Thursday, February 2, 2017

Gabriel and Horowitz. California Campus Allows Riots To Ban Free Speech. Did Liberals Create The condition of Which They Complain? Trump and Ambiguity.

Brigette Gabriel has had a personal experience with Islam and has spent most of her adult life refuting it:

I submit, Gabrielle is the female equivalent of David Horowitz who was a radical liberal,in the '60's, saw the light and converted to conservatism.(See 1 below.)
Why not ban those who ban free speech on California Campuses. (See 2 below.)
Ahmari suggests liberals are to blame for that against which they protest. Why?  Because they closed their eyes to reality and allowed the vacuum to be filled in a manner they do no like and become resolved in a way they not only did not contemplate but also actually allowed/helped to occur..  (See 3 below.)
With Trump, ambiguity can become a daily occurrence and that can make for market jitters but it also can be a refreshing change from the Obama format of always broadcasting in advance and then caving.  (See 4 below.)

MILO thrashes heckling Muslim women with the cold hard truth

Mainstream Muslim culture is a massive threat to all women living under it’s tutelage.
MILO is the pro-Muslim’s worst nightmare.
He doesn’t hold any punches and cannot be attacked for being close-minded or a typical anti-liberal as he is an avowed member of the gay community.
His sharp language brings liberals to their knees as they are scared to confront him for appearing to being anti-gay.
In many ways, he is one of the best Trump-supporting people as he has the best chance of opening up the minds of close-minded young liberal people.

Trump’s Immigration Ban Based on Obama Law

President Trump and former President Barack Obama - (Getty Images)

From the way New Yorkers behaved over the weekend at JFK Airport, you would think that President Donald Trump had rounded up 3 million American Muslims into a collection of brutal concentration camps. This was pretty much how the media portrayed it.
But despite an admittedly rocky start to Trump’s executive order barring immigration from several terrorism havens, the truth is that this order was largely based on legislation already signed by…President Barack Obama.
Much like Obama never gets the reputation of Deporter-in-Chief outside Hispanic activist circles, the media is not mentioning that he signed a law in 2015 restricting immigration from the very same countries included in Trump’s Friday order. Over objections from the ACLU, President Obama signed the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act.
The U.S. Visa Waiver Program allows people from nearly 40 countries around the world to enter the United States without a visa as long as the visit is scheduled for less than 90 days. In the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack, President Obama signed legislation that eliminated that special privilege for anyone who had visited Iran, Iraq, Syria, or Sudan for the past five years. Two months later, the Obama administration added three more countries to the list: Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. Add them all up and what do you get? The very same countries on Trump’s immigration ban. – Oh, but he just picked countries where he didn’t have any business ties, don’t you know?
Obama supporters will point out that removing a special visa waiver is different from an immigration ban, and they aren’t wrong. Still, migrating/visiting the U.S. is in itself a special privilege. It is not a constitutional right of every human being to come to the United States, despite what you may hear from the left. And every president, Republican or Democrat, in our history has understood this.
Unfortunately, the media has brainwashed many Americans into believing that Trump is this racist monster whose every move is dangerously insane. No president in history has been treated like this. This goes beyond the usual liberal bias. This is the Last Stand of the Establishment – the corporate/political behemoth that does not want to see power flow back to the American citizen. And they will lie their asses off to keep that from happening.
3)How Liberals Killed the Freedom of Movement
By suppressing debate about Islam, nationalism and terror, the left set the stage for today’s backlash.
By Sohrab Ahmari

Donald Trump’s proposed border fence and his order to suspend all immigration from terror-producing countries are dramatic and consequential. But they’re also palliative symbols. The message: Your days of anxiety are behind you. We will be a coherent nation once more.

Politicians across the West are saying the same thing in what is shaping up to be the widest rollback of the freedom of movement in decades.
It’s not just right-wing nationalists like Marine Le Pen in France or Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. Centrists get it, too. Some, like Angela Merkel, are still-reluctant restrictionists. Others, like Theresa May, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and French presidential aspirant François Fillon, are more forthright. All have wised up to the popular demand for drastically lower immigration rates.

The irony is that freedom of movement is unraveling because liberals won central debates—about Islamism, social cohesion and nationalism. Rather than give any ground, they accused opponents of being phobic and reactionary. Now liberals are reaping the rewards of those underhanded victories.

Liberals refused to acknowledge the link between Islamist ideology and terrorism. For eight years under President Obama, the U.S. government refused even to say “Islamism,” claiming ludicrously that U.S. service members were going to war against “violent extremism.” Voters could read and hear about jihadists offering up their actions to Allah before opening automatic fire on shoppers and blasphemous cartoonists.

