What Americans Can Learn from F. W. de Klerk’s Great Betrayal of South Africa Ilana Mercer

https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/09/what-americans-can-learn-from-f-w-de-klerks-great-betrayal-of-south-africa/

Universal suffrage is not to be conflated with freedom. As Iraqis learned after their “liberation,” ink-stained fingers don’t inoculate against bloodstains—or rivers of blood.

In what should serve as a lesson for Americans today, recall that 30 years ago on February 2, 1990, F. W. de Klerk, South Africa’s last white president, turned the screws on his constituents, betraying the confidence we had placed in him.

I say “we,” because, prior to becoming president in 1989, De Klerk was my representative, in the greater Vereeniging region of Southern Transvaal, where I lived. (Our family subsequently moved to Cape Town.)

A constellation of circumstances had aligned to catapult De Klerk to a position of great power. A severe stroke forced the “The Crocodile,” President P. W. Botha, from power in 1989. Nothing in the background of his successor, De Klerk, indicated the revolutionary policies he would pursue.

In response to a 1992 referendum asking white voters if they favored De Klerk’s proposed reforms, we returned a resounding “yes.” Sixty-eight percent of respondents said “yes” to the proposed reforms of a man who sold his constituents out for a chance to frolic on the world stage with Nelson Mandela.

For it was in surrendering South Africa to the African National Congress that De Klerk shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mandela.

Why was De Klerk trusted to negotiate on behalf of a vulnerable racial minority? For good reason: he had made his views abundantly clear to constituents. “Negotiations would only be about power-sharing,” he promised. At the time, referendum respondents generally trusted De Klerk, who had specifically condemned crude majority rule. Such elections, in Africa, traditionally have amounted to “one man, one vote, one time.” Typically, such elections across Africa have followed a familiar pattern: Radical black nationalist movements take power everywhere, then elections cease. Or, if they take place, they’re rigged.

Among much else, De Klerk’s loyal constituents agreed to his scrapping of the ban on the Communist-sympathizing ANC. Freeing Nelson Mandela from incarceration was also viewed as long overdue as was acceding to Namibia’s independence, and junking nuclear weapons. Botha, before de Klerk, had by and large already dismantled the most egregious aspects of apartheid.

Victor Orbán’s Lesson in Prudence for Western Intellectuals Titus Techera

https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/09/victor-orbans-lesson-in-prudence-for-western-intellectuals/

There is more to be said about this remarkably discrete teaching, but this is the necessary introduction. Intellectuals need to learn from the politicians.

To judge by what scares liberals internationally, the unassuming Israeli academic Yoram Hazony is the most dangerous intellectual active today. The National Conservatism Conference he organized in Rome last week has already been demonized in The Guardian and elsewhere. The one British member of Parliament in attendance, Daniel Kaczynski, was forced by the Tories to apologize publicly for being in the same room as the most successful politician on the continent, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

For his part, Orbán was a model of moderation and spoke in his typical direct style, cutting through the false pieties and not mincing words about unflattering realities, not even those concerning him or his country. He was interviewed by Hudson Institute scholar Christopher DeMuth and the entire conference hung on his every word, though it is unclear if his subtlety was well understood.

Orbán stated plainly that he’s been in politics for decades, about half in opposition and half in power, and he understands both sides. Although he was welcomed as a leader, he chose to speak as a follower. He said Hungary is a small country in need of allies and in need of the European Union, despite the enmity of the national conservatives for the EU. He also said small countries cannot afford not to have smart leaders, in the only moment he came close to bragging.

Palestinians: After Inciting Violence, Abbas Comes to New York To Fight a Peace Plan by Bassam Tawil

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15560/palestinians-abbas-inciting-violence

“Other stateless people can only dream of being offered independence and $50bn by the US president…. If only the Yazidis or Baluchis or Kurds or Rohingya Muslims were so lucky.” – Tom Gross, January 29, 2020.

The plan… offers the Palestinians most of the land captured by Israel in 1967 that more than doubles their territory; a government with realized human rights and institutions of democracy, such as a free press, and $50 billion — all as part of an extraordinary opportunity to build a flourishing Palestinian State.

Incredibly, Palestinian leaders seem to believe that no one understands that it is their own incitement that is instigating violence, not a peace plan yet to be implemented.

