the White House. Nor are they triggered by Mrs. Clinton’s legal representation of a child rapist, or her seeming indifference to the Disney ride length line of women whom Mr. Clinton allegedly abused or raped during his long politica and sexual career. Nor are they apparently triggered by Mrs. Clinton’s receipt of large sums of money from Muslim countries who literally, and I do mean literally, enslave their women.

Women seemed more concerned that Mr. Trump “invaded” Mrs. Clinton’s space during the debate, but Mr. Clinton invaded a lot more intimate spaces of women than Mr. Trump did that night.

There’s plenty to criticize about what Donald Trump has said about women (and perhaps done), but this asymmetical hysteria shows how liberal women conveniently ignore the excesses of their own candidate and focus, to the extreme, on the other. If only there were a treatment for politica brainwashing, perhaps some of these women could be cured.

Hillary’s New Constitution- Clinton explains how she’ll gut the First and Second Amendments.

Donald Trump is no legal scholar, but at Wednesday’s presidential debate he showed a superior grasp of the U.S. Constitution than did Hillary Clinton. Amid the overwrought liberal fainting about Mr. Trump’s bluster over accepting the election result (see below), Mrs. Clinton revealed a view of the Supreme Court that is far more threatening to American liberty.

Start with her answer to moderator Chris Wallace’s question about the role of the courts. “The Supreme Court should represent all of us. That’s how I see the Court,” she said. “And the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on our behalf of our rights as Americans.”

Where to begin with that one? The Supreme Court doesn’t—or shouldn’t—“represent” anyone. In the U.S. system that’s the job of the elected branches. The courts are appointed, not elected, so they can be nonpartisan adjudicators of competing legal claims.

Mrs. Clinton is suggesting that the Court should be a super-legislature that vindicates the will of what she calls “the American people,” which apparently excludes “the powerful.” But last we checked, the Constitution protects everyone, even the powerful. The law is supposed to protect individual rights, not an abstraction called “the people.”

The Democrat went downhill from there, promising to appoint judges who would essentially rewrite the First and Second Amendments. Asked about the 2008 Heller decision that upheld an individual right to bear arms, Mrs. Clinton claimed to support “reasonable regulation.” She said she criticized Heller because it overturned a District of Columbia law intended merely “to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them.”

Toddlers had nothing to do with it. What Mrs. Clinton calls “reasonable” was an outright ban on handguns. The D.C. law allowed the city’s police chief to award some temporary licenses—but not even the police officer plaintiff in the case could persuade the District to let him register a handgun to be kept at his home.

Anyone who did lawfully possess a gun had to keep it unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, ensuring it would be inoperable and perhaps useless for self-defense. As Antonin Scalia wrote for the Heller majority, “Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban.”

If Mrs. Clinton supports such gun restrictions, then she thinks an individual’s right to bear arms is meaningless. If the Justices she appoints agree with her, then they can gradually turn Heller into a shell of a right, restriction by restriction, even without overturning the precedent.

Then there’s the First Amendment, which Mrs. Clinton wants to rewrite by appointing Justices she said would “stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system.”

Citizens United is the 2010 Supreme Court decision that found that unions and corporations can spend money on political speech—in that specific case for a movie that was critical of Mrs. Clinton. The Democrat seems to take the different view that while atomized individuals might have the right to criticize politicians, heaven forbid if they want to band together to do it as a political interest group.

As for “dark” money, she certainly knows that territory. Does money get any darker than undisclosed Clinton Foundation donations from foreign business magnates tied to uranium concessions in Kazakhstan?

There is at least one right that Mrs. Clinton did suggest she believes to be absolute—to an abortion, at any time during pregnancy right up until birth. She claimed merely to oppose the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which allows some regulation of late-term abortions. But she somehow overlooked Gonzales v. Carhart , the 2007 decision that upheld a legislative ban on so-called partial-birth abortion. CONTINUE AT SITE

Schneiderman: ‘Unfair’ to single out Clinton Foundation for foreign donations By Colby Hamilton



Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said on Wednesday that Donald Trump’s foundation is “responding professionally” to his requests to cease and desist fundraising activities in the state, and said calls for a similar investigation into the family foundation of Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, are without merit.
Earlier this week, Schneiderman’s office announced that the Donald J. Trump Foundation had agreed to halt fundraising, after attorneys in the attorney general’s office determined the foundation was out of compliance with reporting standards. The foundation asked for an extension to file financial paperwork, including audits, that was granted by the attorney general’s office.

“As far as I can tell, the Trump lawyers are handling things professionally,” Schneiderman told POLITICO New York after an unrelated event in Manhattan.
A Trump campaign spokesman had accused Schneiderman of being a “partisan hack” for investigating the foundation, saying it amounted to “nothing more than another left-wing hit job.” The two have sparred publicly in the past over Schneiderman’s investigation of Trump’s defunct real estate academy, Trump University.
Schneiderman said concerns about the Clinton Foundation’s fundraising did not rise to the level of an investigation.
He said compliance issues with the Clintons’ foundation amounted to “ministerial, routines stuff” such as late filings or missing paperwork, and that the foundation “is properly registered and properly filed,” unlike Trump’s foundation.
Critics of the Clinton Foundation have called for an examination of the hundreds of millions of dollars from individuals who met with the then-secretary of state after either donating or promising to donate in the future, which included funding from foreign governments.

Schneiderman said that the rules for reporting government funds have not been found to apply to foreign governments.

