++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DivestU
It’s no longer a secret that many college campuses today are nothing more than leftist indoctrination camps. But what can we do about it? Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, offers a simple and effective solution.
And:
I did not know Japanese were Democrats marching in lockstep - Japanese Precision Walking
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What progressives do not comprehend. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WSJ Editorials. (See 3 and 3a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More negative news regarding SPLC.
There is a God in heaven he just sometimes shows up late. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now the Mueller Investigation is over so Democrats feel compelled to turn their attention to attacking Mueller's conclusions because he did not call for further indictments and they cannot allow him to pull the rug out from under them. Why? For for four basic reasons: A) they invested so much political capital in hanging Trump before the fact, B) they cannot accept the fact that Trump won the 2016 election, C) Trump did not win the total vote but the electoral college and D) they hate Trump more than they care about the damage they have been doing to the nation.
If Democrats continue to act like spoiled, petulant children, as it appears they will, they will simply drive the knife further into their 2020 chances because Americans are basically fair minded and are not likely to condone harassment.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
When They Come for the Jews, They Won't Ask Questions
Albert Einstein observed, "If my theory of relativity is proven correct, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew." His words are relevant today because anti-Semitism, briefly dormant, is alive again — in Europe and around the world. This "new form" of anti-Semitism claims to be different from the traditional racial and religious images. Its adherents say they are anti-Zionist, not anti-Semites. But their accusations mirror The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Only recently, a Belgian parade featured a float of grotesquely distorted Orthodox Jews in religious garb, perched on bags of money, à la the art of Nazi Julius Streicher. What makes this sickening display even more alarming is the official sanction given to it by the Mayor of Aalst, Christoph D'Haese, who stated, "It's not up to the mayor to forbid such displays" and that the carnival participants had "no sinister intentions." No sinister intentions? Adolf Eichmann also had no sinister intentions when he organized transportation to the death camps. After all, he himself had no part in the actual killing process; they just did their jobs.
We have our own anti-Semitic scandal with newly elected congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D), a Somalian hijab-wearing Muslim who tweets anti-Semitic tropes "without sinister intentions" or retractions. Democrat leadership won't condemn, censure, or remove her from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, leftist Jews have defended her, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi excused her inadvertent offense. Yes, Congress passed a resolution condemning anti-Semitism and anti–everything else, without singling out Omar and the Jews. Thus, the Democratic Party is falling farther left toward Islamic ideology.
Feeding the fire, in January 2019, the Palestinian Authority introduced in the U.N. a motion to reinstate U.N. Resolution 3379, first adopted in 1975, later revoked in 1991, that declared that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." No other people anywhere has ever been so distinguished. When South Sudan gained its independence in 2011, after years of bloodshed, no one proposed calling its citizens' nationalism "racist." The Kurds of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey also aspire to their own national homeland, but no one has called them "racist." Only Israel and the Jews have that distinction.
Make no mistake: anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. The two terms have become conflated. If you agree that Israel is evil, apartheid, fascist, and repugnant, then the only possible resolution is its total destruction, its Jews exiled or exterminated.
Slowly, surely, irrevocably, methodically, step by step, the constraints are removed from the unacceptable — adjusting the population to the various forms of anti-Semitism, from rhetoric to parade floats to refusing to seriously address the issue, defending the perpetrators such as Nation of Islam minister Louis Farrakhan, who called Jews "termites" to leftist media silence. Anti-Semitism is becoming mainstream. Jews are fleeing the ever increasing attacks in France, once home to the world's third largest Jewish population. Prime Minister Theresa May laments that Jews may have no future in Great Britain as the Labor Party's overtly anti-Semitic Jeremy Corbyn seeks increased power. American Jews seem oblivious to the tsunami of anti-Semitism engulfing Europe and poised to take America with the same intensity.
"We are safe here." "We are a civilized, cultured country with laws that protect us." So are Britain and France. So was Germany during the 1920s and early '30s, when it was regarded the most advanced scientifically, culturally, and artistically — the home of Beethoven, Bach, Goethe, and Heine. German Jews were patriots; 100,000-plus served in the German army during WWI, 30,000 decorated for bravery, yet also murdered in gas chambers. Meanwhile, the uninformed American Jews embrace their ancestral ideology — a combined Progressivism, ultra-liberalism, neo-Marxism, and the Jewish "tikkun olam." They ardently believe that the main threat to Jews today comes from the neo-Nazis and the KKK. While it is true that these groups exist, they constitute only a small percentage of the population.
There are leftist Jewish and non-Jewish groups who would disagree with these statistics. They choose to lump all Republican conservatives and anyone who disagrees with them into the category of right-wing hate-monger extremists. They ignore the real threat today that comes from an unholy red-green alliance — the Marxist left and Islam.