Abbas has no peace plan. That is probably why he is now hoping that the violence he incited will force Israel and the US to surrender even greater concessions to the Palestinians.

It now remains to be seen whether the Security Council and the international community will demand an end to continued Palestinian terrorism and rejection. Failure to do so will only allow Abbas and Hamas to proceed with their long-standing scheme of inciting their people to pursue terrorism every time they are offered a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is on his way to the United Nations Security Council to speak against US President Donald Trump’s plan for Middle East peace — “Peace to Prosperity” — after having incited his people, yet again, against Israel and the US.

Abbas’s non-stop incitement has resulted so far in the deaths of three young Palestinian men in the West Bank — Nidal Ahmed Nafleh, 19, Yazan Munther Abu Tabeekh, 19, and Mohammed Salman Haddad, 17 — who were killed by the Israel Defense Forces while attacking soldiers with firebombs.

Why did the three men take to the streets to attack IDF soldiers? Because Abbas called on his people to step up “popular resistance activities” to protest the ostensible Trump “conspiracy.”

Such incitement is seen by Palestinians in the West Bank as a green light to attack Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers with rocks, knives, car-rammings, explosive devices and firebombs.

Nafleh, Abu Tabeekh and Haddad most likely never even read the 180-page peace plan against which they were they were protesting. They undoubtedly went out to attack IDF soldiers because they were informed by their leaders, including Abbas, that Trump’s plan is an “American-Zionist plot to liquidate the Palestinian cause.” The plan, on the contrary, offers the Palestinians most of the land captured by Israel in 1967 that more than doubles their territory; a government with realized human rights and institutions of democracy, such as a free press, and $50 billion — all as part of an extraordinary opportunity to build a flourishing Palestinian State.

As the journalist, Tom Gross, observed:

“Other stateless people can only dream of being offered independence and $50bn by the US president…. If only the Yazidis or Baluchis or Kurds or Rohingya Muslims were so lucky.”

West Point Tackles ‘Toxic Masculinity’ “I’m being taught how not to be a man.” Mark Tapson

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/02/west-point-tackles-toxic-masculinity-mark-tapson/

If you are a good, committed cultural Marxist and your mission is to help dismantle the cultural, economic, and power structures in the capitalist West from within, how do you undertake such a grand task? How do you subvert an entire civilization? You undermine its foundations, and the most basic building block of all is the nuclear family. To deconstruct the family successfully, you must subvert masculinity, because masculinity is the warrior spirit of that nuclear family. To emasculate a civilization, you indoctrinate its youth to believe that the natural traits typically associated with masculinity – such as aggression, competitiveness, and emotional self-control – are poisonous to society and even to boys and men themselves. You convince men – especially society’s warriors – to reject their very nature altogether.

This January, cadets at West Point, the United States Military Academy, were required to attend educational events for “Honorable Living Day,” the academy’s third such day hosted during the short tenure of Superintendent Lt. Gen. Darryl A. Williams. The first was held last February and focused on eliminating sexual assault and harassment at the academy, which has been co-ed since 1976. The second, held last semester, called upon cadets, staff and faculty to improve the culture in order to combat sexual assault further.

At this most recent Honorable Living Day, the goal was to “expand the discussion beyond sexual assault and talk about how all aspects of the community can come together and promote an atmosphere of honorable living to include diversity, inclusion and acceptance of people from differing backgrounds, races and genders.” Lt. Gen. Williams described the curriculum as being “connected” to improving combat readiness.

Eradicating any sexual assaults or harassment at West Point is a worthy goal. They shouldn’t be tolerated in any work or study environment. Encouraging cadets to live with personal integrity and to treat others according to the content of their character and not the color of their skin are also vital aims. But if reports from several male West Point cadets are true, there appears to be more going on in this past Honorable Living Day than meets the eye. Breitbart News reported that it received comments from some cadets, on condition of anonymity, complaining that the program went beyond merely discouraging sexual harassment. As one cadet put it: “I’m being taught how not to be a man.”

Cyrus Video: Trump Takes Out Terrorists And guess what those terrorists had in common?

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/02/cyrus-video-trump-takes-out-terrorists-frontpagemagcom/

Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.

This new Glazov Gang episode features Anni Cyrus, the Founder of Live Up To Freedom and producer of The Glazov Gang.

Anni discusses Trump Takes Out Terrorists, and unveils what all those terrorists had in common.

Don’t miss it!

The Victims of Anti-Christian Persecution And a harrowing glimpse at their victimizers. Jack Kerwick

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/02/victims-anti-christian-persecution-jack-kerwick/

Now that the year is behind us, Open Doors provides a recap of some of the most telling stories of global anti-Christian persecution from 2019.

It’s important to look at specific accounts of this endemic phenomenon, lest appeals to statistics, which despite being quite revealing themselves, threaten to obscure the ugliness of the suffering daily endured by Christians the planet over.

Anecdotal proof of this oppression also permits a study in contrasts between the religious bigotry to which Christians are subjected and that claimed on behalf of the members of other religious groups.

A third virtue to be had from familiarizing ourselves with victimized Christians is that it brings into focus the true nature of a Western media elite that is silent in the face of real anti-religious persecution while acting apoplectically when, say, it is Muslims who, upon allegedly being viewed suspiciously at an American airport, claim to have suffered “Islamophobia.”

Some genuinely, thoroughly, bad stuff has been happening to Christians in various parts of the world multiple times a day, every day, and for a very long time.

(1) Last year, on Easter Sunday, the holiest day of the Christian calendar, Christians who were in the midst of their religious services in Sri Lanka experienced the bombing of three of their churches.   

Three hotels were also bombed.

Over 300 people were killed, with 176 children losing either one parent or both.

Islamic militants were responsible.

Freedom Center Plans Title VI Suit Against Claremont Colleges for Funding Jew Hatred The Colleges violated President Trump’s executive order barring federal funding for anti-Semitic hate. Sara Dogan

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/02/freedom-center-plans-title-vi-suit-against-sara-dogan/

In a letter sent to the heads of Pitzer College and Pomona College in Southern California, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, acting with the Dhillon Law Group, put the Claremont Consortium of Colleges on notice that their promotion and funding of anti-Semitic speakers and events is a violation of federal law and will no longer be tolerated.

Over the past several years, Pitzer, Pomona, and the other Claremont Colleges have repeatedly funded anti-Semitic rhetoric and displays on campus—largely organized by the Hamas-funded campus hate group Students for Justice in Palestine—which contribute to a hostile environment for Jewish students.

The letter cites Executive Order 13899 which was signed by President Trump on December 11, 2019. The Order directs executive agencies to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against all prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism just as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.

This is not the first occasion on which the Freedom Center has challenged the Claremont Colleges over their funding and promotion of Jew hatred. Last fall, the Freedom Center named Pitzer as one of the “Top Ten Colleges that Promote Jew Hatred and Incite Terrorism.” Over a thousand printed newspapers containing the report on the prevalence of anti-Semitism at Pitzer were distributed by the Freedom Center on Pitzer’s campus.

The Iowa goat orgy comes to an end with Buttigieg getting the most delegates By Andrea Widburg

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/the_iowa_goat_orgy_comes_to_an_end_with_buttigieg_getting_the_most_delegates.html

On Sunday, six days after the Iowa Caucuses took place, the Iowa Democrat Party finally released the 2020 Results. Based upon the complicated, vaguely parliamentary-style algorithm that Iowa uses, Buttigieg won 14 delegates, and Bernie trailed him with 12 delegates. Warren eked out 8 delegates, former frontrunner Biden got 6, and Klobuchar got 1 delegate. None of the candidates got anything out of their Iowa efforts:

With 38-year-old Buttigieg having leaped to prominence in Iowa, it’s time to remind everyone of a few pertinent facts:

1. Between 1972 and 2010, nine of the Iowa Democrat caucus winners secured their parties’ nomination (although both Clinton and Obama were unopposed during their second-term runs). However, of those nine, only three – Carter, Clinton, and Obama – won the presidency. Buttigieg now has the potential to win the primaries.

2. Buttigieg was raised in an extremely Marxist home:

The father of Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg was a Marxist professor who spoke fondly of the Communist Manifesto and dedicated a significant portion of his academic career to the work of Italian Communist Party founder Antonio Gramsci, an associate of Vladimir Lenin.

[snip]

He supported an updated version of Marxism that jettisoned some of Marx and Engel’s more doctrinaire theories, though he was undoubtedly Marxist.

[snip]

Paul Kengor, a professor at Grove City College and an expert in communism and progressivism, said Buttigieg was among a group of leftist professors who focused on injecting Marxism into the wider culture.

In sum, just as was the case with Barack Obama and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, Buttigieg grew up steeped in Marxism.

3. Although Buttigieg is now challenging Bernie, when Buttigieg was a high school senior, he thought Sanders the most admirable politician in America:

One outstanding and inspiring example of such integrity is the country’s only Independent Congressman, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders.

‘The Scientist and the Spy’ Review: Agent Running in the Field An unusual FBI investigation illustrates the government’s evolving response to China’s stealing American industrial secrets. By Howard W. French

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-scientist-and-the-spy-review-agent-running-in-the-field-11581278582?mod=opinion_reviews_pos1

In the fall of 2011, a farmer deep in Iowa corn country was so startled by an unusual sight that he called the cops. The alert sent over police radio went as follows: “South of here walking westbound there is an Asian male wearing a suit walking through a farm field. He was dropped off. Nature of incident: suspicious.”

It turned out that the man was dressed in khakis and a short-sleeve collared shirt, not a suit. But in a part of the state that was 97% white, it was the detail about the race of the man that was most salient. A sheriff’s deputy quickly intercepted the vehicle that had dropped the man off. Its driver, Chinese national Robert Mo, claimed that he and his associate were conducting agronomy research and looking at crops; in reality, they were trying to steal seed samples. The deputy let them go on their way. Soon, however, an FBI agent would place this same Robert Mo at the scene of a similarly suspicious episode from earlier in the year and in a different cornfield. And so was born an FBI investigation that illustrates a shift in American domestic intelligence—away from an all-consuming focus on terrorism and toward a heightened attentiveness to Chinese economic espionage.

In “The Scientist and the Spy,” Mara Hvistendahl, who spent years in Shanghai as a science reporter, uses the case of Robert Mo to explore America’s response to China’s commercial intelligence-gathering efforts. Early in the past decade, as Washington awoke to China’s theft of American industrial know-how, the FBI caseload for investigating such theft increased 50% from year to year. One expert that the author quotes, arguing against those who would relativize China’s activities by saying that rising powers have always stolen secrets from advanced nations, the U.S. included, observes: “In a manner of speaking, the United States stole books; China steals libraries.”

The Democrats on Soleimani Biden, Buttigieg and Sanders say they would not have killed the Iranian terror master.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-on-soleimani-11581289385?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

One of Vice President Joe Biden’s better lines in 2012 was “Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.” The crowd at the Democratic convention loved it. This year it sounds like the Democratic campaign theme may be that Iranian terror master Qasem Soleimani is dead and the world is more dangerous because of it.

That’s a fair judgment from Friday’s debate in New Hampshire when ABC’s David Muir asked the candidates “if your national security team came to you with an opportunity to strike, would Soleimani have been dead or would he still be alive under your Presidency?”

Pete Buttigieg responded: “In the situation that we saw with President Trump’s decision, there is no evidence that made our country safer.” He deplored Soleimani’s “murder and mayhem” but then zagged to the Iraq war, the Iranian nuclear pact, and a wounded veteran friend he saw in an airport. Mr. Muir tried again, but the former mayor came down with a decisive, “It depends on the circumstances.”

Mr. Muir then moved to Mr. Biden, who at least didn’t fudge. “No. And the reason I wouldn’t have ordered the strike, there is no evidence yet of imminent threat that was going to come from him,” Mr. Biden said, before veering to “America First policies” and NATO. No mention that bin Laden wasn’t an “imminent threat” by the time he was killed.

Next up was Bernie Sanders, who listed several of the world’s “very bad leaders” but said we can’t “assassinate” them because that would open the door to “international anarchy.” He said the only recourse is diplomacy.

The answers were revealing and mark a sharp difference in the coming campaign. Mr. Trump shares some of the isolationist impulses of Democrats, but he is willing to use force to kill America’s enemies. The mayhem that critics said would follow the killing of Soleimani hasn’t happened. Mr. Sanders’s answer is no surprise. But Messrs. Buttigieg and Biden missed a chance to show they would act decisively as President to deter those who kill Americans.