“No New York State attorney general, Republican or Democrat, has ever interpreted that [rule] to require foundations to report on funding from foreign governments,” Schneiderman said. “We’re not in a position to check that out and enforce it. We leave that to our federal counterparts.”

Exactly Why Hillary Belongs in Jail – on The Glazov Gang

This new special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the editor of Frontpage’s blog, The Point.

Daniel discussed Exactly Why Hillary Belongs in Jail, unveiling the scary reasons why.

Don’t miss it! http://jamieglazov.com/2016/10/19/exactly-why-hillary-belongs-in-jail-on-the-glazov-gang/

Democratic Operative Reveals How Elections Are Stolen

As promised, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released the second video in the “Rigging The Election” series, an exposé they’ve described as a “multi-part series which exposes the dark secrets at the highest levels of the DNC and Clinton presidential campaign.”
In this video, Project Veritas’ undercover journalists uncovered evidence that operatives working for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee are willing to engage in massive voter fraud. http://therightscoop.com/watch-new-bombshell-video-just-released-james-okeefe-mass-voter-fraud/

Project Veritas describes the video:
Several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Scott Foval, the National Field Director for Americans United for Change, saying, “we’ve been bussing people in to deal with you fuckin’ assholes [Republicans] for fifty years and we’re not going to stop now, we’re just going to find a different way to do it.”
One of the highest-level operatives for the DNC who admits to being “no white knight” said that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years.
Foval then goes on to explain the sinister plot and how they avoid getting caught. The undercover reporter asks why they can’t just “bus in” voters, but get them to use their own personal vehicles. Foval describes how they avoid being detected and free of criminal charges. “Would they charge each individual of voter fraud? Or are they going to go after the facilitator for conspiracy, which they could prove? It’s one thing if all these people drive up in their personal cars. If there’s a bus involved? That changes the dynamic.”
How do they keep it a secret from the American people and the FEC? Foval explains, “So you use shells. Use shell companies.”
The final straw is Foval and the Democrats don’t think journalists, the media or the law can do anything to stop him, the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign. “The question is, whether when you get caught by a reporter, does that matter? Because does it turn into an investigation or not? In this case, this state, the answer is no, because they don’t have any power to do anything.”
Foval thinks we don’t have the power to stop him and the shady and corrupt tactics of the Democrats to rig this election.

Part 1 of the series, which was released yesterday, showed evidence of dirty tricks including what is known as “birddogging”, or infiltrating Trump campaign events in order to incite anarchy and violence. The video also showed potentially illegal coordination between a network of shady consulting firms, SuperPACs, and the Clinton Campaign itself.
Although the mainstream media has largely ignored the video, at least one democratic operative, Scott Foval, has been fired as a result of its release.

Obamacare Is Unraveling ahead of Schedule As the president’s signature law falls apart, liberals are dusting off their Plan B: single-payer health care. By Josh Blackman

The Affordable Care Act was never designed to be a permanent solution. Obamacare’s architects predicted that the law’s success would prove the government could be trusted to federalize health care, paving the way for a single-payer system. Reality has not been kind to their best-laid plans: Faced with failing exchanges and fleeing insurers, President Obama has urged Congress to “revisit a public plan to compete alongside private insurers.” Make no mistake: This is not a “tweak” or “reform,” but a grudging admission that Obamacare has unraveled way ahead of schedule.

During the early debates over the president’s signature legislative achievement in 2009, a schism formed among Democrats. The House’s bill would have allowed the federal government to sell a Medicare-like policy on the newly created exchanges. Although Senate majority leader Harry Reid supported the House’s so-called public option, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut steadfastly opposed it. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else,” Lieberman said, “is just asking for trouble.” Needing all 60 members of his caucus to clear the filibuster threshold, Reid ultimately eliminated the House’s provision from the Senate bill.

But that defeat did not foreclose the Left’s dreams of a public option. Instead, those dreams were tabled as the Plan B. MIT Professor and Obamacare mastermind Jonathan Gruber predicted that whether the law succeeded or failed, the end result would be the same. On one hand, Gruber argued that a successful implementation of the ACA would build confidence and support for nationalized health care, assuring liberals that “if you like single payer, then Obamacare has to succeed.” On the other hand, he warned that the ACA was “the last, best hope for private insurance,” and that if it didn’t work, we would “have to rip it up” and “revisit some kind of single-payer system.” Heads I win, tails you lose. (Indeed, through Wikileaks we’ve recently learned of Hillary Clinton’s active supports for a revision that “begins the unraveling of the ACA.”)

Unsurprisingly, after only three years, Obamacare is currently spiraling down the latter pathway. In a brief moment of candor, former-president Clinton called the ACA’s collapse “the craziest thing in the world,” and lamented that people who liked their insurance have found their “premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half.” The law wasn’t supposed to implode so quickly. Its success was supposed to pave the way for advocates to enact universal health care in five or ten years, but that didn’t pan out. So now, never letting a crisis go to waste, President Obama and Hillary Clinton are prematurely scurrying to back “a public plan to compete alongside private insurers.”

Robert Creamer, caught on camera talking about provoking violence at Trump events, visited the Obama White House 340 times By Thomas Lifson

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/robert_creamer_caught_on_camera_talking_about_provoking_violence_at_trump_events_visited_the_obama_white_house_340_times.html The shocking video by James O’Keefe and Project Veritas Action has so far not been screened on the mainstream networks, but cannot be totally embargoed in the age of social media. It shows Robert Cramer discussing provoking mayhem at Trump events. The Democratsare trying to distance themselves, with Donna Brazile, interim head of the […]