Mr. Obama’s linguistic exertions didn’t repress the truth. They merely opened the space for others to express it—and sometimes to grossly distort it, by suggesting, for example, that all 1.4 billion Muslims are terrorists or sympathizers and should be kept out.

The left also largely “won” the debate over Muslim integration. For too many liberals, every Islamist atrocity was cause to fret about an “Islamophobic” backlash. When a jihadist would go boom somewhere, pre-emptive hashtags expressing solidarity with threatened Muslims were never far behind.

But liberals don’t bother nearly as much about the pathologies in Muslim communities, and in Islamic civilization itself, that were producing so much carnage. Some would sooner abandon their own feminist and gay-rights orthodoxies than criticize what imams in Paris and London suburbs were telling their congregations.
Amnesty International cozied up to the British-Pakistani radical Islamist Moazzam Begg despite his fawning interviews with the al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki. When Amnesty staffer Gita Sahgal went public with her objections in 2010, the organization suspended her and argued in a press release that “jihad in self-defense” wasn’t “antithetical to human rights.” The Islamist philosopher Tariq Ramadan became the toast of New York intellectuals, though he refused to call for an outright end to the Islamic practice of stoning adulterers.

By contrast, liberal writers sneered at the Somali-born human-rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an “Enlightenment fundamentalist.” Brandeis disinvited her to speak on campus in 2014. The Southern Poverty Law Center last year branded her an “extremist,” along with the counterterror campaigner Maajid Nawaz.

Liberals thus empowered the most illiberal elements of Muslim communities while marginalizing reformers. Is it any wonder that many voters came to see Muslims as sources of danger and social incohesion?

Liberals, finally, “won” the debate over nationalism. In Europe especially and the U.S. to a lesser extent, they treated nationalism and the West’s Judeo-Christian heritage as relics of a dark past. For European Union leaders, the ideal political community was an ever-expanding set of legal procedures, commercial links and politically correct norms. Citizens could fill in the blanks with whatever cultural content they preferred—preferably “Europe” itself.

But norms and laws didn’t inspire political attachment. The hunger for authentic identity drove young European Muslims to the Islamist underground. Among native Europeans, the far right came by default to own nationalism and nationhood. The divergence proved poisonous.

Judging by their breathless editorials and social-media outbursts, leading liberals still blame this reversal in political fortunes on a paroxysm of collective fear and hatred, the forces they’ve always sought to banish. Yet the main culprits for the popular revolt against liberalism are liberals themselves. If liberal ideals are to survive the current backlash, the West needs sharper, more hard-headed liberals.

Mr. Ahmari is a Journal editorial writer in London.
White House puts Iran 'on notice' in stark warning over missile tests

"The Trump Administration condemns such actions by Iran that undermine security, prosperity, and stability throughout and beyond the Middle East and place American lives at risk."
WASHINGTON – The Trump administration sent a stark message to Tehran on Wednesday over Iran’s continued missile tests and support for proxy militia groups battling Saudi Arabian forces.

Speaking publicly for the first time since Donald Trump became US president, his national security adviser, former lieutenant-general Michael Flynn, said the White House was putting Iran “on notice,” and vowed to act decisively in response.

“Recent Iranian actions, including a provocative ballistic missile launch and an attack against a Saudi naval vessel conducted by Iran-supported Houthi militants, underscore what should have been clear to the international community all along about Iran’s destabilizing behavior across the Middle East,” Flynn said, calling the test a violation of international law.

The UN Security Council met on Tuesday to review the matter and confirmed that the test occurred.

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley called the test “unacceptable,” and her UK counterpart, Matthew Rycroft, warned that it was a sign Tehran had not moderated since world powers signed an international nuclear agreement with Iran in 2015.

Iran continues to threaten US friends and allies in the region,” Flynn said. “The Obama administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions – including weapons transfers, support for terrorism and other violations of international norms.

The Trump administration condemns such actions by Iran that undermine security, prosperity and stability throughout and beyond the Middle East and place American lives at risk.”

Flynn noted that Trump has, in the past, characterized the nuclear deal as “weak and ineffective.” Trump’s national security cabinet members have thus far signaled an interest in strictly policing the nuclear accord, as opposed to scrapping it.

In a briefing with reporters, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the US was “not going to sit by and not act” as Iran continued what it characterizes as malign activity.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to focus on the threat posed by Iran in his February 15 meeting with Trump at the White House.

“Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened,” Flynn warned.

“As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.”

"The Trump Administration condemns such actions by Iran that undermine security, prosperity, and stability throughout and beyond the Middle East and place American lives at risk."

No comments: