Friday, October 20, 2017

Collusion? Harvard Students Hear From Cair. What Next In Iraq? Smearing and The Race Card. Comity Versus Comedy.

One of the most difficult businesses to be in - restaurants.

Restaurants aren’t just a big part of millions of Americans’ lives. They’re a huge part of the U.S. economy. And yet, few people know how difficult it is for restaurants to survive, and even fewer know about the rules and regulations that make opening a restaurant (and keeping it open) so hard. In this week’s video, learn five facts that every American should know about the restaurant industry.
Democrat stonewalling could well be because they are frightened by the boomerang they launched regarding Trump/Russian collusion heading back their way. 

Something I have talked about for months.  

Democrats bark a lot, gnash their teeth and growl.  Then we find out, after tortuous investigations, they may well be guilty of that which they accuse others. Is ain't always is, is it?  Why? Because Democrats love to obfuscate and send others off track while they accuse Trump of doing the same. (See 1 below.)
This is how you spread radicalism on campuses among the unwashed neophytes who already are leaning so far left they are ready to fall flat on their faces. (See 2 below.)
Trump won what Obama was afraid to try but now that he has helped win the war against ISIS we must not lose the victory. (See 3 below.)
The minute Democrat candidates appear they are becoming  vulnerable they fall back on their historic playbook which is: a) smear your opponent, b) play the race card, c) lie about anything that has the prospect of winning votes and d) go into the mode of identity politics.  (See 4 below.)
No one has ever accused Trump of being articulate, a smooth talker like his predecessor who , with the help of a prompter, had a silver tongue.  Take Obama away from the prompter and he often became a blithering idiot.

No one in the mass media are going to give Trump the benefit of the doubt either.  Their mission is to continue to destroy him because he made them look like the biased fools they are and have chosen to become.

The latest dust-up with the 'ding bat' Democrat Rep.from Florida,  has tuned into a race card matter reaching all the way to Gen. Kelly's spit shined shoes. It is the card of last resort for liberals, Democrats, progressives and most particularly blacks who claim they have been  disenfranchised.  It has been played by Messrs Jackson, Sharpton, Rev. Wright, Rep's. Wilson and Waters,Obama and the list is endless whenever it suits their purpose of dividing.

I believe it is beginning to wear thin and be seen for what it is.

Last night Lynn and I went to see the movie : "Marshall."  It is about Thurgood Marshall, the first Negro to become a Supreme Court Justice. I recommend it not only because he was a great fighter for the right causes, and a fine Justice but also because it makes a lie out of those who are unwilling to look at the progress we have made as a nation that believes in justice for all.  No, we are not there yet, nor probably will ever be enough to suit some and yes, man will continue to practice hatred against his fellow man because that is what he does.
That said, more progress will be made if we do not play race cards, listen to the other side's legitimate arguments and pleas and recognize, if only from an economic standpoint, we are better off and stronger when we come together and unite than when we split apart.

Obama was a racial and class divider and those who hate Trump make the same claim about him.  Yes, Trump attacks those who attack him but he also has offered a better way for those who want to give cohesion a try.  The problem is unity is not something Democrats believe wins votes and could even lose their base.  They are unified in voting against everything Trump seeks to do and they come up with reasons that sound plausible but are, more often than not, an excuse to rally the core.  They could enter the arena and use their leverage but Schumer and Pelosi have no desire to take Trump's bait.  So we will remain politically and socially divided until exhaustion and discontent takes over and the impetus for change wins and forces a greater degree of political comity.  Until then expect more comedy. 

1) The Fusion Collusion

Democrats are trying to protect the firm’s secrets—so the GOP should keep digging.

By Kimberley A. Strassel
Washington is obsessed with the word “collusion” but has little understanding of its true meaning. The confusion might explain why D.C. has missed the big story of collusion between Fusion GPS and the Democratic Party.
To read the headlines, a poor, beleaguered opposition-research firm was humiliated and constitutionally abused this week by partisan Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee. Fusion’s lawyers sent a 17-page letter to the committee’s chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes, accusing him of misdeeds, declaring his subpoenas invalid, and invoking a supposed First Amendment right to silence. Yet the firm’s founders, the story went, were hauled in nonetheless and forced to plead the Fifth. “No American should experience the indignity that occurred today,” Fusion’s lawyer, Joshua Levy, declared.
Fusion is known as a ruthless firm that excels in smear jobs, but few have noticed the operation it’s conducting against the lawmakers investigating it. The false accusations against Mr. Nunes—that he’s acting unethically and extralegally, that he’s sabotaging the Russia probe—are classic.
This is a firm that in 2012 was paid to dig through the divorce records of a Mitt Romney donor. It’s a firm that human-rights activist Thor Halvorssen testified was hired to spread malicious rumors about him. It’s a firm that financier Bill Browder testified worked to delegitimize his efforts to get justice for Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer beaten to death in a Russian prison.
It’s the firm behind the infamous “dossier” accusing Donald Trump of not just unbecoming behavior but also colluding with Russia. Republicans are investigating whether the Fusion dossier was influenced by Russians, and whether American law enforcement relied on that disinformation for its own probe.
But Fusion’s secret weapon in its latest operation is the Democratic Party, whose most powerful members have made protecting Fusion’s secrets their highest priority. Senate Democrats invoked a parliamentary maneuver in July to block temporarily Mr. Browder’s public testimony. Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democratic ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, has been engineering flaps to undercut and obstruct Mr. Nunes’s investigation. Democrats on the House Ethics Committee have deep-sixed what was meant to be a brief inquiry to clear Mr. Nunes so as to keep him sidelined.
Then there is the intel committee’s meeting this week. Despite the spin, forcing Fusion to appear was Republicans’ only recourse after months of stonewalling. Fusion’s letter ludicrously claimed that Mr. Nunes’s subpoenas were invalid, which essentially forced the committee to show otherwise. It was a question of authority.
Florida Rep. Tom Rooney put the Fusion attendees through a series of questions not out of spite but to clarify finally just what topics the firm is refusing to talk about. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t provide protection against answering all questions. It only protects against providing self-incriminating evidence. It is therefore revealing that Fusion took the Fifth on every topic—from its relationship with British spook Christopher Steele, to the history of its work, to its role in the dossier.
The untold story is the Democrats’ unprecedented behavior. Mr. Rooney had barely started when committee staffers for Mr. Schiff interrupted, accused him of badgering witnesses, and suggested he was acting unethically. Jaws dropped. Staff do not interrupt congressmen. They do not accuse them of misbehavior. And they certainly do not act as defense attorneys for witnesses. No Democratic lawmakers had bothered to come to the hearing to police this circus, and Mr. Rooney told me that he “won’t be doing any more interviews without a member from the minority present.”
Private-sector lawyers also tend not to accuse congressmen of unethical behavior, as Mr. Levy did in his letter to Mr. Nunes. But Fusion’s legal eagle must feel safe. He’s former general counsel to the Senate’s minority leader, Chuck Schumer. He has also, I’m told by people familiar with the committee’s activities, more than once possessed information that he would have had no earthly means of knowing, since it was secret committee business. Consider that: Democratic members of Congress or their staff providing sensitive details of an investigation to a company to which the committee has given subpoenas.
The Washington narrative is focused on special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe. But the ferocious pushback and unseemly tactics from Democrats suggest they are growing worried. Maybe the real story is that Democrats worked with an opposition-research firm that has some alarming ties to Russia and potentially facilitated a disinformation campaign during a presidential election.
The media has its own conflict of interest, since it would prefer nobody find out about its years of, ahem, colluding with Fusion. Don’t expect any investigative reporting. But also don’t believe the stories about GOP harassment. The ferocity of the Fusion-Democrat campaign is proof Republicans are looking in the right place.
2) Hamas-Supporting CAIR Leader to Lecture Harvard Student Group
He has publicly endorsed Hamas and secretly schemed with the Palestinian terrorist group's supporters to thwart U.S.-led peace efforts.
Now Nihad Awad is preparing a prestigious lecture for Harvard University students on how “to inspire a deeper engagement with critical social issues on campus and in the wider community.” He is scheduled to be honored the first weekend of November with the Phillips Brooks House Association's Robert Coles “Call of Service” Lecture and Award. Past recipients of the honor include former Vice President Al Gore and Children's Defense Fund founder Marian Wright Edelman.
A Harvard release describes Awad as “a leading advocate for justice and mutual understanding, promoting dialogue and empowering American Muslims.”
That's extraordinarily generous, as Awad's words and deeds foster mutual enmity, not understanding; deception, not dialogue.
He was a member of a Muslim Brotherhood-created network of organizations operating in the United States with a mission to help Hamas politically and financially. Awad appears on the “Palestine Committee's” telephone list. Internal records seized by the FBI also show that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which Awad co-founded in 1994 and has served as its only executive director ever since, was a Palestine Committee branch.
Before creating CAIR, Awad ran a second Palestine Committee entity, called the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). The IAP served as a Hamas propaganda arm, publishing the terrorist group's communiques and articles advocating on its behalf. The FBI described his partner at both IAP and CAIR, Omar Ahmed, as a “leader within the Palestine Committee.”
Again, all of this is drawn from internal Muslim Brotherhood/Palestine Committee records seized by the FBI. They were entered into evidence in a federal terror financing trial involving the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. The foundation, another Palestine Committee entity, and five former officials all were convicted of illegally routing $12 million to Hamas through a network of charities.
All of this information is in the public domain.
So what prompted a Harvard student group – by definition smart, educated young people – to identify Nihad Awad as an inspirational paragon of service?
It turns out that the Phillips Brooks House Association's programming chair, Anwar Omeish, is the daughter of another advocate for Palestinian violence, former Muslim American-Society President Esam Omeish.
Omeish was forced to resign from a Virginia state immigration panel in 2007 after an exclusive IPT video showed him praising Palestinians for choosing the “the jihad way … to liberate your land.”
Awad was in Omeish's home for a 2010 political fundraiser where U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., accused Israel of controlling U.S. foreign policy.
We are First Amendment supporters, and the Phillips Brooks House Association is free to invite whomever it pleases. Whitewashing Nihad Awad's decades of work on behalf of terrorists and radicals, however, doesn't seem to be in the best interests of a group seeking inspiration on public service.
3) After Victory in Raqqa

Iran stands to benefit from a post-caliphate U.S. withdrawal.

By The Editorial Board
The Raqqa victory follows the fall of Mosul in Iraq in July and sweeps Islamic State from the territory it controlled since its rapid rise in 2013-2014. This is a crucial blow because the ability to control much of Syria and Iraq contributed to ISIS’s appeal as it recruited jihadists around the world. It seemed to be the vanguard of the Islamist future. Even as it burned apostates in cages, beheaded Christians and exterminated Yazidis, ISIS could boast that it was immune in its haven.
No more. As anti-ISIS coalition spokesman Colonel Ryan Dillon tweeted Tuesday, “Our partners have removed ISIS from 87% of territory they once held and liberated over 6.5 million people.”
This humanitarian and military success wouldn’t have been possible without U.S. air power, intelligence and special forces assisting the Kurdish and free Syrian troops. Russia, Iran and China did virtually nothing. Europe provided some planes, and Turkey let the U.S. Air Force fly from Incirlik. But make no mistake, this is another example of America policing the world. If not for U.S. planes and the Peshmerga, Kirkuk in Iraq would have fallen to ISIS—and maybe Baghdad too.
The tragedy is that it took so long. President Obama devised a long strategy that would put few U.S. soldiers on the ground. He didn’t want to admit that he had to re-intervene in Iraq after having pulled out in toto in 2011.
The long campaign allowed ISIS to recruit and plant seeds of terrorism around the world. Islamic State now has offshoots or allies in some 30 countries, and its acolytes have claimed credit for murders across Europe and even in the U.S. Defeating ISIS became a major campaign theme for Donald Trump, and his generals sped up the pace of the campaign upon taking office.
The question is what comes next? Islamic State fighters fleeing Raqqa and Mosul are migrating to Deir al-Zour province in eastern Syria, where the terror group still holds sway. Bashar Assad’s Syrian government forces, with the help of Russian air power and Iranian-backed troops, are moving quickly to secure control of the area. Colonel Dillon says the U.S. will let our allies in the Syrian Defense Forces decide whether to continue their fight, which seems to suggest that the Trump Administration is happy to declare victory and move on.
If the Trump Administration has a post-ISIS strategy, it isn’t obvious. And other forces are quickly filling the vacuum. The Iraqi Army is trading fire with the Kurds on the edge of Kirkuk and the Kurdish Regional Government. If the U.S. had a long-term arrangement for keeping some troops in Iraq, it would retain more influence against Iran and play a brokering role between the Kurds and Baghdad. We certainly owe some support for the Kurds who have been our best anti-ISIS allies.
As for Syria, if the U.S. withdraws, it’s only a matter of time before Iran and its allies assert control over the area once held by ISIS. This would amount to defeating Islamic State so Iran can dominate the region—from Tehran through Iraq to Western Syria and Lebanon.
Iran is also trying to establish control over southern Syria near the border with Israel. Mr. Trump gave that a boost with his July decision to abandon the Free Syrian Army and forge a cease fire with Russia in the south that has sent moderate Sunnis into the arms of the Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of al Qaeda. Israel has launched periodic bombing runs against Iran’s proxies, and a wider war is possible.
Mr. Trump campaigned to defeat ISIS, and he is loathe to make U.S. commitments abroad. But this month he also promised a new strategy to deter Iranian designs for regional hegemony. That strategy won’t work if the U.S. declares victory over ISIS and walks away.
Like Barack Obama, sooner or later Mr. Trump will be pulled back in—either by a reconstituted Sunni jihadist vanguard, or an Iranian threat to Jordan, the Kurds, Israel or the Sunni Arab States. The Trump Administration needs a policy to consolidate the victory against ISIS into a strategic gain for U.S. interests in the Middle East.
4) Smearing Ed Gillespie in Virginia

Could a Republican win in the only southern state carried by Clinton?

By The Editorial Board
Looks like it’s panic time for Democrats in Virginia. Naturally they are responding by playing the race card against Ed Gillespie, the Republican candidate for Governor.
Mr. Gillespie’s rival, Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam, enjoys a two-to-one cash advantage, and for most of the race he has also enjoyed a comfortable margin in the polls. That changed in the past week, with one new poll showing Mr. Gillespie within the margin of error and another putting him ahead by a point. Some stories report Mr. Northam’s internal polling shows Mr. Gillespie within striking distance.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. With Donald Trump loathed by 96% of Northam voters, the Democratic calculation has been that in an off-year all the party needed for victory was to tie Mr. Gillespie to Mr. Trump and make the campaign about the President.
But Mr. Gillespie avoided that trap and stressed state and local issues, since he’s running for a state job. The former head of the national GOP has hit Mr. Northam hard on the economy and proposed a 10% across the board tax cut. He’s also been running ads that focus on MS-13, a Central American gang whose members savagely murdered a 15-year-old girl in January in a Fairfax County park—and have been linked to other Virginia murders. The accusation is that Mr. Northam is soft on crime, having cast the deciding vote against a state bill that would have banned sanctuary cities.
Mr. Northam says he’s voted for tough prison sentences for gang members and accuses Mr. Gillespie of promoting “hatred and bigotry.” On Thursday Barack Obama campaigned for Mr. Northam, saying that “our democracy is at stake” in Virginia and that Mr. Gillespie is stoking fears in a way he called “damaging and corrosive.” For his part Mr. Gillespie says that his opponents are insulting law-abiding Latino immigrants by making no distinction between them and violent gang members.
Our guess is that what’s really freaking out Democrats is the increasingly real prospect of a GOP upset in the only southern state carried by Hillary Clinton last November. They know that three years ago Mr. Gillespie came within a whisker of defeating Sen. Mark Warner even as the national GOP failed to provide last-minute money.
Democrats have held the Virginia state house for four years—the current Governor is term-limited—which is an exception to the GOP dominance in state elections around the country in recent years. If Mr. Gillespie pulls this one out, the message will be that candidate quality matters and, even in a state trending left, Democrats need to stand for something more than opposition to Donald Trump.

It Is Not The Knee That Is The Problem. Will/Can France Wake Up? Sam Nunn. Hillary Let The Russian's Eat Our Yellow Cake.Piling On.

The human body is made up of many parts. Perhaps it is not the knee that is the problem.  Perhaps the problem relates to children born out of wedlock who are more likely to have a run in with the police.  Perhaps far too many NFL players contribute to the problem about which they complain.

Once again, I return to what I have said so many times before. The brilliant Senator from New York, Moynihan, warned about liberal social policies being devastating to the black family and he was derided by his own party.  Yet, his prediction proved prescient.(See 1 below.)
Will/can France wake up? (See 2 below.)
While I was working in Atlanta I had a relationship with Sam Nunn, Georgia's outstanding Senior Senator. He had graciously spoken for me on several occasions.

My last formal meeting with him was on Feb., 1, 1980 in his Atlanta Office in The Russell Building.

I overstayed my visit and, as I was leaving, I mentioned that I thought there was an angry undercurrent in our nation which would only get worse if we did not address some of our structural problems and spending etc.  Sam remarked I was always too pessimistic. Lamentably, I believe I proved to be right but that is for others to decide

I also got the impression Sam was not going to run again for several reasons:

First, he had voted against The Gulf War, was probably going to have opposition,could lose, would have to raise a lot of money, which he could, but which he found unpleasant.

Second, he referred to the 'Amy Factor."  He had two children soon to enter college and did not want them hounded by The Secret Service.

Third, he needed to raise money for his own needs.

Several years earlier I had begged him to run for president and told him I would devote 6 months to his campaign and did not want anything except for him to win.  He did not have the fire in his belly bu thanked me.

I did not always agree with Sam but I respected him, knew he loved The Senate and was an expert on military and nuclear matters.

I would love to hear Sam's thoughts today because I have little faith in the message we hear from the anti-Trump uninformed cacophony.

I believe we are partly in our current mess because we have been too cautious and feckless. We face leaders who are clever, maybe partly insane but understand history. They know the West suffers from a 'commerce over survival syndrome' and realize going nuclear gives them leverage. They have benefited from the mistakes of Obama, in my opinion, when it comes to N. Korea, the Iran Deal, Ukraine, Syria etc.

Though Sam is more  cautious and hesitant than my own hawkishness  his insights are based on his brilliant understanding of the issues and I would love for him to appear here at one of our SIRC sessions and I am going to approach him for that purpose.

Stay tuned. (See 3 below.)
Back to why Hillary lost.

And now we can add uranium to the yellow cake mix.(See 4 below.)
Whatever Trump does the alt-Left, Democrats, fascist radicals, liberals and progressives will be against. The latest attack from the mass media is his effort to console the family of an American soldier killed in action using an approach advised by Gen. Kelly who is also being attacked.

Then we have Trump being attacked by  Democrats and the mass media for proposing a tax cut and simplification plan that favors the rich and we have more attacks on Trump for his disagreement with the NFL.

I find the fact that Gen. Kelly decried the decline in American values and said it seemed little remained scared anymore, a legitimate rebuke.  I also find Trump, who is accused of playing politics and using the NFL to turn attention to other matters, equally interesting.  Perhaps Trump is trying to get America back on track with its values by starting with respect for our flag and anthem and what they historically stood for.

After all, if "America becomes great again" what is it becoming great for?  There has to be a return to what we once were, ie. a, more or less, united nation, one that strove to improve the lot of all its citizens, a people that respected our nation's laws and sought betterment for the world, at large,  and the list is also endless.

Eventually hatred of Trump will burn itself out as it continues to go further afield and unabated. Americans are a generally fair people and tire of seeing "piling on" whether on the field, where penalties are called, or in real life.
1)Things that make you go Hmmmmmm?

Children raised in fatherless homes, especially black children, are far more likely than children raised in two parent homes to engage in criminal behavior and thus, have contact with police.

Ergo when they father a child with a woman to whom they are not married - or at least living with - they are contributing to the problem against which these football players are taking a knee.

If you look at many of these players' records on out-of-wedlock children, you find that they are contributing significantly to the problem against which they are protesting.

For example, Antonio Cromartie has 12 children by 9 different women. Apparently the NFL had to shell out $500,000 before he could even play football for them.

Travis Henry has 11 children by 10 women, Willis McGahee has 9 children by 8 women,

Derrick Thomas has 7 children by 5 different women, Bennie Blades has 6 children by 6 women, 

Ray Lewis has 6 children by 4 women and Marshall Faulk has 6 children by 3 women.

Before these guys take a knee they should take a good look in the mirror.

It appears that their problem is not the knee. 
2) France: The New Collaborators

And How to Protect France, Europe, the West

  • "They are those who believe that Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and love and do not want to hear about an Islam of war, intolerance and hatred". — Michel Onfray, Le Figaro.

  • Le Figaro just devoted an entire issue to Muslim women in France who are trying to fight radical Islam. They are journalists, activists and writers who want equality between men and women, freedom of expression and sexual freedom. These Muslims clearly care more about the French Enlightenment than many non-Muslims who advocate appeasing Islamists.

  • In short, France needs to start fostering its side of this cultural war. Even if it is too late to recover all of the lost ground, if France does not start immediately but just limits itself to "manage" this "state of emergency", the lights turned off will not be only those of the Eiffel Tower, as happens after every terror attack, but also the lights of one of the greatest civilizations that history ever gave us.
A few days ago Abdelkader Merah, the brother of the Islamic terrorist who gunned down four Jews in Toulouse in 2012, went on trial, charged with complicity in terrorism. "Beginning in 2012, we entered an age of terrorism, where before we believed ourselves protected; it was a turning point in French history", said Mathieu Guidere, a professor of Islamic studies in Paris.

Since then, France has faced severe challenges by Islamic fundamentalists in Europe. French President Emmanuel Macron is now trying to manage a terrible situation: some 350 Islamic terrorists currently sit in prisons; 5,800 are under police surveillance; an additional 17,000 have been classified as a "potential threat", while since 2015, more than 240 lives have been lost to jihadi terrorists.

It seems that France has decided to accept what it might see as unavoidable: the Islamic takeover of parts of the country. This view is reflected in the very idea of a "state of emergency". France's lower house of parliament just passed a new anti-terrorism law, taking measures which have been in place for two years under a previous "state of emergency" and enshrining them into law.

After the murderous January of 2015 attack on the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, Macron's predecessor, President François Hollande, officially declared that "France is at war". Until now, however, the war has been fought only on one side, by the Islamic fundamentalists.

Although some scholars, such as Gilles Kepel, estimate that a "civil war" could break out in the future, there is a more realistic scenario: a country split along demographic and religious lines -- the secular French republic vs. the Islamic enclaves, the "French 100 Molenbeeks", from the name of Brussels' jihadist nest.

France used to be regarded as a jewel of civilization. One of France's great intellectuals, Alain Finkielkraut, recently said: "France has become for me a physical country, since its disappearance has entered into the order of the possibilities". Finkielkraut, a member of French civilization's holiest shrine, the Académie Française, was not thinking about the physical disappearance of French bakeries, boutiques or boulevards; he seemed rather to mean the disappearance of France as the capital of Western culture.

Under the assault of radical Islam, French civilization is eroding from within. And there are now large parts of French culture which are openly adding water to the mill of Islam. These have been just called by Le Figaro, "agents of influence of Islam". Intellectuals, journalists, politicians, those who consider the Muslims "the new oppressed".

The French essayist Michel Onfray recently called them "the new collaborators", like the French who stood with the Nazis:
"They are those who believe that Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and love and do not want to hear about an Islam of war, intolerance and hatred... The collaborator wants to see only the first [type of] Islam by believing that the second has nothing to do with Islam. These collaborators are the Islamo-leftists".
And they are winning the cultural war.

How can France prevent an Islamic takeover of parts of the country with fatal metastases for the entire European continent? "In order to disarm terrorists, we must disarm consciences", Damien Le Guay just wrote in a new book, entitled La guerre civile qui vient est déjà là ("The Coming Civil War Is Here Already").

France needs to stop talking with "non-violent Islamists", such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and instead to speak with the true liberal reformers, the internal dissidents of Islam. The daily newspaper Le Figaro recently devoted an entire issue to Muslim women in France who are trying to fight radical Islam. They are journalists, activists and writers who want equality between men and women, freedom of expression and sexual freedom. These Muslims clearly care more about the French Enlightenment than many non-Muslims who advocate appeasing Islamists.

France also needs to close its borders to mass immigration and select new arrivals on the basis of their willingness to retain the present culture of France, and to abandon multiculturalism in favor of respect for a plurality of faiths in the public space. That means rethinking the phony French secularism, which is aggressive against Catholicism but weak and passive with Islam.

France needs to close the Salafist mosques and ban the preaching of radical imams who incite Muslim communities against the "infidels" and urge Muslims to separate from the rest of the population.
France needs to prevent the arrival of propaganda from the dictatorial regimes of the Middle East: their mosques, satellite channels, pamphlets, libraries and books.

France needs ban polygamy; Islamic law, sharia; female genital mutilation (FGM); Islamic supremacism and forced marriages.

France needs to tighten its alliance with Israel, the one outpost of Western culture in a region that has rejected it. Israel is the West's only true ally in an area that is collapsing under the weight of radical Islam.
France needs to protect and renovate its Christian treasures. A few weeks ago, the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris promoted a fundraising project to save the building from decaying. The French authorities need to play their part and not forsake France's Christian heritage. France needs to send Islamists the message that France is a secular country, but not a de-Christianized one.

France needs to protect its Jewish community, which in ten years has lost 40,000 people who fled the country as a result of anti-Semitism met with indifference.

France needs to strengthen Western culture at schools, museums, universities and publishing houses: Enlightenment, as the foundation of freedom of conscience, expression and religion, separation of religion and state; and the Judeo-Christian tradition as the root of all the great achievements of European culture.

France needs to demand reciprocity. The right to build a mosque in France should be linked to the right of Christians in the Middle East to practice their faith: a mosque for a church. France has the political and diplomatic connections in North Africa and Middle East to impose this reciprocity. What is lacking is any political will.

In short, France needs to start fostering its side of this cultural war. Even if it is too late to recover all of the lost ground, if France does not start immediately but just limits itself to "manage" this "state of emergency", the lights turned off will not be only those of the Eiffel Tower, as happens after every terror attack, but also the lights of one of the greatest civilizations that history ever gave us

New York Times Launches ‘Strident’ Attack on Ambassador Haley for Iran Truthtelling

avatarby Ira Stoll

The New York Times cheerleading for Iran is spilling over from its editorial and op-ed pages into its news columns.

The Times recently published seven editorial or op-ed pieces in 12 days supporting the Iran nuclear deal that the Israeli government and its American friends oppose. But now you don’t even have to read the Times editorial or op-ed page to find pro-Iranian commentary: it’s available in the news columns, starting with a dispatch by Rick Gladstone that is just terribly tilted.

The Gladstone article appears under the online headline “U.S. Ambassador to U.N. Escalates Confrontation With Iran.” At least three times, it applies different standards to covering the Iran-Israel-US dispute than the Times applies in other situations.

The first double standard is a sexist one. Describing comments made at the UN by the American ambassador, Nikki Haley, the Times said “her remarks were among the most strident denunciations Ms. Haley has made of Iran since she became President Trump’s ambassador in January.”

My authoritative Webster’s Second unabridged dictionary defines “strident” as “creaking; harsh; grating.” When it is applied to liberal women, like, say, Hillary Clinton, the Times says it is a term that can signal sexism. Here, for example, is a 2008 column by Times public editor Clark Hoyt, discussing coverage of Clinton: “I asked my assistant, Michael McElroy, to run a database search for some key words that might indicate sexism in The Times — ‘shrill,’ ‘strident,’ ‘pantsuit’ and ‘giggle,’ among them.” A 2016 opinion piece in the Times by the president of Smith College, Kathleen McCartney, published after Clinton’s election loss, said, “If women stay boxed in by the norms of our gender — passive, gentle and congenial — we may not be viewed as leadership material. If women adopt the norms of a leader — commanding, decisive and assertive — we may be punished for being too bossy, too pushy, too strident, too ambitious, too scary.”

What the Times describes as “strident” coming from Haley strikes me as “principled” and “brave.” It’s another example, among too many, of the Times hurling negative adjectives at Israelis or at pro-Israel politicians or public figures.

I asked Gladstone on Twitter if he thought the term “strident” as he used it was sexist and he did not immediately respond.

The second double standard in the Times article has to do with foreign meddling in American politics. When it comes to alleged Russian interference in the American electoral process, the Times is up in arms about it, devoting editorials and front-page news articles to breathless, outraged accounts. Yet on the Iran nuclear deal, there is a different standard. The Timesmatter-of-factly reports that Britain, France, and Germany “have exhorted Congress to preserve the deal, which they say is doing exactly what had been intended — thwarting Iran’s ability to attain a nuclear weapon. They have warned that the United States is risking isolation, loss of credibility, and increased global insecurity if the deal unravels…China and Russia, veto-wielding members who are parties to the Iran nuclear agreement, are strong supporters of it.”

The British, French and German arguments about how “the United States is risking isolation” are taken at face value, without any kind of skepticism. Maybe the British and French and Germans don’t really care much about American security or credibility but do have their own strong commercial interests in commerce with Iran, such as the $4.8 billion deal recently made with Iran by the French oil company Total. Maybe the French, British and Germans don’t actually have that good a track record at protecting Jews from genocide of the sort that Iran is promising. Witness the horrors of the World War II era, including Vichy France and the British refusal to admit Jewish refugees into what was then the British Mandate of Palestine.

What, precisely, the British, Germans and French are doing in respect of the Iran deal and the American Congress would be a worthy topic for Times investigation. How are these foreigners wooing American lawmakers? With fancy diplomatic receptions? Expensive entertainment? Phone calls? Meetings? Meetings between Russians and Trump campaign officials generate extensive Times coverage and headlines. But an ongoing European pro-Iranian campaign aimed at the American legislature merits just a sentence or two, as if theTimes thinks it’s no big deal. The paper does mention a letter from “a group of 25 former foreign ministers.”
A similar double standard is on display with the Times reporting of the claim by Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Gholamali Khoshroo, that “’no country has done more than Iran’ in fighting Middle East terrorism.” When President Trump makes demonstrably false claims, the Times pats itself on the back for bluntly pointing them out, using terms like “falsely” or “lie.” “Times Editor Dean Baquet on Calling Out Donald Trump’s Lies,” was one Times headline. Yet when an Iranian ambassador — and Times op-ed contributor — makes the nonsensical and false claim that Iran is the world leader at “fighting Middle East terrorism,” the Times doesn’t call it out. The newspaper might have told readers that that Iran actually is, according to the US and Israeli governments and even American courts, a leading funder and mastermind of terrorism.

The Times writes that Haley injected Iran into “a Security Council meeting that had been meant to focus on developments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” The newspaper makes it sound like the two matters are unrelated, but how can one discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without mentioning Iran, which funds and encourages anti-Israel military and terrorist attacks? It’s the elephant in the room.

If anyone is being “strident” here, it’s not Ambassador Haley, but the New York Times. That newspaper aims to reap more than $1 million in revenues for its ailing business by offering readers a series of luxury tours of the Islamic Republic, guided by Times journalists and by former Obama administration officials who were involved in crafting the Iran nuclear deal. TheTimes has also started translating some of its editorial content into Farsi as a way to reach Iranian readers. This particular news article is one that would probably find a more appreciative audience over there than over here. It would fit right in not only with Iran’s foreign policy agenda, but also with the Islamic Republic’s retrograde attitudes toward women.
4) One woman’s response to Michelle Obama who told all women that they should have voted for Hillary because she is a woman and would represent women properly.
I still haven’t figured out why Hillary lost. Was it the Russians? or was it wikileaks ? or was it Podesta ? Or Comey ? or was it a sexual predator husband ? or was it her chief of staff's husband Wiener’s pictures of his penis ? was it a subpoena violation ? or was it the corrupt Clinton foundation ? or was it the congressional lies ? or was it the Bengazi bungle that cost several lives ? or was it pay for play ? or was it the travel gate scandal ? or was it the Whitewater scandal ? or the cattlegate scandal ? Or the Trooper Gate scandal ? Or was it the $15 million for Chelsea’s apt bought with foundation money ? Or Comey's investigation ? Or her husband’s interference with Loretta Lynch and the investigation ? Or was it stealing debate questions ? Was it forensically deleting 30,000 emails ? Was it the Seth Rich murder ? Was it calling half the USA deplorable ? Was it the underhanded immoral treatment of Bernie Sanders ? Was it the Vince Foster murder ? The Jennifer Flowers assault ? The Jennifer Flowers settlement ? The Paula Jones law suit ? The $800,000 Paula Jones settlement ? The lie about taking on sniper fire in Eastern Europe ? The impeachment ? The $6 billion she "lost" when in charge of the State dept. ? The $10 million she took for the pardon of Marc Rich ? Gee, I just can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems to be right in front of me.