Using identity politics, victimhood, social justice, racism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism, the radical left seeks power and control. The new doctrine of "intersectionality" allows leftists to affiliate with other groups they perceive as "oppressed." This is why you see anti-Israel and anti-Semitic signs displayed by just about every radical-left group at demonstrations throughout the country. Therefore, Ferguson, Missouri activists' placards read, "From Ferguson to Gaza, the struggle continues." The vast majority of American Jews who accepted these policies are unable or unwilling to comprehend that their Progressive, liberal, neo-Marxist ideology now seeks to destroy the Jewish state and the Jewish people.
American Jewry is at a crossroads. The vast majority of American Jews will continue to cling to their familiar ancestral belief system; it's all they know. To change now would be to deny everything their family members and they, themselves, have lived for. But before they bury their heads in the sand once again, they should at least hear these simple truths. When our enemies came for us during the Holocaust, they did not ask if we were Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or secular Jews. Neither were they interested in any past service we rendered for the state. We were Jews. That was all that mattered. If history repeats itself, when our enemies come for us once again, they will not ask if we are Israelis or Zionists. They will not care if we marched in Selma, Alabama; protested against apartheid in South Africa; supported equal rights for women; advocated for the LBGTQ community; and campaigned for Hillary or Bernie. It will matter that we are Jews.
Today's anti-Semitism, unleashed by the Left and Islamists, is so visceral, virulent, vile, vicious, and vitriolic that it can no longer be justified under the guise of anti-Zionism. In form, content, and message, it is exactly what was seen and heard during the heyday of the Third Reich. It is what made the Holocaust possible. What begins with a parade float in Belgium inevitably ends in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Treblinka. This is the fate our enemies want for us. This is why Tehran's Ayatollah Khamenei rejoices that more Jews are moving to Israel — for one grand target.
Meanwhile, most of the Jews will continue entrusting their safety to their religious and political leadership. They will continue to vote for, support, and finance the party and the ideology that will ultimately lead them to their own destruction and that of the state of Israel.
Vladimir Jabotinsky recognized that "[t]he Jew learns not by way of reason, but from catastrophe. He won't buy an umbrella merely because he sees clouds in the sky. He waits until he is drenched and catches pneumonia." History may yet prove that when it comes to the Jews, Jabotinsky was an optimist.
Caren Besner is a retired teacher who has written articles published by American Thinker, Sun-Sentinel, Jewish Journal, The Algemeiner, Jerusalem Post, IsraPost, The Jewish Voice, Independent Sentinel, San Diego Jewish World, The Times of Israel, Jewish Press, The Front Page, The Florida Veteran, Jootube, and The Moderate Voice.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
|
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
President Trump jumped into the debate over free speech on campus on Thursday, signing an executive order that seeks to protect students from the rampant “censorship and coercion” on campus. As is often the case with government, the intentions are better than the solution.
Administrators who fail to protect free speech on campus will now risk losing federal research and education funding from a dozen federal agencies, including the Department of Education and National Science Foundation. The executive order doesn’t apply to federal student aid, but universities could still lose billions.
In 2017 Berkeley canceled a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos after rioters threw Molotov cocktails, smashed windows and caused $100,000 in damage. At Middlebury College, protesters shut down a speech by American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray and assaulted professor Allison Stanger. Student activists at Evergreen State College patrolled the campus with sticks and baseball bats, menacing anyone who disagreed with them. Liberal professors who have used offending words in the context of lectures have faced class boycotts and demands from students for public apologies.
These episodes are in part a product of ideological conformity on campus. Mitchell Langbert of Brooklyn College recently surveyed 8,688 faculty at 51 top-ranked liberal-arts colleges. He found a mean ratio of one Republican for every 10.4 Democrats. Some 39% of colleges didn’t have one conservative prof. Sam Abrams of Sarah Lawrence College compared liberal to conservative administrators and found that in New England the ratio is 25 to one.
It’s no credit to political liberals that bias against open inquiry and discourse has risen on their watch. Today, about one in 10 universities limit controversial speech to so-called “free speech zones.” Bias Response Teams and Title IX officers often punish controversial speech as an act of discrimination. Administrators have issued advice on which Halloween costumes are offensive or which words students should be careful not to use lest they commit an offense against “inclusiveness.”
Mr. Trump has the right impulse that “taxpayer dollars should not subsidize anti-First Amendment institutions.” But do we really think giving federal bureaucrats enforcement powers will solve this problem?
3)
Trump and the College Censors
He nails the problem, but federal coercion isn’t the solution.
The Editorial Board
President Trump jumped into the debate over free speech on campus on Thursday, signing an executive order that seeks to protect students from the rampant “censorship and coercion” on campus. As is often the case with government, the intentions are better than the solution.
Administrators who fail to protect free speech on campus will now risk losing federal research and education funding from a dozen federal agencies, including the Department of Education and National Science Foundation. The executive order doesn’t apply to federal student aid, but universities could still lose billions.
Mr. Trump deserves credit for throwing a presidential spotlight on a serious problem. Students routinely demand that administrators shut down speech they regard as bigoted or so offensive that it shouldn’t be heard. Their silencing strategies have included vandalism and physical intimidation. They have targeted invited speakers and resident professors.
These episodes are in part a product of ideological conformity on campus. Mitchell Langbert of Brooklyn College recently surveyed 8,688 faculty at 51 top-ranked liberal-arts colleges. He found a mean ratio of one Republican for every 10.4 Democrats. Some 39% of colleges didn’t have one conservative prof. Sam Abrams of Sarah Lawrence College compared liberal to conservative administrators and found that in New England the ratio is 25 to one.
It’s no credit to political liberals that bias against open inquiry and discourse has risen on their watch. Today, about one in 10 universities limit controversial speech to so-called “free speech zones.” Bias Response Teams and Title IX officers often punish controversial speech as an act of discrimination. Administrators have issued advice on which Halloween costumes are offensive or which words students should be careful not to use lest they commit an offense against “inclusiveness.”
Mr. Trump has the right impulse that “taxpayer dollars should not subsidize anti-First Amendment institutions.” But do we really think giving federal bureaucrats enforcement powers will solve this problem?
It’s not clear what the new federal standards will be or what would constitute a school’s violation. Would any controversial speech not specifically enumerated by the feds as protected become fair game for the school’s designated speech-compliance officer? Recall how the Obama Administration’s Title IX directives on sexual abuse created an impossible morass. Why do the same to free speech? And don’t expect speech enforcement under a President Trump to look the same when a President Warren or Booker is in charge.
Given these risks, there’s no need for such sweeping action. Under the Trump Administration, the Justice Department already has filed statements of interest in support of students who have filed civil suits over free-speech violations at the University of Iowa, the University of Michigan, Georgia Gwinnett College and elsewhere. Wise presidents like Mitch Daniels at Purdue have stressed the importance of open debate, as has the University of Chicago.
In a better world more college administrators would show similar courage, but the market is already penalizing the cowards. Funding and enrollment plummeted at the University of Missouri and Evergreen State after administrators rolled over to student demands.
In contrast, after the University of Wyoming experienced a politically correct assault on its new marketing slogan, “The world needs more cowboys,” it pushed back and saw a surge in T-shirt sales and recruitment leads. Mr. Trump could also use his Twitter feed for the productive purpose of calling out anti-free-speech episodes on campus.
When speech or the free exchange of ideas is restricted on campus, the quality of education surely suffers. It’s a problem, but not one the federal government can solve.
3a) Israel’s Golan Heights
U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty sees the Middle East as it is.
By The Editorial Board
President Trump made new U.S. policy on Thursday, as he often does these days, with a tweet recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights on the border with Syria. This time his tweet was based on more than personal impulse and makes sense for American and Israeli interests.
Israel captured most of the Golan from Syria in the 1967 war and formally annexed it in 1981. The rest of the world has never recognized Israel’s control, and U.S. negotiators over the decades have seen it as land Israel would return to Syria as part of a broader peace settlement.
That scenario has become even more unlikely amid the chaos of Syria’s long civil war. A country controlled by the Assad family has become a fractured cauldron of jihadist militias and Iranian proxies. If Israel didn’t control the Golan, the heights might now be dominated by Hezbollah or perhaps Islamic State. Either reality is unacceptable to Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been lobbying Mr. Trump to recognize Israel’s control of the Golan, and the timing of Mr. Trump’s tweet might help Mr. Netanyahu with elections looming. But annexation of the Golan isn’t controversial in Israel. Arab countries will object, but that will fade as anger did when Mr. Trump moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
Recognizing the Golan sends a message to Russia, Syria’s patron, that the U.S. recognizes that the civil war has changed Syrian reality. There is no returning to a nonexistent status quo ante. It also tells the Palestinians that a return to pre-1967 borders is no longer realistic. They will have to allow some Israeli security presence in what they call the “occupied territories” if they want a two-state solution in Palestine.
Mr. Trump’s guiding foreign-policy doctrine of “principled realism” can be hard to discern or define amid his policy-by- Twitter , but recognizing the Golan is principled in its support for an ally and realistic in recognizing the Middle East as it is.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Leftist SPLC Exposed As a Scam
4) Leftist SPLC Exposed As a Scam
The SPLC has been exposed as a scam by a former staffer, who spilled all about the shady practices of his former employer. The Daily Caller reports:
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a “highly profitable scam” that “never lived up to the values it espoused,” according to former SPLC staffer Bob Moser.The New Yorker on Thursday published a scathing essay from Moser, now a Rolling Stone reporter, accusing the left-wing non-profit of “ripping off donors” while turning a blind eye to sexual harassment and racial discrimination within its own ranks.The SPLC fired co-founder Morris Dees on March 13 over unspecified conduct issues.The SPLC announced Dees’ firing after roughly two dozen SPLC employees previously signed a letter to the organization’s leadership expressing their alarm at “allegations of mistreatment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and racism,” The Los Angeles Times reported.
The SPLC’s credibility seriously damaged by these scandals, and will hopefully be the end of their slandering of conservatives.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment