Fidel Castro’s Brutal Dictatorship: Armando Valladares & Cuban Dissidents Tortured | National ReviewThe Dictator and the Dissident Armando Valladares (image via Becket Fund) PRINT ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by LEE HABEEB November 28, 2016 1:33 PM Armando Valladares’s story says more about Fidel Castro than any obituary could. It’s a part of the Fidel Castro story Michael Moore and Sean Penn won’t tell, or don’t know. It’s a story you certainly didn’t hear from the media as they endlessly opined about Castro’s “complicated” legacy. But it reveals so much more about the dictator than they ever could. The year was 1959. Castro, a young revolutionary, had seized Cuba’s imagination with talk of democracy and a new vision for its people. It didn’t take long, however, for one follower to discover Castro’s true nature, and for Castro to run up against the limits of his own earthly power. Armando Valladares may not have been the first man to challenge the Cuban dictator, but he eventually became the best known. By his own account, the young Valladares was an early supporter of Castro’s revolution, taking a job in the Office of the Ministry of Communications for the Revolutionary Government, where he worked as a postal clerk. But all of that changed when he was asked to put a communist slogan on his desk. It comprised three simple words: “I’m with Fidel.” He refused. A young artist and poet who also happened to be a Christian, Valladares understood the meaning of the request. What he did not know, and could not know, was how far his own government would go to bend him to its will. Soon after his refusal to comply, Valladares was arrested by political police at his parents’ home. Faced with trumped up charges of terrorism — a favorite tactic of the Castro regime for silencing dissent — he was given a 30-year sentence. Valladares would spend time in different prison camps for the next 22 years. The first, La Cabaña, forged some of the very worst memories. “Each night, the firing squad executed scores of men in its trenches,” he told the Becket Fund, which last year honored him with its Canterbury Prize, given annually to a person who embodies an unfailing commitment to religious freedom. “We could hear each phase of the executions, and during this time, these young men — patriots — would die shouting ‘Long live Christ, the King. Down with Communism!’ And then you would hear the gunshots. Every night there were shootings. Every night. Every night. Every night.” Years passed, and the communists fixated on enrolling prisoners in reeducation programs. Valladares, still early in his sentence, was offered the chance at “political rehabilitation” but refused to comply. He was sent to an even more brutal prison, and the government ramped up its efforts to break his spirit. Armando Valladares may not have been the first man to challenge the Cuban dictator, but he eventually became the best known. “I spent eight years locked in a blackout cell, without sunlight or even artificial light. I never left. I was stuck in a cell, ten feet long, four feet wide, with a hole in the corner to take care of my bodily needs. No running water. Naked. Eight years,” Valladares recalled. “All of the torture, all of the violations of human rights, had one goal: break the prisoner’s resistance and make them accept political rehabilitation. That was their only objective.” After nearly a decade, prison officials adjusted their terms. If Armando would simply sign a document renouncing his beliefs and embracing Communism, he could return to his family. The choice was simple: physical freedom or spiritual liberty. “For many people, it wasn’t practical to resist. Better to sign the paper and leave,” Valladares said. “But for me, signing that paper would have been spiritual suicide.” So how did Valladares do it? How did his faith and spirit endure during those years alone in prison? “In the beginning, I embraced God perhaps for fear of losing my life, since I was in danger of being executed,” he told the National Association of Evangelicals in 1983. But hearing those men proclaim their love for Christ just prior to their executions moved him in ways he could not have imagined: I realized then that Christ could be of help. Not merely by saving my life, but also giving my life, and my death if that was the case, an ethical sense that would dignify them. I believe that it was at that particular moment, and not before, when Christianity, besides being a religious faith, became a way of life that in my own circumstances resulted in resistance — resisting torture, resisting confinement, resisting hunger, and even resisting the constant temptation to join the political rehabilitation and indoctrination programs that would end my predicament. The battle lines were drawn for Valladares: the material life versus the spiritual life. Castro and his earthly ambitions of a utopian dictatorship versus Christ and His promise of everlasting life for those who follow Him. RELATED: Armando Valladares, Witness to Truth Castro fought hard, desperate to strip Valladares of his most valuable possession: his sense of morality. But once again, his faith proved up to the task. “To be Christian under those circumstances meant that I could not hate my tormentors; it meant to maintain the belief the suffering was meaningful because if man gives up his moral and religious values, or if he allows himself to be carried by a desire to hate or for revenge, his existence loses all meaning,” he explained. Valladares noted often that he was not alone in his spiritual battle with Castro. His fellow Christians showed him the way: I saw dozens of Christians suffering and dying — committed, like myself, to maintaining their dignity and their richness of spirit beyond misery and pain. I remember with emotion Gerardo Gonzalez, a Protestant preacher, who knew by heart whole Biblical passages and who would copy them by hand to share with his brothers in belief. I cannot forget this man whom all of us called “Brother in Faith.” He interposed himself before a burst of machine-gun fire to save other prisoners who were beaten in what is known now as the Massacre of Boniato Prison. Gerardo repeated, before dying, the words said by Christ on the cross: “Forgive them, Father for they know not what they do.” And all of us, when the blood had dried, struggled with our consciences to attain something so difficult yet so beautiful: the ability to forgive our enemies. Valladares’s God, too, showed him the way and the light. “There are no impossibilities for those who love and seek God,” he said. “The more ferocious the hate of my jailers, the more my heart would fill with love and a faith that gave me strength to support everything; but not with the conformist or masochistic attitude; rather, full of joy, internal peace and freedom because Christ walked with me in my cell.” While in prison, Valladares began to write poetry denouncing his oppressors. Without paper or pen, he wrote on cigarette papers and onion skins, using his blood as ink. His wife, whom he met in prison, smuggled the poems to the outside world and they became his first book, From My Wheelchair, released in 1977. “There is nothing dictators fear more than artists, especially poets,” Valladares wrote. In “Life Was Not Enough,” dedicated to Pedro Luis Boitel, whom he called “an unforgettable brother,” he expanded on the thought: Life was not enough for you in that torture chamber but there were rifle butts and boots to spare buckets of urine and excrement thrown in your face. They could not forgive you your labors of light and words they feared your smile the eloquence of your hands they feared the fertility of your ideas and your manner of being silent they feared your life, Pedro, and they murdered you . . . Today, Valladares paints rather than writing poems. His pictures are not scenes of torture and darkness, but vibrant landscapes that depict his soul — the refuge where he survived Castro’s war on his body and his conscience. But in his speech last year to the Becket Fund, he stressed that his experience had taught him the need for vigilance in defense of freedom: Just as there is a very short distance between the U.S. and Cuba, there is a very short distance between a democracy and a dictatorship where the government gets to decide what to do, how to think, and how to live. And sometimes your freedom is not taken away at gunpoint but instead it is done one piece of paper at a time, one seemingly meaningless rule at a time, one small silencing at a time. Never allow the government — or anyone else — to tell you what you can or cannot believe or what you can and cannot say or what your conscience tells you to have to do or not do. Castro is dead, and there will be countless biographies dedicated to burnishing his legacy. But the best way to understand his life is to appreciate the life of one Cuban dissident he changed forever. Armando Valladares’s story may never be required reading in Cuban schools, but it needs to be read in every American school. Call it “The Dictator and The Dissident.” It’s quite a yarn. — Lee Habeeb is the vice president of content for Salem Radio Network. He is also the host of Our American Stories. He lives in Oxford, Miss.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442515/fidel-castro-brutal-dictatorship-armando-valladeres-cuban-dissidents-tortured?utm_source=nr&utm_medium=facebook%3Futm_content%3Dh
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Monday, November 28, 2016
Make No Mistake: Fidel Castro Was a Horrible Person | The Beacon
Make No Mistake: Fidel Castro Was a Horrible Person | The BeaconMake No Mistake: Fidel Castro Was a Horrible Person
By Abigail R. Hall Blanco • Sunday November 27, 2016 3:09 PM PST • 1 Comment
62871096 - portrait of fidel castro in yangiyer, uzbekistan, may 11, 1963.Cuba’s former dictator, Fidel Castro, has died at the age of 90.
When I woke up on Saturday morning to see the news, I was surprised by the reaction of many friends on social media, as well as the national media. The New York Times headline read, “Cuban Revolutionary Who Defied U.S., Dies at 90.” Al Jazeera’s headline read, “Castro: The Making of a Legend.” Others on Facebook and Twitter seemed saddened by the death of a “revolutionary.” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called Castro a “remarkable leader.”
Let’s be clear—Fidel Castro was not a good person.
His ideas were not good.
His policies destroyed the liberties of millions of Cubans.
His government is responsible for the murders of tens of thousands of people.
His “legacy” should be one of pure shame.
I won’t delve into the history of Fidel Castro’s revolution in Cuba—but those lamenting the loss of such a “great leader” would do well to crack open a history book, or at least spend a solid 90 seconds reading Wikipedia. As opposed to restoring the freedoms lost under the U.S.-backed dictator that Castro ousted, he crushed them.
In his first decade in power, Castro’s government instituted a variety of “progressive” reforms. His backers point to programs aimed at literacy and equality. Filmmaker Michael Moore foolishly lauded Cuba’s medical system in the the film Sicko. (For a discussion of how the Cuban healthcare system actually works, see here.)
What these individuals tend to ignore, however, is the cadre of human rights abuses inflicted by the hands of the Castro regime. Systematic mass executions of ex-government officials, the internment of homosexuals, and the implementation of mass government surveillance are all a part of the Castro story. This is not to mention the myriad of show trials, executions, and punishment of any dissent from average citizens, writers, academics, journalists, and artists.
Castro’s body count varies depending on who you ask. The Cuba Archive Project has one of the most reliable data sets. The group’s records cover a period from May 1952 to the present. In order to be counted, the stories of each victim must be verified by two independent sources. To date, the Archive attributes some 10,723 deaths to the regime. Including nearly 1,000 deaths linked to “disappearances,” more than 2,000 extrajudicial killings, and over 3,100 people killed by firing squad. Some 100 minor children have been murdered by the regime via beating, the withholding of medical attention, and other methods. In addition to these killings, some 78,000 people are estimated to have died while trying to flee the country.
To those unconvinced by mass murder that Castro was a lamentable dictator, consider his government’s practice of forced blood donation. This can range from taking a person’s blood forcibly without their consent to coercing individuals to offer their blood.
The Cuba Archive has credible information on at least 11 cases of forced blood extraction prior to execution. According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of States (OAS) 1967 report regarding the practice at Havana’s La Cabaña prison, an average of seven pints of blood were forcibly taken from prisoners on their way to be executed, causing “cerebral anemia and a state of unconscious paralysis.” (For perspective, the average adult has around 10 pints of blood in their body.) Victims would then be taken to the firing squad on a stretcher.
The Cuban government would then sell the blood to the North Vietnamese for around $50 a pint.
Today, Cubans are required to “donate” blood before even minor medical procedures. Year-round media campaigns encourage citizens to donate in an effort to “save lives.” In reality, the Cuban government has kept up with its history of exporting blood products. According to Cuba’s Oficina Nacionel de Estadísticas (National Office of Statistics), the country exported some $622.5 million—an average of $31 million per year—of blood products between 1995 and 2014. (It’s worth noting that these numbers may very well be understated. Other products made from blood derivatives may not be classified as blood products when exported.)
In the event that mass murder and force blood donation don’t quite do the trick, see the following.
Click here for a general discussion of the regime’s atrocities.
Click here for information on the use of “Military Units to Aid Production”—forced labor camps for conscientious objectors, homosexuals, and other “enemies of the state.”
Click here to learn about the sinking of the 13 de Marzo tugboat, which killed 41 fleeing Cubans, including 10 children.
Click here for a breakdown of the murders committed by the Castro regime between 1959 and January 2012.
When celebrating “revolutionary” thinkers, we would do well to actually know what it is that we are discussing. When it comes to Castro, those mourning his death reveal their complete and utter ignorance of history or show their total lack of appreciation for even the most basic human rights—including life.
Fidel Castro died peacefully as an old man. The same cannot be said for the thousands of Cubans who died violently and prematurely at the hands of his regime.
Tags: Communism, dictator, executions, firing squads, government surveillance, human rights, labor camps, Liberty, Marxism, onscientious objector, Poverty, show trials, Single Payer Healthcare, Slavery, Socialism, Soviet Union, tyranny
By Abigail R. Hall Blanco • Sunday November 27, 2016 3:09 PM PST • 1 Comment
62871096 - portrait of fidel castro in yangiyer, uzbekistan, may 11, 1963.Cuba’s former dictator, Fidel Castro, has died at the age of 90.
When I woke up on Saturday morning to see the news, I was surprised by the reaction of many friends on social media, as well as the national media. The New York Times headline read, “Cuban Revolutionary Who Defied U.S., Dies at 90.” Al Jazeera’s headline read, “Castro: The Making of a Legend.” Others on Facebook and Twitter seemed saddened by the death of a “revolutionary.” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called Castro a “remarkable leader.”
Let’s be clear—Fidel Castro was not a good person.
His ideas were not good.
His policies destroyed the liberties of millions of Cubans.
His government is responsible for the murders of tens of thousands of people.
His “legacy” should be one of pure shame.
I won’t delve into the history of Fidel Castro’s revolution in Cuba—but those lamenting the loss of such a “great leader” would do well to crack open a history book, or at least spend a solid 90 seconds reading Wikipedia. As opposed to restoring the freedoms lost under the U.S.-backed dictator that Castro ousted, he crushed them.
In his first decade in power, Castro’s government instituted a variety of “progressive” reforms. His backers point to programs aimed at literacy and equality. Filmmaker Michael Moore foolishly lauded Cuba’s medical system in the the film Sicko. (For a discussion of how the Cuban healthcare system actually works, see here.)
What these individuals tend to ignore, however, is the cadre of human rights abuses inflicted by the hands of the Castro regime. Systematic mass executions of ex-government officials, the internment of homosexuals, and the implementation of mass government surveillance are all a part of the Castro story. This is not to mention the myriad of show trials, executions, and punishment of any dissent from average citizens, writers, academics, journalists, and artists.
Castro’s body count varies depending on who you ask. The Cuba Archive Project has one of the most reliable data sets. The group’s records cover a period from May 1952 to the present. In order to be counted, the stories of each victim must be verified by two independent sources. To date, the Archive attributes some 10,723 deaths to the regime. Including nearly 1,000 deaths linked to “disappearances,” more than 2,000 extrajudicial killings, and over 3,100 people killed by firing squad. Some 100 minor children have been murdered by the regime via beating, the withholding of medical attention, and other methods. In addition to these killings, some 78,000 people are estimated to have died while trying to flee the country.
To those unconvinced by mass murder that Castro was a lamentable dictator, consider his government’s practice of forced blood donation. This can range from taking a person’s blood forcibly without their consent to coercing individuals to offer their blood.
The Cuba Archive has credible information on at least 11 cases of forced blood extraction prior to execution. According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of States (OAS) 1967 report regarding the practice at Havana’s La Cabaña prison, an average of seven pints of blood were forcibly taken from prisoners on their way to be executed, causing “cerebral anemia and a state of unconscious paralysis.” (For perspective, the average adult has around 10 pints of blood in their body.) Victims would then be taken to the firing squad on a stretcher.
The Cuban government would then sell the blood to the North Vietnamese for around $50 a pint.
Today, Cubans are required to “donate” blood before even minor medical procedures. Year-round media campaigns encourage citizens to donate in an effort to “save lives.” In reality, the Cuban government has kept up with its history of exporting blood products. According to Cuba’s Oficina Nacionel de Estadísticas (National Office of Statistics), the country exported some $622.5 million—an average of $31 million per year—of blood products between 1995 and 2014. (It’s worth noting that these numbers may very well be understated. Other products made from blood derivatives may not be classified as blood products when exported.)
In the event that mass murder and force blood donation don’t quite do the trick, see the following.
Click here for a general discussion of the regime’s atrocities.
Click here for information on the use of “Military Units to Aid Production”—forced labor camps for conscientious objectors, homosexuals, and other “enemies of the state.”
Click here to learn about the sinking of the 13 de Marzo tugboat, which killed 41 fleeing Cubans, including 10 children.
Click here for a breakdown of the murders committed by the Castro regime between 1959 and January 2012.
When celebrating “revolutionary” thinkers, we would do well to actually know what it is that we are discussing. When it comes to Castro, those mourning his death reveal their complete and utter ignorance of history or show their total lack of appreciation for even the most basic human rights—including life.
Fidel Castro died peacefully as an old man. The same cannot be said for the thousands of Cubans who died violently and prematurely at the hands of his regime.
Tags: Communism, dictator, executions, firing squads, government surveillance, human rights, labor camps, Liberty, Marxism, onscientious objector, Poverty, show trials, Single Payer Healthcare, Slavery, Socialism, Soviet Union, tyranny
Christian Fightback News | NO MORE SOFT GERMANY: Minister plots to send 500,000 migrants to detention centre in EGYPT!
Christian Fightback News | NO MORE SOFT GERMANY: Minister plots to send 500,000 migrants to detention centre in EGYPT!NO MORE SOFT GERMANY: MINISTER PLOTS TO SEND 500,000 MIGRANTS TO DETENTION CENTRE IN EGYPT!
NOVEMBER 28, 2016
GERMANY, MIGRANTS
A top German politician has drawn up a Draconian plan to deport 500,000 refugees next year to a repatriation centre he wants to build in Egypt.
german-migrant-deportation
Currently the system of booting out migrants whose asylum applications are rejected is painfully slow with thousands fighting their deportations with taxpayer-funded lawsuits and human rights groups assisting them.
The interior minister of the wealthy south German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Thomas Strobl of the governing CDU conservative party, wrote in a newspaper on Sunday he wants to increase dramatically the deportation and expulsion of rejected asylum seekers in Germany.
He said: “In the year 2017 there will be probably half a million foreigners in Germany who have no right to be here.
“Here is where we need a national effort! We cannot tolerate 500,000 foreigners without the right to remain in our country. We require urgent new instruments for repatriations and deportations. Otherwise we undermine the public confidence in our rule of law.”
On Tuesday, at the Conference of German Interior Ministers, Strobl – who is also one of five vice-chairmen of the CDU on the national stage – will introduce a paper entitled ‘Who has no right of residence must go’.
A week later he intends to have the initiative adopted as policy at his party’s annual congress.
The Strobl plan foresees tough consequences for identity concealment which is a common ploy by rejected asylum seekers: if they have no papers they cannot be deported.
He proposes “the immediate withdrawal of state toleration, the imposition of a prohibition on employment and massive cuts of in social services. It’s all about bridging days until the deportation,” he added.
He also called for those asylum seekers who have been known to return to their homeland to visit relatives to lose their right to residency.
He said: “Whoever is driving in his home country, where he supposedly is under threat to life and limb, to make holiday or to visit relatives, must immediately lose his asylum status. We cannot tolerate a such asylum shopping.”
Many refugees claim sickness as a reason for not being shípped out of the country.
But Stroble says: “If they were sick when they came into Germany they can no longer use that as an excuse not to leave Germany.”
The possibility of detention will be extended.
“Who does not fulfil his obligation to leave, may come, in the future, easier into detention. Even if we have an open heart for those who need protection, we will proceed with full vigour against those we believe are pulling the wool over our eyes.”
He also proposes to set up a German repatriation Centre in Egypt to receive not only shipwrecked refugees from the Mediterranean, but also rejected asylum seekers from Germany.
He added; “There is a good chance to make such an agreement with Egypt. Especially for people who conceal their identity and nationality, or not be redeemed by their home countries, the use of such a centre in Egypt is a real way forward.”
His plan also calls for German forces currently on duty in Afghanistan to assist in the deportations of rejected Afghani migrants and wants to expand border controls with Austria and Switzerland.
The mood in his party is seen to be receptive to his new, hard line, and Chancellor Merkel – who will campaign for a fourth term in office at the general election next year – is also keen to be seen taking a stronger line against illegals before polls open.
NOVEMBER 28, 2016
GERMANY, MIGRANTS
A top German politician has drawn up a Draconian plan to deport 500,000 refugees next year to a repatriation centre he wants to build in Egypt.
german-migrant-deportation
Currently the system of booting out migrants whose asylum applications are rejected is painfully slow with thousands fighting their deportations with taxpayer-funded lawsuits and human rights groups assisting them.
The interior minister of the wealthy south German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Thomas Strobl of the governing CDU conservative party, wrote in a newspaper on Sunday he wants to increase dramatically the deportation and expulsion of rejected asylum seekers in Germany.
He said: “In the year 2017 there will be probably half a million foreigners in Germany who have no right to be here.
“Here is where we need a national effort! We cannot tolerate 500,000 foreigners without the right to remain in our country. We require urgent new instruments for repatriations and deportations. Otherwise we undermine the public confidence in our rule of law.”
On Tuesday, at the Conference of German Interior Ministers, Strobl – who is also one of five vice-chairmen of the CDU on the national stage – will introduce a paper entitled ‘Who has no right of residence must go’.
A week later he intends to have the initiative adopted as policy at his party’s annual congress.
The Strobl plan foresees tough consequences for identity concealment which is a common ploy by rejected asylum seekers: if they have no papers they cannot be deported.
He proposes “the immediate withdrawal of state toleration, the imposition of a prohibition on employment and massive cuts of in social services. It’s all about bridging days until the deportation,” he added.
He also called for those asylum seekers who have been known to return to their homeland to visit relatives to lose their right to residency.
He said: “Whoever is driving in his home country, where he supposedly is under threat to life and limb, to make holiday or to visit relatives, must immediately lose his asylum status. We cannot tolerate a such asylum shopping.”
Many refugees claim sickness as a reason for not being shípped out of the country.
But Stroble says: “If they were sick when they came into Germany they can no longer use that as an excuse not to leave Germany.”
The possibility of detention will be extended.
“Who does not fulfil his obligation to leave, may come, in the future, easier into detention. Even if we have an open heart for those who need protection, we will proceed with full vigour against those we believe are pulling the wool over our eyes.”
He also proposes to set up a German repatriation Centre in Egypt to receive not only shipwrecked refugees from the Mediterranean, but also rejected asylum seekers from Germany.
He added; “There is a good chance to make such an agreement with Egypt. Especially for people who conceal their identity and nationality, or not be redeemed by their home countries, the use of such a centre in Egypt is a real way forward.”
His plan also calls for German forces currently on duty in Afghanistan to assist in the deportations of rejected Afghani migrants and wants to expand border controls with Austria and Switzerland.
The mood in his party is seen to be receptive to his new, hard line, and Chancellor Merkel – who will campaign for a fourth term in office at the general election next year – is also keen to be seen taking a stronger line against illegals before polls open.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Why is Defense Department analyzing chaplain’s prayers?
Why is Defense Department analyzing chaplain’s prayers?FAITH UNDER FIRE
WHY IS DEFENSE DEPARTMENT ANALYZING CHAPLAIN'S PRAYERS?
Exclusive: Sonny Hernandez sounds alarm over inspector general ruling on benediction
Published: 1 day ago
Email
Print Print
Chaplain Sonny Hernandez
Chaplain Sonny Hernandez
By Chaplain Sonny Hernandez
According to Miltary.com, “Pentagon investigators are weighing another review of the Air Force’s chief of chaplains after a watchdog group criticized the service for failing to discipline the officer for giving a blessing during a religious-sponsored event.”
The Air Force chief of chaplains, Maj. Gen. Dondi Costin, has been scrutinized for praying at a Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty (a 501c3 organization) event to honor a public figure for defending and advancing religious liberty in the military. This was not a political event. The event’s emphasis was religious liberty.
Why would anyone want to impede on the rights of a military chaplain to provide prayer to honor a public figure for defending religious liberty most Americans cherish? Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) would, since the mere reference to God, Jesus, prayer, or the Bible appears to offend him. Weinstein has historically lambasted Bible-believing Christians in the U.S. military for expressing their constitutional right to exercise their faith and lauds these as “achievements” on his website, which is not defending freedom of religion, but freedom from religion.
As a result of Weinstein’s complaint about Chaplain Costin’s prayer, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) inspector general (IG) responded:
“We asked the Air Force IG to examine both the act of giving the benediction and its content. After conducting interviews and gathering additional facts, the Air Force IG found that Maj. Gen. Costin’s benediction was a generic, non-sectarian prayer seeking God’s blessing on the event’s honoree. …”
The response from the Defense Department IG was paradoxical. It is encouraging that Chaplain Costin will not undergo any sanctions because of his prayer, but it is also disconcerting to know that his prayer was analyzed to meet the IG standards or approbation for prayer.
The response from the IG also raises some important questions that pertain to religious liberty. What right and by what authority does the DOD IG have to analyze the content of a military chaplain’s prayer? Another important question was raised by Christianfighterpilot.com: “What regulation, law, or policy dictates the statutorily correct content of a chaplain’s prayer by which the IG will levy its assessment?”
It does not matter if “the Air Force IG found that Maj. Gen. Costin’s benediction was a generic, non-sectarian prayer.” There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution, Air Force policies, rules, regulations, or the law that prohibits a chaplain from praying sectarian prayers. Even if Chaplain Costin provided a sectarian prayer, he would have been well within his constitutional right to pray according to his sincerely held theological convictions that are supported by his ecclesiastical endorsing agency. Air Force Policy Directive 52-1 (3.6.2.) concurs this as it states that, “Chaplains must adhere to the requirements of their endorsing religious organizations.”
It is important to note that the government cannot require military chaplains to redact the content of their prayers, or expect them to nullify the tenets of their faith just to pray in such a way that is palatable for others. Consider the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Town of Greece v. Galloway, which was a victory for religious liberty. In this Supreme Court decision, the axiom was laid for those disgruntled individuals who wish to veto religious speech just because they do not want any reference to a particular deity:
“The First Amendment is not a majority rule, and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech. Once it invites prayer into the public sphere, government must permit a prayer giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, unfettered by what an administrator or judge considers to be nonsectarian. …
“Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable; and an Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of affront from the expression of contrary religious views in a legislative forum. …”
Military.com did not indicate how the IG received Chaplain Costin’s prayer notes. How should military chaplains respond if they are ever asked to surrender their prayer notes to be examined for content to determine if it was a non-sectarian prayer or not? I would have an arduous time surrendering prayer notes because I always pray extemporaneously, and non-sectarian prayers are not applicable to me. I always pray in the Name of Jesus, in both public and private settings, and this will never change, regardless whether my prayer is approved or not.
If you are a military chaplain, do not worry about legal threats for praying according to your conscience as a result of Chaplain Costin’s predicament. If you are ever accosted for your faith by a watchdog group like the MRFF, ignore them and they will flee. Please see an article I have written that explains how to faithfully respond to one of their attacks. You have every right to pray according to your faith convictions, despite the impetuous legal threats that could arise from anti-God advocacy groups. The Constitution protects your rights.
Americans should remain perplexed as to why the Defense Department has made it its business to examine a chaplain’s prayer for content. Free exercise is never restricted to the presuppositions or opinions of the DOD IG to determine if a prayer is palatable or not. Free exercise of religion is applicable to all Americans, guaranteed in the First Amendment, and no one has the right to suppress this inviolable liberty many have died to secure. An observer may conclude that the government may impede on the rights of Christian service members if anti-God advocacy groups make legal demands to eviscerate all vestiges of religious expression just because it does not consort with their eschewed understanding of the Constitution.
The rights of all Americans matter, not just those who complain, become offended, or make threats because they are at enmity with God.
Chaplain (Capt.) Sonny Hernandez is a U.S. Air Force Reserve chaplain assigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. In April 2015, he was selected as the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center Individual Mobilization Augmentee Company Grade Officer of the Year, and in May 2016, he was selected as 445th Airlift Wing CGO of the Quarter, first quarter. Hernandez earned a Doctorate from Tennessee Temple University in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are solely his and do not necessarily represent the views of any government, military, or religious organization. Sonny Hernandez wrote this article as a civilian on his own time on an issue of public interest.
WHY IS DEFENSE DEPARTMENT ANALYZING CHAPLAIN'S PRAYERS?
Exclusive: Sonny Hernandez sounds alarm over inspector general ruling on benediction
Published: 1 day ago
Print Print
Chaplain Sonny Hernandez
Chaplain Sonny Hernandez
By Chaplain Sonny Hernandez
According to Miltary.com, “Pentagon investigators are weighing another review of the Air Force’s chief of chaplains after a watchdog group criticized the service for failing to discipline the officer for giving a blessing during a religious-sponsored event.”
The Air Force chief of chaplains, Maj. Gen. Dondi Costin, has been scrutinized for praying at a Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty (a 501c3 organization) event to honor a public figure for defending and advancing religious liberty in the military. This was not a political event. The event’s emphasis was religious liberty.
Why would anyone want to impede on the rights of a military chaplain to provide prayer to honor a public figure for defending religious liberty most Americans cherish? Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) would, since the mere reference to God, Jesus, prayer, or the Bible appears to offend him. Weinstein has historically lambasted Bible-believing Christians in the U.S. military for expressing their constitutional right to exercise their faith and lauds these as “achievements” on his website, which is not defending freedom of religion, but freedom from religion.
As a result of Weinstein’s complaint about Chaplain Costin’s prayer, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) inspector general (IG) responded:
“We asked the Air Force IG to examine both the act of giving the benediction and its content. After conducting interviews and gathering additional facts, the Air Force IG found that Maj. Gen. Costin’s benediction was a generic, non-sectarian prayer seeking God’s blessing on the event’s honoree. …”
The response from the Defense Department IG was paradoxical. It is encouraging that Chaplain Costin will not undergo any sanctions because of his prayer, but it is also disconcerting to know that his prayer was analyzed to meet the IG standards or approbation for prayer.
The response from the IG also raises some important questions that pertain to religious liberty. What right and by what authority does the DOD IG have to analyze the content of a military chaplain’s prayer? Another important question was raised by Christianfighterpilot.com: “What regulation, law, or policy dictates the statutorily correct content of a chaplain’s prayer by which the IG will levy its assessment?”
It does not matter if “the Air Force IG found that Maj. Gen. Costin’s benediction was a generic, non-sectarian prayer.” There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution, Air Force policies, rules, regulations, or the law that prohibits a chaplain from praying sectarian prayers. Even if Chaplain Costin provided a sectarian prayer, he would have been well within his constitutional right to pray according to his sincerely held theological convictions that are supported by his ecclesiastical endorsing agency. Air Force Policy Directive 52-1 (3.6.2.) concurs this as it states that, “Chaplains must adhere to the requirements of their endorsing religious organizations.”
It is important to note that the government cannot require military chaplains to redact the content of their prayers, or expect them to nullify the tenets of their faith just to pray in such a way that is palatable for others. Consider the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Town of Greece v. Galloway, which was a victory for religious liberty. In this Supreme Court decision, the axiom was laid for those disgruntled individuals who wish to veto religious speech just because they do not want any reference to a particular deity:
“The First Amendment is not a majority rule, and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech. Once it invites prayer into the public sphere, government must permit a prayer giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, unfettered by what an administrator or judge considers to be nonsectarian. …
“Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable; and an Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of affront from the expression of contrary religious views in a legislative forum. …”
Military.com did not indicate how the IG received Chaplain Costin’s prayer notes. How should military chaplains respond if they are ever asked to surrender their prayer notes to be examined for content to determine if it was a non-sectarian prayer or not? I would have an arduous time surrendering prayer notes because I always pray extemporaneously, and non-sectarian prayers are not applicable to me. I always pray in the Name of Jesus, in both public and private settings, and this will never change, regardless whether my prayer is approved or not.
If you are a military chaplain, do not worry about legal threats for praying according to your conscience as a result of Chaplain Costin’s predicament. If you are ever accosted for your faith by a watchdog group like the MRFF, ignore them and they will flee. Please see an article I have written that explains how to faithfully respond to one of their attacks. You have every right to pray according to your faith convictions, despite the impetuous legal threats that could arise from anti-God advocacy groups. The Constitution protects your rights.
Americans should remain perplexed as to why the Defense Department has made it its business to examine a chaplain’s prayer for content. Free exercise is never restricted to the presuppositions or opinions of the DOD IG to determine if a prayer is palatable or not. Free exercise of religion is applicable to all Americans, guaranteed in the First Amendment, and no one has the right to suppress this inviolable liberty many have died to secure. An observer may conclude that the government may impede on the rights of Christian service members if anti-God advocacy groups make legal demands to eviscerate all vestiges of religious expression just because it does not consort with their eschewed understanding of the Constitution.
The rights of all Americans matter, not just those who complain, become offended, or make threats because they are at enmity with God.
Chaplain (Capt.) Sonny Hernandez is a U.S. Air Force Reserve chaplain assigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. In April 2015, he was selected as the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center Individual Mobilization Augmentee Company Grade Officer of the Year, and in May 2016, he was selected as 445th Airlift Wing CGO of the Quarter, first quarter. Hernandez earned a Doctorate from Tennessee Temple University in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are solely his and do not necessarily represent the views of any government, military, or religious organization. Sonny Hernandez wrote this article as a civilian on his own time on an issue of public interest.
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
The False Premise of Palestine and Peace
The False Premise of Palestine and PeaceThe False Premise of Palestine and Peace
by Barry Shaw
November 22, 2016 at 5:00 am
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9387/israel-palestine-peace
Comment
If the international community wants to see Israel make dangerous concessions, then they, and they alone, must ensure that Israel has a united and pragmatic peace partner.
This should be Israel's basic demand: that a united Palestinian political leadership will recognize the right of all the citizens of the Jewish State of Israel to live in peace and security, alongside the State of Palestine.
It is that simple. That is all it takes.
The notion that the creation of a state of Palestine will herald everlasting peace is naïve in the extreme.
After 50 years of a two-state failure, the French and other diplomats, in their duplicitously-named "peace initiative," have no other idea for how to settle the Palestinian problem, except to behave like parched men trudging across a burning desert toward a distant mirage that they think is an oasis paradise. It is not, and the same diplomats will take no responsibility for cleaning up the dangerous outcome of such a disaster.
The international community is pressuring Israel to make wholesale concessions in territory and security, risking social and political upheaval, to grant the so-called Palestinians a state of their own.
The sole criterion for making this happen is for the international community to accept the Palestinian precondition of forcing Israel withdraw to pre-1967 lines, which are the 1949 armistice lines and not a defined border.
Whenever I approach a European diplomat with the following questions, none of them can give me an answer:
1) What happens when a new emboldened Palestinian government continues calls for the liberation of the "rest of Palestine"?
They call Haifa, Acre, Jaffa and the Galilee -- in fact, all of Israel -- "occupied Palestinian land". Just look at any Palestinian map: it is identical to Israel.
It is little known that members of the Palestinian Authority call Israeli Arabs "Palestinians of the Interior."
They also call Israeli Arabs the "Palestinians of '48." They have been joined in this by Arab Knesset Members, who also would not object to the eventual displacement of Jews by Arabs in Israel.
According to their ambition, these Israeli Arabs will be "liberated" by a new Palestine.
2) What will happen when inevitably -- by the ballot or by the bullet -- this Palestine is taken over by Hamas, designated an Islamic terror organization by the U.S. Department of State?
If you think this question is far-fetched, think again. The students of Bir Zeit University voted overwhelming to elect Hamas representatives to head their student body. Bir Zeit is not in the Gaza Strip. It is less than ten kilometers north of Ramallah, literally a stone's throw from the offices of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
These Hamas-supporting students will be the Palestinians' future opinion-makers after graduation.
And let us not forget how in the Gaza Strip, in June 2007, Hamas seized power in a bloody coup that left more than a hundred dead and more than five hundred wounded.
Hamas will continue its incendiary calls to destroy the Jewish state and to slaughter Jews.
3) Do you really think that we Israelis will call upon our government to make territorial concessions that will bring these terrorists closer to our families and homes?
So, what is the answer I get from the diplomats based in Israel to these genuine concerns? Well, nothing really. Just a throwaway line about it being up to the parties to solve their ongoing difficulties.
If the international community wants to see Israel make dangerous concessions, then they, and they alone, must ensure that Israel has a united and pragmatic peace partner, not a weak, aging, corrupt, rejectionist and undemocratic leader to our east, who constantly says he will never recognize Israel as the Jewish State, and to our south, in Gaza, a rabid Islamic terror regime bent on our destruction.
This should be Israel's basic demand: that a united Palestinian political leadership will recognize the right of all the citizens of the Jewish State of Israel to live in peace and security, alongside the State of Palestine.
It is that simple. That is all it takes.
Let the diplomatic world spend the next 50 years educating and training the divided Palestinian political leadership to come together as a force for peace.
Then Israel will be happy to consider making concessions that might well be life-threatening, as it has done before.
If the international community wants to see Israel make dangerous concessions, then they, and they alone, must ensure that Israel has a united and pragmatic peace partner, not a weak, aging, corrupt, rejectionist and undemocratic leader to our east, who constantly says he will never recognize Israel as the Jewish State, and to our south, in Gaza, a rabid Islamic terror regime bent on our destruction. (Image source: Palestinian Media Watch)
Barry Shaw is a Senior Associate at the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
by Barry Shaw
November 22, 2016 at 5:00 am
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9387/israel-palestine-peace
Comment
If the international community wants to see Israel make dangerous concessions, then they, and they alone, must ensure that Israel has a united and pragmatic peace partner.
This should be Israel's basic demand: that a united Palestinian political leadership will recognize the right of all the citizens of the Jewish State of Israel to live in peace and security, alongside the State of Palestine.
It is that simple. That is all it takes.
The notion that the creation of a state of Palestine will herald everlasting peace is naïve in the extreme.
After 50 years of a two-state failure, the French and other diplomats, in their duplicitously-named "peace initiative," have no other idea for how to settle the Palestinian problem, except to behave like parched men trudging across a burning desert toward a distant mirage that they think is an oasis paradise. It is not, and the same diplomats will take no responsibility for cleaning up the dangerous outcome of such a disaster.
The international community is pressuring Israel to make wholesale concessions in territory and security, risking social and political upheaval, to grant the so-called Palestinians a state of their own.
The sole criterion for making this happen is for the international community to accept the Palestinian precondition of forcing Israel withdraw to pre-1967 lines, which are the 1949 armistice lines and not a defined border.
Whenever I approach a European diplomat with the following questions, none of them can give me an answer:
1) What happens when a new emboldened Palestinian government continues calls for the liberation of the "rest of Palestine"?
They call Haifa, Acre, Jaffa and the Galilee -- in fact, all of Israel -- "occupied Palestinian land". Just look at any Palestinian map: it is identical to Israel.
It is little known that members of the Palestinian Authority call Israeli Arabs "Palestinians of the Interior."
They also call Israeli Arabs the "Palestinians of '48." They have been joined in this by Arab Knesset Members, who also would not object to the eventual displacement of Jews by Arabs in Israel.
According to their ambition, these Israeli Arabs will be "liberated" by a new Palestine.
2) What will happen when inevitably -- by the ballot or by the bullet -- this Palestine is taken over by Hamas, designated an Islamic terror organization by the U.S. Department of State?
If you think this question is far-fetched, think again. The students of Bir Zeit University voted overwhelming to elect Hamas representatives to head their student body. Bir Zeit is not in the Gaza Strip. It is less than ten kilometers north of Ramallah, literally a stone's throw from the offices of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
These Hamas-supporting students will be the Palestinians' future opinion-makers after graduation.
And let us not forget how in the Gaza Strip, in June 2007, Hamas seized power in a bloody coup that left more than a hundred dead and more than five hundred wounded.
Hamas will continue its incendiary calls to destroy the Jewish state and to slaughter Jews.
3) Do you really think that we Israelis will call upon our government to make territorial concessions that will bring these terrorists closer to our families and homes?
So, what is the answer I get from the diplomats based in Israel to these genuine concerns? Well, nothing really. Just a throwaway line about it being up to the parties to solve their ongoing difficulties.
If the international community wants to see Israel make dangerous concessions, then they, and they alone, must ensure that Israel has a united and pragmatic peace partner, not a weak, aging, corrupt, rejectionist and undemocratic leader to our east, who constantly says he will never recognize Israel as the Jewish State, and to our south, in Gaza, a rabid Islamic terror regime bent on our destruction.
This should be Israel's basic demand: that a united Palestinian political leadership will recognize the right of all the citizens of the Jewish State of Israel to live in peace and security, alongside the State of Palestine.
It is that simple. That is all it takes.
Let the diplomatic world spend the next 50 years educating and training the divided Palestinian political leadership to come together as a force for peace.
Then Israel will be happy to consider making concessions that might well be life-threatening, as it has done before.
If the international community wants to see Israel make dangerous concessions, then they, and they alone, must ensure that Israel has a united and pragmatic peace partner, not a weak, aging, corrupt, rejectionist and undemocratic leader to our east, who constantly says he will never recognize Israel as the Jewish State, and to our south, in Gaza, a rabid Islamic terror regime bent on our destruction. (Image source: Palestinian Media Watch)
Barry Shaw is a Senior Associate at the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Obama's Attorney Threatens Idaho Citizens Protesting Child Sexual Assault by Migrants - Truth And Action
Obama's Attorney Threatens Idaho Citizens Protesting Child Sexual Assault by Migrants - Truth And ActionObama’s Attorney Threatens Idaho Citizens Protesting Child Sexual Assault by Migrants
Obama’s Attorney Threatens Idaho Citizens Protesting Child Sexual Assault by Migrants
It appears U.S. Attorney Wendy Olsen has her feathers ruffled because her investigation into the sexual-assault of a five-year-old girl has been questioned by the citizens of Twin Falls, Idaho, as well as the media and online bloggers.
Lashing out at those who are searching for the truth, instead of doing her job and protecting the young female victim against those who hurt her, she issued a threat to any who questions her leadership calling it harassment.
A cover-up seems to be underway in the Twin Falls Idaho, as the rape of five-year-old girl, at the hands of three young boys, is just now being vaguely mentioned by the local news. The sexual assault occurred on June 2, but was not reported for five days, and within that report, the sterile nature, the ‘scrubbing of vital information” is evident.
It is not a matter of “he said, she said”, as the assault was videoed by the 13-year-old boy and is now in the hands of police. The sick evidence on that phone, grabbed by the little girl’s mom speaks against the perpetrators.
The problem seems to lie in the fact that they boys are underage and Syrian Refugees from the local SCI Refugee Center in Twin Falls. Perhaps the media is covering it up on their own, or maybe, based on the recent events at the Twin Falls City Council meeting, there is pressure to keep the story buried as long as possible.
Nevertheless, young boys raised in the Muslim faith, and brought here by President Obama, raped a child. Even if they are too young to prosecute as some have alleged, their parents should be held responsible for their children’s behavior.
This is the story that has the nation in an uproar and Obama’s attorney in Idaho threatening those who are speaking out against it.
Read more of her threats against First Amendment rights on the following page.
Had the U.S. Attorney Wendy Olsen been forthright from the start of this case, then perhaps she would not be feeling the hear from those concerned citizens and journalist who care than a 5-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by three refugee boys at her Twin Falls apartment. But as the investigators kept the story covered-up and provided no information, others searched for answers and are holding Olsen’s feet to the fire.
The tiny girl was found naked and being sexually assaulted by three boys at the Twin Falls home. Had a neighbor not found her, who knows what worse could have happened.
KMVT has confirmed that a reported sexual assault that possibly occurred near the Fawnbrook Apartments is being investigated by the Twin Falls Police Department. The incident allegedly occurred on June 2.
Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs has confirmed the investigation to Idaho’s First News, but he says there will be no charges filed in the case until the police investigation is complete.
Several unconfirmed reports concerning the case are circulating on social media. Both the Twin Falls Police Department and the prosecutor’s office have declined to comment publicly on the case while it is still under investigation.
“Since the attack took place, the diverse perpetrators and their families have been evicted from their low-income apartments,” reports Breitbart.
U.S. Attorney Wendy Olsen threatened anyone who opposed her by saying:
The United States Attorney’s Office extends its support to the five-year-old victim of assault, and her family, at the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls. The United States Attorney’s Office further encourages community members in Twin Falls and throughout Idaho to remain calm and supportive, to pay close attention to the facts that have been released by law enforcement and the prosecuting attorney, and to avoid spreading false rumors and inaccuracies … The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law. We have seen time and again that the spread of falsehoods about refugees divides our communities. I urge all citizens and residents to allow Mr. Loebs and Chief Kingsbury and their teams to do their jobs.
She may personally be feeling harassed as there appears to be a political agenda attached to her investigation, protecting the refugees brought to Twin Falls by Obama, while not doing her due diligence to provide justice to the victim and her family. She reissued her threat again saying that the public’s opinion and shared information is in her eyes harassing communication.
“The [first] statement was not intended to and does not threaten to arrest or prosecute anyone for First Amendment protected speech … [but] certain threatening or harassing communications may violate federal law and will be investigated,” she insisted in her new Tuesday, June 28 statement.
Her new statement says that “harassing” politicians may be a crime, even though the First Amendment to the constitution confirms “the right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Many in the press, public and online bloggers are misinterpreting the statement I issued on Friday, June 24, 2016, in support of the five-year-old victim of an assault in Twin Falls, Idaho, and in support of the law enforcement authorities there who are prosecuting the case. The statement was not intended to and does not threaten to arrest or prosecute anyone for First Amendment protected speech.
I issued the statement because public officials in Twin Falls have received threats. Certain threatening or harassing communications may violate federal law and will be investigated. I am also concerned that intentionally false and inflammatory rumors are creating an unsafe environment in Twin Falls. In this case, it appears that the threats have resulted from false and inflammatory information spread about this crime, often times by those from outside of the community. I encourage all to be patient while the juvenile justice system works. I also encourage all to support this victim and her family.”
Washington Post’s legal writer Eugene Volokh responded, “True threats of criminal conduct are punishable; but mere harassing communications to high-level officials are constitutionally protected.”
“I thus wish that Olson had limited her follow-up statement to true threats of criminal conduct, and didn’t also suggest the possibility of federal prosecution of an ill-defined range of ‘harassing communications.’ Still, the revised statement strikes me as much better than the original,” he wrote.
Olsen made the refugee families the victim, blaming the community for opposing the Obama administrations refuge resettlement program, while seemingly ignoring the child who was physically and mentally hurt by the refugee children.
“We have seen time and again that the spread of falsehoods about refugees divides our communities,” she claimed.
Americans are spreading “false and inflammatory rumors,” Olson claimed.
Does Olson truly believe her own gibberish or is her boss Obama keeping her accountable to his refugee doctrine?
Source: Breitbart
Obama’s Attorney Threatens Idaho Citizens Protesting Child Sexual Assault by Migrants
It appears U.S. Attorney Wendy Olsen has her feathers ruffled because her investigation into the sexual-assault of a five-year-old girl has been questioned by the citizens of Twin Falls, Idaho, as well as the media and online bloggers.
Lashing out at those who are searching for the truth, instead of doing her job and protecting the young female victim against those who hurt her, she issued a threat to any who questions her leadership calling it harassment.
A cover-up seems to be underway in the Twin Falls Idaho, as the rape of five-year-old girl, at the hands of three young boys, is just now being vaguely mentioned by the local news. The sexual assault occurred on June 2, but was not reported for five days, and within that report, the sterile nature, the ‘scrubbing of vital information” is evident.
It is not a matter of “he said, she said”, as the assault was videoed by the 13-year-old boy and is now in the hands of police. The sick evidence on that phone, grabbed by the little girl’s mom speaks against the perpetrators.
The problem seems to lie in the fact that they boys are underage and Syrian Refugees from the local SCI Refugee Center in Twin Falls. Perhaps the media is covering it up on their own, or maybe, based on the recent events at the Twin Falls City Council meeting, there is pressure to keep the story buried as long as possible.
Nevertheless, young boys raised in the Muslim faith, and brought here by President Obama, raped a child. Even if they are too young to prosecute as some have alleged, their parents should be held responsible for their children’s behavior.
This is the story that has the nation in an uproar and Obama’s attorney in Idaho threatening those who are speaking out against it.
Read more of her threats against First Amendment rights on the following page.
Had the U.S. Attorney Wendy Olsen been forthright from the start of this case, then perhaps she would not be feeling the hear from those concerned citizens and journalist who care than a 5-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by three refugee boys at her Twin Falls apartment. But as the investigators kept the story covered-up and provided no information, others searched for answers and are holding Olsen’s feet to the fire.
The tiny girl was found naked and being sexually assaulted by three boys at the Twin Falls home. Had a neighbor not found her, who knows what worse could have happened.
KMVT has confirmed that a reported sexual assault that possibly occurred near the Fawnbrook Apartments is being investigated by the Twin Falls Police Department. The incident allegedly occurred on June 2.
Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs has confirmed the investigation to Idaho’s First News, but he says there will be no charges filed in the case until the police investigation is complete.
Several unconfirmed reports concerning the case are circulating on social media. Both the Twin Falls Police Department and the prosecutor’s office have declined to comment publicly on the case while it is still under investigation.
“Since the attack took place, the diverse perpetrators and their families have been evicted from their low-income apartments,” reports Breitbart.
U.S. Attorney Wendy Olsen threatened anyone who opposed her by saying:
The United States Attorney’s Office extends its support to the five-year-old victim of assault, and her family, at the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls. The United States Attorney’s Office further encourages community members in Twin Falls and throughout Idaho to remain calm and supportive, to pay close attention to the facts that have been released by law enforcement and the prosecuting attorney, and to avoid spreading false rumors and inaccuracies … The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law. We have seen time and again that the spread of falsehoods about refugees divides our communities. I urge all citizens and residents to allow Mr. Loebs and Chief Kingsbury and their teams to do their jobs.
She may personally be feeling harassed as there appears to be a political agenda attached to her investigation, protecting the refugees brought to Twin Falls by Obama, while not doing her due diligence to provide justice to the victim and her family. She reissued her threat again saying that the public’s opinion and shared information is in her eyes harassing communication.
“The [first] statement was not intended to and does not threaten to arrest or prosecute anyone for First Amendment protected speech … [but] certain threatening or harassing communications may violate federal law and will be investigated,” she insisted in her new Tuesday, June 28 statement.
Her new statement says that “harassing” politicians may be a crime, even though the First Amendment to the constitution confirms “the right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Many in the press, public and online bloggers are misinterpreting the statement I issued on Friday, June 24, 2016, in support of the five-year-old victim of an assault in Twin Falls, Idaho, and in support of the law enforcement authorities there who are prosecuting the case. The statement was not intended to and does not threaten to arrest or prosecute anyone for First Amendment protected speech.
I issued the statement because public officials in Twin Falls have received threats. Certain threatening or harassing communications may violate federal law and will be investigated. I am also concerned that intentionally false and inflammatory rumors are creating an unsafe environment in Twin Falls. In this case, it appears that the threats have resulted from false and inflammatory information spread about this crime, often times by those from outside of the community. I encourage all to be patient while the juvenile justice system works. I also encourage all to support this victim and her family.”
Washington Post’s legal writer Eugene Volokh responded, “True threats of criminal conduct are punishable; but mere harassing communications to high-level officials are constitutionally protected.”
“I thus wish that Olson had limited her follow-up statement to true threats of criminal conduct, and didn’t also suggest the possibility of federal prosecution of an ill-defined range of ‘harassing communications.’ Still, the revised statement strikes me as much better than the original,” he wrote.
Olsen made the refugee families the victim, blaming the community for opposing the Obama administrations refuge resettlement program, while seemingly ignoring the child who was physically and mentally hurt by the refugee children.
“We have seen time and again that the spread of falsehoods about refugees divides our communities,” she claimed.
Americans are spreading “false and inflammatory rumors,” Olson claimed.
Does Olson truly believe her own gibberish or is her boss Obama keeping her accountable to his refugee doctrine?
Source: Breitbart
Europe: Let's End Free Speech!
Europe: Let's End Free Speech!Europe: Let's End Free Speech!
Are European Countries Now Police States?
by Judith Bergman
November 17, 2016 at 5:00 am
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9311/europe-free-speech
Comment (25)
Translations of this item:
French
German
According to New Europe, in Leeuwarden, "about twenty opponents of the plans [to establish asylum centers] in the region received police visits at home." In other words, the Netherlands are engaging in state censorship, thereby raising the question: Is the Netherlands now a police state?
In the town of Sliedrecht, police came to Mark Jongeneel's office and told him that he tweeted "too much" and that he should "watch his tone": his tweets "may seem seditious". His offense? One tweet said: "The College of #Sliedrecht comes up with a proposal to take 250 refugees over the next two years. What a bad idea!"
In September 2015, Die Welt reported that people who air "xenophobic" views on social media, risk losing the right to see their own children.
While ordinary European citizens risk arrest and prosecution for "xenophobic" remarks, a German EU Commissioner, Günther Oettinger, called a visiting Chinese delegation of ministers "slant eyes" ("Schlitzaugen"). European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has promoted Oettinger to be in charge of the EU budget.
Clearly, the law is not equal. EU Commissioners can make "xenophobic" remarks and get a promotion; European citizens, for exercising their right to free speech, are arrested and prosecuted.
In Europe, is the enemy now the governments? Evidence is mounting that expressing even a mild opinion that runs counter to official government policy can land you in prison, or at least ensure a visit from your friendly local Kafkaesque police. Has Europe effectively become a police state?
Several European governments are making it clear to their citizens that criticizing migrants or European migrant policies is criminally off limits. People who go "too far," according to the authorities, are being arrested, prosecuted and at times convicted.
In the Netherlands, the police visited people who naïvely made critical comments about asylum centers on Twitter in October 2015. In the town of Sliedrecht, police came to Mark Jongeneel's office and told him that he tweeted "too much" and that he should "watch his tone": his tweets "may seem seditious". His offense? The town had held a citizens meeting about a refugee center in the region, and Jongeneel had posted a few tweets. One said: "The College of #Sliedrecht comes up with a proposal to take 250 refugees over the next two years. What a bad idea!" Earlier he had also tweeted: "Should we let this happen?!"
He was not the only one. In Leeuwarden, according to New Europe:
"...about twenty opponents of the plans [to establish asylum centers] in the region received police visits at home. It also happened in Enschede, and in some places in the Brabant, where, according to the Dutch media, people who had been critical of the arrival of refugees and ran a page on social media on the topic were told to stop".
A spokesperson for the national police explained that ten intelligence units of "digital detectives" monitor Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in real time, looking for posts that go "too far," so that they can visit with people to tell them "what effect a post or tweet on the internet can have." In other words, the Netherlands are engaging in state censorship, thus raising the question: Is the Netherlands now a police state?
In the United Kingdom, Scott Clark was arrested in February 2016 for writing on the Facebook page of the Scottish Defense League that Syrian refugees would "see the nasty side to us." According to a news report, he referred to sexual assaults on women in Cologne, Germany on New Year's Eve by men of Arab or North African appearance as justification for his online comments, in which he also wrote, "If anything happens to any young girl I will personally spit in the face of councilors who pushed and pushed to get them housed here..." He also wrote, "There's defo an Islamic invasion. Defo something going down. Just witnessed 15 Syrians in the local boozer... I opposed their arrival from the start."
Inspector Ewan Wilson from Dunoon police office told the Guardian:
"I hope that the arrest of this individual sends a clear message that Police Scotland will not tolerate any form of activity which could incite hatred and provoke offensive comments on social media."
In Germany, a married couple, Peter and Melanie M., were prosecuted in a criminal trial for creating a Facebook group that criticized the government's migration policy. According to news reports, the page stated, "The war and economic refugees are flooding our country. They bring terror, fear, sorrow. They rape our women and put our children at risk. Make this end!"
At the trial, Peter M. defended his remarks online and said, "One cannot even express a critical opinion of refugees without getting labelled as a Nazi. I wanted to create a discussion forum where you can speak your mind about refugees..." He said that in his role as an administrator of the group, he removed pro-Nazi or radical remarks, but since Facebook had deleted the page, he could not present the evidence to the court.
In his verdict, the judge said, "The description of the group is a series of generalizations with a clear right-wing background." Peter M. was sentenced to a nine-month suspended prison sentence and his wife to a fine of €1,200 with the judge adding, "I hope you understand the seriousness of the situation. If you sit in front of me again, you will end up in jail."
In Germany, being critical of migrants and the government's migrant policies can have other draconian consequences. In September 2015, Die Welt reported that people who air "xenophobic" views on social media, risk losing the right to see their own children. There need not even be a criminal offense for a court to consider the child's welfare to be endangered and to restrict the parents' right to see his or her child or to order "an educator" present during a meeting between parent and child, who can "intervene as required." It is also possible to forbid certain actions, expressions or meetings in the presence of the child. As a last resort, the court can take the child out of the parent's care entirely.
According to Eva Becker, Chairwoman of the Working Group on Family Law in the German Bar Association (DAV), "The decisive factor is a healthy understanding of people." Becker estimates that it would not be enough to consider the child's welfare endangered, if a parent said that he would rather not have any Syrian migrants living in his neighborhood. On the other hand, if a father or a mother makes comments that contain verbal threats against refugees in the presence of the child, he or she would "clearly exceed the critical limit."
It is not even relevant whether those comments are criminal according to German law. Even a comment that is not punishable under German law can push a parent over the "critical limit." It is not crucial whether the act is criminal, but whether it "influences" the child in a way that endangers its welfare. If a court establishes that the child's welfare is at risk, the parent may have his or her rights of access to the child initially limited.
Actions, rather than talk, are considered even more incriminating. According to Becker, it is one thing to talk disparagingly with acquaintances about asylum seekers in the presence of the child, but much worse to take the child to "xenophobic" demonstrations.
Becker never defines what is meant by "xenophobic." It seems implied that the talk is of one-way xenophobia, not Islamic xenophobia against non-Muslims, for example, but no attempt is made at a definition, although this is clearly the most crucial part of the matter.
While ordinary European citizens risk arrest and prosecution for "xenophobic" remarks, it is an entirely different matter for those at the top echelons of the European Union.
In a speech in Hamburg in October, Germany's EU Commissioner for digital economy, Günther Oettinger, called a visiting Chinese delegation of ministers "slant eyes" ("Schlitzaugen"), an expression that is generally considered racist. Oettinger did not even bother to apologize, but told Die Welt that it was important to see his comments in a "larger context."
The European Commission also refused to apologize for, or investigate, Oettinger's remarks (which were apparently also disparaging of women and homosexuals). Commission Chief Spokesman Margaritis Schinas told incredulous reporters that, "We have nothing to add." Asked if there would be an investigation into the remarks, he said, "We do not have an FBI at the Commission."
As recent as October 28, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker promoted Oettinger to the highly coveted and powerful position of vice-president with responsibility for the EU budget.
Clearly, the law is not equal. EU Commissioners can make "xenophobic" remarks and get a promotion; European citizens, for exercising their right to free speech, are arrested and prosecuted.
While European citizens are arrested and prosecuted for exercising their right to free speech, an EU Commissioner such as Günther Oettinger (left) calls a visiting Chinese delegation "slant eyes" and is rewarded with a promotion by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (right).
Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.
Are European Countries Now Police States?
by Judith Bergman
November 17, 2016 at 5:00 am
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9311/europe-free-speech
Comment (25)
Translations of this item:
French
German
According to New Europe, in Leeuwarden, "about twenty opponents of the plans [to establish asylum centers] in the region received police visits at home." In other words, the Netherlands are engaging in state censorship, thereby raising the question: Is the Netherlands now a police state?
In the town of Sliedrecht, police came to Mark Jongeneel's office and told him that he tweeted "too much" and that he should "watch his tone": his tweets "may seem seditious". His offense? One tweet said: "The College of #Sliedrecht comes up with a proposal to take 250 refugees over the next two years. What a bad idea!"
In September 2015, Die Welt reported that people who air "xenophobic" views on social media, risk losing the right to see their own children.
While ordinary European citizens risk arrest and prosecution for "xenophobic" remarks, a German EU Commissioner, Günther Oettinger, called a visiting Chinese delegation of ministers "slant eyes" ("Schlitzaugen"). European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has promoted Oettinger to be in charge of the EU budget.
Clearly, the law is not equal. EU Commissioners can make "xenophobic" remarks and get a promotion; European citizens, for exercising their right to free speech, are arrested and prosecuted.
In Europe, is the enemy now the governments? Evidence is mounting that expressing even a mild opinion that runs counter to official government policy can land you in prison, or at least ensure a visit from your friendly local Kafkaesque police. Has Europe effectively become a police state?
Several European governments are making it clear to their citizens that criticizing migrants or European migrant policies is criminally off limits. People who go "too far," according to the authorities, are being arrested, prosecuted and at times convicted.
In the Netherlands, the police visited people who naïvely made critical comments about asylum centers on Twitter in October 2015. In the town of Sliedrecht, police came to Mark Jongeneel's office and told him that he tweeted "too much" and that he should "watch his tone": his tweets "may seem seditious". His offense? The town had held a citizens meeting about a refugee center in the region, and Jongeneel had posted a few tweets. One said: "The College of #Sliedrecht comes up with a proposal to take 250 refugees over the next two years. What a bad idea!" Earlier he had also tweeted: "Should we let this happen?!"
He was not the only one. In Leeuwarden, according to New Europe:
"...about twenty opponents of the plans [to establish asylum centers] in the region received police visits at home. It also happened in Enschede, and in some places in the Brabant, where, according to the Dutch media, people who had been critical of the arrival of refugees and ran a page on social media on the topic were told to stop".
A spokesperson for the national police explained that ten intelligence units of "digital detectives" monitor Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in real time, looking for posts that go "too far," so that they can visit with people to tell them "what effect a post or tweet on the internet can have." In other words, the Netherlands are engaging in state censorship, thus raising the question: Is the Netherlands now a police state?
In the United Kingdom, Scott Clark was arrested in February 2016 for writing on the Facebook page of the Scottish Defense League that Syrian refugees would "see the nasty side to us." According to a news report, he referred to sexual assaults on women in Cologne, Germany on New Year's Eve by men of Arab or North African appearance as justification for his online comments, in which he also wrote, "If anything happens to any young girl I will personally spit in the face of councilors who pushed and pushed to get them housed here..." He also wrote, "There's defo an Islamic invasion. Defo something going down. Just witnessed 15 Syrians in the local boozer... I opposed their arrival from the start."
Inspector Ewan Wilson from Dunoon police office told the Guardian:
"I hope that the arrest of this individual sends a clear message that Police Scotland will not tolerate any form of activity which could incite hatred and provoke offensive comments on social media."
In Germany, a married couple, Peter and Melanie M., were prosecuted in a criminal trial for creating a Facebook group that criticized the government's migration policy. According to news reports, the page stated, "The war and economic refugees are flooding our country. They bring terror, fear, sorrow. They rape our women and put our children at risk. Make this end!"
At the trial, Peter M. defended his remarks online and said, "One cannot even express a critical opinion of refugees without getting labelled as a Nazi. I wanted to create a discussion forum where you can speak your mind about refugees..." He said that in his role as an administrator of the group, he removed pro-Nazi or radical remarks, but since Facebook had deleted the page, he could not present the evidence to the court.
In his verdict, the judge said, "The description of the group is a series of generalizations with a clear right-wing background." Peter M. was sentenced to a nine-month suspended prison sentence and his wife to a fine of €1,200 with the judge adding, "I hope you understand the seriousness of the situation. If you sit in front of me again, you will end up in jail."
In Germany, being critical of migrants and the government's migrant policies can have other draconian consequences. In September 2015, Die Welt reported that people who air "xenophobic" views on social media, risk losing the right to see their own children. There need not even be a criminal offense for a court to consider the child's welfare to be endangered and to restrict the parents' right to see his or her child or to order "an educator" present during a meeting between parent and child, who can "intervene as required." It is also possible to forbid certain actions, expressions or meetings in the presence of the child. As a last resort, the court can take the child out of the parent's care entirely.
According to Eva Becker, Chairwoman of the Working Group on Family Law in the German Bar Association (DAV), "The decisive factor is a healthy understanding of people." Becker estimates that it would not be enough to consider the child's welfare endangered, if a parent said that he would rather not have any Syrian migrants living in his neighborhood. On the other hand, if a father or a mother makes comments that contain verbal threats against refugees in the presence of the child, he or she would "clearly exceed the critical limit."
It is not even relevant whether those comments are criminal according to German law. Even a comment that is not punishable under German law can push a parent over the "critical limit." It is not crucial whether the act is criminal, but whether it "influences" the child in a way that endangers its welfare. If a court establishes that the child's welfare is at risk, the parent may have his or her rights of access to the child initially limited.
Actions, rather than talk, are considered even more incriminating. According to Becker, it is one thing to talk disparagingly with acquaintances about asylum seekers in the presence of the child, but much worse to take the child to "xenophobic" demonstrations.
Becker never defines what is meant by "xenophobic." It seems implied that the talk is of one-way xenophobia, not Islamic xenophobia against non-Muslims, for example, but no attempt is made at a definition, although this is clearly the most crucial part of the matter.
While ordinary European citizens risk arrest and prosecution for "xenophobic" remarks, it is an entirely different matter for those at the top echelons of the European Union.
In a speech in Hamburg in October, Germany's EU Commissioner for digital economy, Günther Oettinger, called a visiting Chinese delegation of ministers "slant eyes" ("Schlitzaugen"), an expression that is generally considered racist. Oettinger did not even bother to apologize, but told Die Welt that it was important to see his comments in a "larger context."
The European Commission also refused to apologize for, or investigate, Oettinger's remarks (which were apparently also disparaging of women and homosexuals). Commission Chief Spokesman Margaritis Schinas told incredulous reporters that, "We have nothing to add." Asked if there would be an investigation into the remarks, he said, "We do not have an FBI at the Commission."
As recent as October 28, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker promoted Oettinger to the highly coveted and powerful position of vice-president with responsibility for the EU budget.
Clearly, the law is not equal. EU Commissioners can make "xenophobic" remarks and get a promotion; European citizens, for exercising their right to free speech, are arrested and prosecuted.
While European citizens are arrested and prosecuted for exercising their right to free speech, an EU Commissioner such as Günther Oettinger (left) calls a visiting Chinese delegation "slant eyes" and is rewarded with a promotion by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (right).
Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.
Donald Trump and the Return of European Anti-Americanism
Donald Trump and the Return of European Anti-AmericanismDonald Trump and the Return of European Anti-Americanism
by Soeren Kern
November 21, 2016 at 5:00 am
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9372/trump-europe-anti-americanism
Comment
European criticism of Trump goes far beyond a simple displeasure with the man who will be the next president. The condemnation reveals a deep-seated contempt for the United States, and for American voters who democratically elected a candidate committed to restoring American economic and military strength.
The primary cause of the global disorder is the lack of American leadership at home and abroad. A series of feckless decisions by Obama to reduce American military influence abroad have created geopolitical power vacuums that are being filled by countries and ideologies that are innately hostile to Western interests and values.
For the past seven decades, the U.S. has spent hundreds of millions of dollars annually to guarantee German security, although Germany steadfastly refuses to honor a NATO pledge to spend 2% of GDP on defense spending. Germans are now offended that Trump is asking them to pay their fair share for their own defense.
Although President Obama's foreign policy missteps have made Europe much less safe than it was eight years ago, European elites have overlooked Obama's mistakes because he is a "globalist" who seems to favor recreating the U.S. in the European image. Trump, by contrast, is a nationalist who wants to rebuild the U.S. in the American, not the European, image.
European anti-Americanism is certain to escalate in the years ahead, not because of Trump or his policies, but because "globalists" appear desperate to save the failing European Union, an untransparent, unaccountable, anti-democratic, sovereignty-grabbing alternative to the nation state.
European anti-Americanism — which was on the wane during the presidency of Barack Obama, who steered the United States on a course of globalism rather than nationalism — is back with a vengeance.
Europe's media establishment has greeted Donald Trump's election victory with a vitriol not seen since the George W. Bush presidency, when anti-Americanism in Europe was at fever pitch.
Since the American election on November 9, European television, radio and print media have produced an avalanche of negative stories, editorials and commentary that seethe with rage over the outcome of the vote.
European criticism of Trump goes far beyond a simple displeasure with the man who will be the next president. The condemnation reveals a deep-seated contempt for the United States, and for American voters who democratically elected a candidate committed to restoring American economic and military strength.
If the past is any indication of the future, European anti-Americanism will be a pervasive feature of transatlantic relations during the Trump presidency.
Although European opinion-shapers have focused much of their indignation on the threat Trump allegedly poses to global order, the president-elect will inherit a world that is significantly more chaotic and insecure than it was when Obama became president in January 2009.
The primary cause of the global disorder is the lack of American leadership — leading from behind — at home and abroad.
A series of feckless decisions by Obama to reduce American military influence abroad have created geopolitical power vacuums that are being filled by countries and ideologies that are innately hostile to Western interests and values. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and radical Islam — among many others — have all been emboldened to challenge the United States and its allies with impunity.
European elites have been mostly silent about Obama's foreign policy failures, but are now lashing out at Trump for pledging to restore order by "making America great again."
As during the Bush administration, anti-Americanism in Europe is once again being driven by Germany, a country that was effectively rebuilt by the United States after the Second World War. The Marshall Plan granted West Germany some $1.5 billion ($15 billion in 2016 dollars) in reconstruction aid between 1948 and 1951.
For the past seven decades, the United States has spent hundreds of millions of dollars annually to guarantee German security, although Germany steadfastly refuses to honor a NATO pledge to spend a minimum of 2% of GDP on defense spending. Germany spent only 1.16% of GDP on its own defense in 2015 and 1.15% in 2016. German officials are now offended that Trump is asking them to pay their fair share for their own defense.
Following is a small sampling of recent European commentary on Donald Trump and the United States:
In Germany, the Hamburg-based newsmagazine Der Spiegel, one of the largest-circulation publications in Europe, published a cover with an image of a giant meteor in the shape of Trump's head hurtling towards the earth. The headline reads: "The End of the World (As We Know It). The issue includes more than 50 pages of related content, including an article by Dirk Kurbjuweit entitled, "One-Hundred Years of Fear: America Has Abdicated Its Leadership of the West." He wrote:
"For 100 years, the United States was the leader of the free world. With the election of Donald Trump, America has now abdicated that role. It is time for Europe, and Angela Merkel, to step into the void....
"Trump, who wants nothing to do with globalization; Trump, who preaches American nationalism, isolation, partial withdrawal from world trade and zero responsibility for a global problem like climate change....
"We now face emptiness — fear of the void. What will happen to the West, to Europe, to Germany without the United States as its leading power?
In Germany, Der Spiegel, one of the largest-circulation publications in Europe, published a cover, after Donald Trump's election victory, with an image of a giant meteor in the shape of Trump's head hurtling towards the earth. The headline reads: "The End of the World (As We Know It)".
In an article, "Trump's Victory Ushers in Dangerous Instability," Spiegel commentator Roland Nelles wrote:
"It really happened. He did it. Donald Trump proved all experts wrong.... A man who... preaches hate and snubs America's most important partners will run the most powerful country on Earth. It is a political catastrophe.
"Crude populism has triumphed over reason. Trump's success is a shock for all those who had counted on the political wisdom of American voters....
"The world, and America, is now threatened by a dangerous phase of instability: Donald Trump wants to make America 'great' again. If one believes his pronouncements, he will proceed ruthlessly: He wants to throw 11 million migrants out of the country, renegotiate all major trade agreements and make important allies such as Germany pay for US military protection. That will trigger significant conflict, incite new rivalries and spur new crises."
In an opinion article, "An Absurd and Dangerous President," Spiegel commentator Klaus Brinkbäumer wrote:
"The United States has voted for a dangerously inexperienced and racist man — one who was swept into the White House by an army of disenfranchised white working- and middle-class Americans. It is a movement that now threatens democracy around the world....
"In other words, 60 million Americans acted stupidly. They cast their votes for xenophobia, racism and nationalism, the end of equal rights and social conscience, for the end of climate treaties and health insurance. Sixty million people followed a demagogue who will do little for them.
"Those who have lived in New York or experienced dinner conversations in Georgetown and debates at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, know how brilliantly intelligent and worldly Americans can be.... Once you get outside such circles, such cosmopolitan thinking isn't nearly as widespread."
The Munich-based Süddeutsche Zeitung, in an article, "Trump's Foreign Policy: What This Election Means for the World," stated:
"The man who politicians around the world called 'scary,' 'ignorant' or 'irrational' will move into the White House. The uncertainty around the world is great. If cartoonists are to be believed, Donald Trump's idea of the world is very simplistic. Africa is the birthplace of Barack Obama. Russia is a country that was made great again. Great Britain is a no-go area."
The Hamburg-based Die Zeit, in an article, "Trump and How He Sees the World," wrote:
"Wow. The West crumbles before our eyes. What is going on here can be explained by two data points: On November 9, 1989, the wall fell in Berlin.... On November 9, 2016, exactly 27 years later, a man has been elected to the White House whose central election pledge was the construction of a wall.
"The ideas of the new president are neither contradictory nor confused. His demands can be easily summarized on the cap of a beer bottle: integrate Putin, keep Mexicans out and treat American allies as the customers of a security service. There is only protection if one pays cash, even in NATO.
In a commentary, "The End of the Enlightenment," Zeit essayist Adrian Daub wrote:
"Donald Trump is a remnant of a dying America.... He has turned the country from a multicultural lighthouse into an isolated island of white people who are afraid of their own shadow.
"The idea of American exceptionalism, the lighthouse, was already present at the foundation of the nation.... The idea of American radiance is one with the ideas of the Enlightenment that came from Europe to the colonies. Ideas like universal values or the human striving for truth.
"Trump's election means the end of this project. The United States is no longer a lighthouse, but a flaming fire of tired shadows armed to the teeth. No trace remains of its prototypical character, its imitability. It is defiant, closed to the world. The nationalism of isolationism... the tumultuous tribalism... are shaking the foundations of the Enlightenment.
"The US upheld the values of the Enlightenment — humanism, an optimistic image of man, human dignity and civil rights — when Europe deviated from them in the thirties. It used humanism as a weapon in the struggle against fascism, its universality as a counterpart to nationalism, and with its re-importation after the Second World War has contributed to the reestablishment of the European project. Today, these values are once more in trouble in Europe, but the view across the Atlantic will not be reassuring as of January."
Other German headlines include: "Trump has the Charisma of a Drunken Elephant," "Donald Trump: A Horror Clown as a Security Risk," "Trump: How Could this Happen?," "Plans of the New US President: How Trump Wants to Poison the Air," "Donald Trump: A Blow to Open Society," "America Chooses the Great Divider," "Donald Trump: A King Without a Plan," "Donald is not Ronald," "Donald is not Churchill," "Can Trump also Happen in Germany?," "How to Prevent a German Trump," "Who Can Stop Trump Now?," and "Will Berlin Have to Pay More for Defense?"
In Britain, the Guardian published an editorial, "The Guardian View on Trump's Foreign Policy: A Threat to Peace," which stated:
"The victory of Donald Trump shatters the notion that the US can be counted on by its allies not just for defense guarantees and economic cooperation, but even as a defender of liberal democracy, rather than a threat to it. It calls into question the traditional US role as a protector of a UN-based global architecture of multilateralism....
"For Donald Trump, politics — like business — is about deal making. He thinks man-to-man talk with dictators can instantly dissolve problems, and approaches foreign affairs as zero sum game in which making America great can mean demeaning its traditional friends. His election makes the world a more dangerous place and also a more uncertain place, for it is too early to say precisely how those dangers will materialize — or how the next US president will face up to them."
The Guardian, in an essay, "A Win for Trump was a Win for Bigotry," columnist Owen Jones wrote:
"Hang on a minute: who am I as a Briton to interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign country? The problem is the entire world is now subject to the writ of the leader of the last superpower. We are all, to a degree, under his dominion....
"Trumpism is, by nature, an authoritarian movement that regards democratic norms as dispensable if they fail to serve political ends. The aspiration — whether realizable or not — is clear: authoritarian societies such as Putin's Russia, Erdoğan's Turkey and Orbán's Hungary that maintain certain democratic trappings as a convenient front.
"If the American people simply accept the legitimacy of this president, and they normalize this would-be tyrant, it will only embolden him.... Civil disobedience should be employed where necessary. Don't just do it for yourself, America. The fate of the rest of the world will be determined by your choices."
Other British headlines include: "Will Donald Trump Destroy America?," "Why President Donald Trump is an Even Bigger Disaster than You Thought," "Donald Trump's Victory is a Disaster for Liberal Values," "Donald Trump's Victory is a Disaster for Modern Masculinity," "Privacy Experts Fear Donald Trump Running Global Surveillance Network," "Terrifying Trump Will Turn into Tamed Trump? It's an Illusion," "The Magnetic Pull of Trump, King Narcissist," "Will Donald Trump Make School Lunches Unhealthy? Doctors Warn the President-elect's Penchant for Burgers and Fried Chicken Could Hit Meal Trays," "In the Age of Trump, Why Bother Teaching Students to Argue Logically?," and "Donald Trump Believed to be Direct Descendant of Rurik the Viking who Established Russian State."
In Spain, where anti-Americanism has held sway for many decades, the newspaper El País published an essay, "Declaration of War against Stupidity," which showcases the contempt many Europeans have for ordinary Americans. The newspaper's long-time essayist, John Carlin, wrote:
"The victory of Trump represents a rebellion against reason and decency. It is the triumph of racism, or misogyny, or stupidity — or all three things at once. It is the expression of the poor judgment and bad taste of 60 million Americans, the vast majority of them men and women of white skin who own homes, cars, firearms and eat more than citizens of any other country on earth.
"This is where you see with perfect clarity the stupidity, frivolity and irresponsibility of those who voted for Trump. For all of Clinton's defects, they are trivial compared to those of Trump, whose ignorance, zero principles and zero experience in governance are joined by all forms of personal vices that every person in their right mind at any latitude of the world considers deplorable.
"I know the kind who voted for Trump. I met them when I made reports in Texas, Montana, Arizona, Oklahoma, Alabama and other typically Republican states. They tend to be kind, religious and honest people, decent in their reduced social orbit. But after sitting down to talk with them for a while I always reacted with the same perplexity: how is it possible that we speak the same language? Their words are familiar to me but their brain circuits operate differently. They are people of simple faith, oblivious to the irony; people who choose their truths not based on facts but on their beliefs or prejudices; people who live far from the ocean and the rest of planet Earth, of which they are afraid. I've never experienced a similar sense of disconnection in Europe, Africa or Latin America. Just inside the United States."
In Austria, Kronen Zeitung published a headline entitled, "Nuclear Suitcase: In 72 Days Trump Could Annihilate Civilization." Also in Austria, Kurier published a story entitled, "Trump Victory: Boon for Suicide Hotlines." In France, the newspaper Libération featured a cover with Trump and the words "American Psycho." Another headline read: "United States: The Empire of the Worst." L'Obs asked, "With Trump, the Beginning of De-Globalization?" Le Figaro wrote: "Donald Trump: From Clown to President," and "Europe Paralyzed by the Trump Shock." Le Monde wrote, "Donald Trump's Victory: A Brexit for America." In the Netherlands, Telegraaf declared, "Trump is a Nightmare for Europe."
How is one to interpret the resurgence of anti-American sentiment in Europe?
Although President Obama's foreign policy missteps, especially those in the Middle East, have made Europe much less safe than it was eight years ago, European elites have overlooked Obama's mistakes because he is a "globalist" who seems to favor recreating the United States in the European image. Trump, by contrast, is a nationalist who wants to rebuild the United States in the American, not the European, image.
European anti-Americanism is certain to escalate in the years ahead, not because of Trump or his policies, but because "globalists" appear desperate to save the failing European Union, an untransparent, unaccountable, anti-democratic, sovereignty-grabbing alternative to the nation state.
Europeans have time and again overestimated their ability to make a fragmented Europe act like a single unified actor. As it turns out, anti-Americanism is a powerful ideology that has wide appeal across Europe — not just among the elites.
In the past, European federalists have tried to make anti-Americanism the basis of a new pan-European identity. This artificial post-modern European "citizenship," which demands allegiance to a faceless bureaucratic superstate based in Brussels, has been presented as a globalist alternative to the nationalism of the United States. In essence, to be "European" means to not be American.
As the European Union comes apart at the seams, Europe's political establishment can be expected to try to exploit anti-Americanism in a desperate attempt to use it as a glue to hold a fractured Europe together.
Whether or not that succeed depends, ironically, on U.S. President-elect Donald Trump. If he can demonstrate that he is able to govern the United States and produce tangible results, especially by growing the economy and curbing illegal immigration, Trump is certain to energize support for anti-establishment politicians in Europe, many of whom are already polling well in a number of upcoming general elections.
Commenting on Trump's victory, Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders, wrote: "America has just liberated itself from political correctness. The American people expressed their desire to remain a free and democratic people. Now it is time for Europe. We can and will do the same!"
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.
Follow Soeren Kern on Twitter and Facebook
by Soeren Kern
November 21, 2016 at 5:00 am
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9372/trump-europe-anti-americanism
Comment
European criticism of Trump goes far beyond a simple displeasure with the man who will be the next president. The condemnation reveals a deep-seated contempt for the United States, and for American voters who democratically elected a candidate committed to restoring American economic and military strength.
The primary cause of the global disorder is the lack of American leadership at home and abroad. A series of feckless decisions by Obama to reduce American military influence abroad have created geopolitical power vacuums that are being filled by countries and ideologies that are innately hostile to Western interests and values.
For the past seven decades, the U.S. has spent hundreds of millions of dollars annually to guarantee German security, although Germany steadfastly refuses to honor a NATO pledge to spend 2% of GDP on defense spending. Germans are now offended that Trump is asking them to pay their fair share for their own defense.
Although President Obama's foreign policy missteps have made Europe much less safe than it was eight years ago, European elites have overlooked Obama's mistakes because he is a "globalist" who seems to favor recreating the U.S. in the European image. Trump, by contrast, is a nationalist who wants to rebuild the U.S. in the American, not the European, image.
European anti-Americanism is certain to escalate in the years ahead, not because of Trump or his policies, but because "globalists" appear desperate to save the failing European Union, an untransparent, unaccountable, anti-democratic, sovereignty-grabbing alternative to the nation state.
European anti-Americanism — which was on the wane during the presidency of Barack Obama, who steered the United States on a course of globalism rather than nationalism — is back with a vengeance.
Europe's media establishment has greeted Donald Trump's election victory with a vitriol not seen since the George W. Bush presidency, when anti-Americanism in Europe was at fever pitch.
Since the American election on November 9, European television, radio and print media have produced an avalanche of negative stories, editorials and commentary that seethe with rage over the outcome of the vote.
European criticism of Trump goes far beyond a simple displeasure with the man who will be the next president. The condemnation reveals a deep-seated contempt for the United States, and for American voters who democratically elected a candidate committed to restoring American economic and military strength.
If the past is any indication of the future, European anti-Americanism will be a pervasive feature of transatlantic relations during the Trump presidency.
Although European opinion-shapers have focused much of their indignation on the threat Trump allegedly poses to global order, the president-elect will inherit a world that is significantly more chaotic and insecure than it was when Obama became president in January 2009.
The primary cause of the global disorder is the lack of American leadership — leading from behind — at home and abroad.
A series of feckless decisions by Obama to reduce American military influence abroad have created geopolitical power vacuums that are being filled by countries and ideologies that are innately hostile to Western interests and values. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and radical Islam — among many others — have all been emboldened to challenge the United States and its allies with impunity.
European elites have been mostly silent about Obama's foreign policy failures, but are now lashing out at Trump for pledging to restore order by "making America great again."
As during the Bush administration, anti-Americanism in Europe is once again being driven by Germany, a country that was effectively rebuilt by the United States after the Second World War. The Marshall Plan granted West Germany some $1.5 billion ($15 billion in 2016 dollars) in reconstruction aid between 1948 and 1951.
For the past seven decades, the United States has spent hundreds of millions of dollars annually to guarantee German security, although Germany steadfastly refuses to honor a NATO pledge to spend a minimum of 2% of GDP on defense spending. Germany spent only 1.16% of GDP on its own defense in 2015 and 1.15% in 2016. German officials are now offended that Trump is asking them to pay their fair share for their own defense.
Following is a small sampling of recent European commentary on Donald Trump and the United States:
In Germany, the Hamburg-based newsmagazine Der Spiegel, one of the largest-circulation publications in Europe, published a cover with an image of a giant meteor in the shape of Trump's head hurtling towards the earth. The headline reads: "The End of the World (As We Know It). The issue includes more than 50 pages of related content, including an article by Dirk Kurbjuweit entitled, "One-Hundred Years of Fear: America Has Abdicated Its Leadership of the West." He wrote:
"For 100 years, the United States was the leader of the free world. With the election of Donald Trump, America has now abdicated that role. It is time for Europe, and Angela Merkel, to step into the void....
"Trump, who wants nothing to do with globalization; Trump, who preaches American nationalism, isolation, partial withdrawal from world trade and zero responsibility for a global problem like climate change....
"We now face emptiness — fear of the void. What will happen to the West, to Europe, to Germany without the United States as its leading power?
In Germany, Der Spiegel, one of the largest-circulation publications in Europe, published a cover, after Donald Trump's election victory, with an image of a giant meteor in the shape of Trump's head hurtling towards the earth. The headline reads: "The End of the World (As We Know It)".
In an article, "Trump's Victory Ushers in Dangerous Instability," Spiegel commentator Roland Nelles wrote:
"It really happened. He did it. Donald Trump proved all experts wrong.... A man who... preaches hate and snubs America's most important partners will run the most powerful country on Earth. It is a political catastrophe.
"Crude populism has triumphed over reason. Trump's success is a shock for all those who had counted on the political wisdom of American voters....
"The world, and America, is now threatened by a dangerous phase of instability: Donald Trump wants to make America 'great' again. If one believes his pronouncements, he will proceed ruthlessly: He wants to throw 11 million migrants out of the country, renegotiate all major trade agreements and make important allies such as Germany pay for US military protection. That will trigger significant conflict, incite new rivalries and spur new crises."
In an opinion article, "An Absurd and Dangerous President," Spiegel commentator Klaus Brinkbäumer wrote:
"The United States has voted for a dangerously inexperienced and racist man — one who was swept into the White House by an army of disenfranchised white working- and middle-class Americans. It is a movement that now threatens democracy around the world....
"In other words, 60 million Americans acted stupidly. They cast their votes for xenophobia, racism and nationalism, the end of equal rights and social conscience, for the end of climate treaties and health insurance. Sixty million people followed a demagogue who will do little for them.
"Those who have lived in New York or experienced dinner conversations in Georgetown and debates at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, know how brilliantly intelligent and worldly Americans can be.... Once you get outside such circles, such cosmopolitan thinking isn't nearly as widespread."
The Munich-based Süddeutsche Zeitung, in an article, "Trump's Foreign Policy: What This Election Means for the World," stated:
"The man who politicians around the world called 'scary,' 'ignorant' or 'irrational' will move into the White House. The uncertainty around the world is great. If cartoonists are to be believed, Donald Trump's idea of the world is very simplistic. Africa is the birthplace of Barack Obama. Russia is a country that was made great again. Great Britain is a no-go area."
The Hamburg-based Die Zeit, in an article, "Trump and How He Sees the World," wrote:
"Wow. The West crumbles before our eyes. What is going on here can be explained by two data points: On November 9, 1989, the wall fell in Berlin.... On November 9, 2016, exactly 27 years later, a man has been elected to the White House whose central election pledge was the construction of a wall.
"The ideas of the new president are neither contradictory nor confused. His demands can be easily summarized on the cap of a beer bottle: integrate Putin, keep Mexicans out and treat American allies as the customers of a security service. There is only protection if one pays cash, even in NATO.
In a commentary, "The End of the Enlightenment," Zeit essayist Adrian Daub wrote:
"Donald Trump is a remnant of a dying America.... He has turned the country from a multicultural lighthouse into an isolated island of white people who are afraid of their own shadow.
"The idea of American exceptionalism, the lighthouse, was already present at the foundation of the nation.... The idea of American radiance is one with the ideas of the Enlightenment that came from Europe to the colonies. Ideas like universal values or the human striving for truth.
"Trump's election means the end of this project. The United States is no longer a lighthouse, but a flaming fire of tired shadows armed to the teeth. No trace remains of its prototypical character, its imitability. It is defiant, closed to the world. The nationalism of isolationism... the tumultuous tribalism... are shaking the foundations of the Enlightenment.
"The US upheld the values of the Enlightenment — humanism, an optimistic image of man, human dignity and civil rights — when Europe deviated from them in the thirties. It used humanism as a weapon in the struggle against fascism, its universality as a counterpart to nationalism, and with its re-importation after the Second World War has contributed to the reestablishment of the European project. Today, these values are once more in trouble in Europe, but the view across the Atlantic will not be reassuring as of January."
Other German headlines include: "Trump has the Charisma of a Drunken Elephant," "Donald Trump: A Horror Clown as a Security Risk," "Trump: How Could this Happen?," "Plans of the New US President: How Trump Wants to Poison the Air," "Donald Trump: A Blow to Open Society," "America Chooses the Great Divider," "Donald Trump: A King Without a Plan," "Donald is not Ronald," "Donald is not Churchill," "Can Trump also Happen in Germany?," "How to Prevent a German Trump," "Who Can Stop Trump Now?," and "Will Berlin Have to Pay More for Defense?"
In Britain, the Guardian published an editorial, "The Guardian View on Trump's Foreign Policy: A Threat to Peace," which stated:
"The victory of Donald Trump shatters the notion that the US can be counted on by its allies not just for defense guarantees and economic cooperation, but even as a defender of liberal democracy, rather than a threat to it. It calls into question the traditional US role as a protector of a UN-based global architecture of multilateralism....
"For Donald Trump, politics — like business — is about deal making. He thinks man-to-man talk with dictators can instantly dissolve problems, and approaches foreign affairs as zero sum game in which making America great can mean demeaning its traditional friends. His election makes the world a more dangerous place and also a more uncertain place, for it is too early to say precisely how those dangers will materialize — or how the next US president will face up to them."
The Guardian, in an essay, "A Win for Trump was a Win for Bigotry," columnist Owen Jones wrote:
"Hang on a minute: who am I as a Briton to interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign country? The problem is the entire world is now subject to the writ of the leader of the last superpower. We are all, to a degree, under his dominion....
"Trumpism is, by nature, an authoritarian movement that regards democratic norms as dispensable if they fail to serve political ends. The aspiration — whether realizable or not — is clear: authoritarian societies such as Putin's Russia, Erdoğan's Turkey and Orbán's Hungary that maintain certain democratic trappings as a convenient front.
"If the American people simply accept the legitimacy of this president, and they normalize this would-be tyrant, it will only embolden him.... Civil disobedience should be employed where necessary. Don't just do it for yourself, America. The fate of the rest of the world will be determined by your choices."
Other British headlines include: "Will Donald Trump Destroy America?," "Why President Donald Trump is an Even Bigger Disaster than You Thought," "Donald Trump's Victory is a Disaster for Liberal Values," "Donald Trump's Victory is a Disaster for Modern Masculinity," "Privacy Experts Fear Donald Trump Running Global Surveillance Network," "Terrifying Trump Will Turn into Tamed Trump? It's an Illusion," "The Magnetic Pull of Trump, King Narcissist," "Will Donald Trump Make School Lunches Unhealthy? Doctors Warn the President-elect's Penchant for Burgers and Fried Chicken Could Hit Meal Trays," "In the Age of Trump, Why Bother Teaching Students to Argue Logically?," and "Donald Trump Believed to be Direct Descendant of Rurik the Viking who Established Russian State."
In Spain, where anti-Americanism has held sway for many decades, the newspaper El País published an essay, "Declaration of War against Stupidity," which showcases the contempt many Europeans have for ordinary Americans. The newspaper's long-time essayist, John Carlin, wrote:
"The victory of Trump represents a rebellion against reason and decency. It is the triumph of racism, or misogyny, or stupidity — or all three things at once. It is the expression of the poor judgment and bad taste of 60 million Americans, the vast majority of them men and women of white skin who own homes, cars, firearms and eat more than citizens of any other country on earth.
"This is where you see with perfect clarity the stupidity, frivolity and irresponsibility of those who voted for Trump. For all of Clinton's defects, they are trivial compared to those of Trump, whose ignorance, zero principles and zero experience in governance are joined by all forms of personal vices that every person in their right mind at any latitude of the world considers deplorable.
"I know the kind who voted for Trump. I met them when I made reports in Texas, Montana, Arizona, Oklahoma, Alabama and other typically Republican states. They tend to be kind, religious and honest people, decent in their reduced social orbit. But after sitting down to talk with them for a while I always reacted with the same perplexity: how is it possible that we speak the same language? Their words are familiar to me but their brain circuits operate differently. They are people of simple faith, oblivious to the irony; people who choose their truths not based on facts but on their beliefs or prejudices; people who live far from the ocean and the rest of planet Earth, of which they are afraid. I've never experienced a similar sense of disconnection in Europe, Africa or Latin America. Just inside the United States."
In Austria, Kronen Zeitung published a headline entitled, "Nuclear Suitcase: In 72 Days Trump Could Annihilate Civilization." Also in Austria, Kurier published a story entitled, "Trump Victory: Boon for Suicide Hotlines." In France, the newspaper Libération featured a cover with Trump and the words "American Psycho." Another headline read: "United States: The Empire of the Worst." L'Obs asked, "With Trump, the Beginning of De-Globalization?" Le Figaro wrote: "Donald Trump: From Clown to President," and "Europe Paralyzed by the Trump Shock." Le Monde wrote, "Donald Trump's Victory: A Brexit for America." In the Netherlands, Telegraaf declared, "Trump is a Nightmare for Europe."
How is one to interpret the resurgence of anti-American sentiment in Europe?
Although President Obama's foreign policy missteps, especially those in the Middle East, have made Europe much less safe than it was eight years ago, European elites have overlooked Obama's mistakes because he is a "globalist" who seems to favor recreating the United States in the European image. Trump, by contrast, is a nationalist who wants to rebuild the United States in the American, not the European, image.
European anti-Americanism is certain to escalate in the years ahead, not because of Trump or his policies, but because "globalists" appear desperate to save the failing European Union, an untransparent, unaccountable, anti-democratic, sovereignty-grabbing alternative to the nation state.
Europeans have time and again overestimated their ability to make a fragmented Europe act like a single unified actor. As it turns out, anti-Americanism is a powerful ideology that has wide appeal across Europe — not just among the elites.
In the past, European federalists have tried to make anti-Americanism the basis of a new pan-European identity. This artificial post-modern European "citizenship," which demands allegiance to a faceless bureaucratic superstate based in Brussels, has been presented as a globalist alternative to the nationalism of the United States. In essence, to be "European" means to not be American.
As the European Union comes apart at the seams, Europe's political establishment can be expected to try to exploit anti-Americanism in a desperate attempt to use it as a glue to hold a fractured Europe together.
Whether or not that succeed depends, ironically, on U.S. President-elect Donald Trump. If he can demonstrate that he is able to govern the United States and produce tangible results, especially by growing the economy and curbing illegal immigration, Trump is certain to energize support for anti-establishment politicians in Europe, many of whom are already polling well in a number of upcoming general elections.
Commenting on Trump's victory, Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders, wrote: "America has just liberated itself from political correctness. The American people expressed their desire to remain a free and democratic people. Now it is time for Europe. We can and will do the same!"
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.
Follow Soeren Kern on Twitter and Facebook
Friday, November 18, 2016
Merkel With Obama: Internet ‘Disruptive’ Force that Has to Be ‘Contained, Managed, and Steered’ by Government - The Geller Report
Merkel With Obama: Internet ‘Disruptive’ Force that Has to Be ‘Contained, Managed, and Steered’ by Government - The Geller ReportMerkel With Obama: Internet ‘Disruptive’ Force that Has to Be ‘Contained, Managed, and Steered’ by Government
By Pamela Geller - on November 18, 2016
FREE SPEECHobamamerkel-large_transst8wkhhiigcqf-eu4anh8rk1mdtumceh_nearsd702i
15
The internet is the last frontier of the freedom of speech. It has not been controlled by large media companies or government oversight; nor should it be. Chancellor Merkel seems to believe that she was undone not by her catastrophic migrant policy, but by the fact that its consequences were published online at sites like this (while ignored by institutional media).
This is where totalitarianism starts. Hitler, too, shut down free speech.
This is exactly why the First Amendment was enshrined in our Constitution — because who would decide what’s good and what’s forbidden? Merkel? Obama? We know where Obama stands on this issue. He has long been a foe of our First Amendment rights. But he is history. And I predict Merkel will be, too, in the upcoming elections.
Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.
Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear, while other groups curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others.
Speech that is offensive to some must not be curtailed, but protected. If speech that offends a group is outlawed, that group has absolute power, and a free society is destroyed. A group that cannot be criticized cannot be opposed. It can work its will no matter what it is, and no one will be able to say anything to stop it.
MERKEL WITH OBAMA: INTERNET ‘DISRUPTIVE’ FORCE THAT HAS TO BE ‘CONTAINED, MANAGED, AND STEERED’ BY GOVERNMENT
By Oliver Lane, Breitbart, November 17, 2016:
U.S. President Barack Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel smile during their press conference at the German Chancellery in Berlin, Germany November 17, 2016. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
U.S. President Barack Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel smile during their press conference at the German Chancellery in Berlin, Germany November 17, 2016. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Speaking at a joint press conference with outgoing American President Barack Obama on his farewell tour, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made chilling remarks about her views on the need for government to control the internet and slammed anti-Islamisation protesters who she accused of hijacking the German spirit for liberty.
German Chancellor Merkel, who is presently deciding whether to run for a historic fourth term on the strength of her pro-migrant policies which have seen her lauded with praise by President Obama, moved to address populism in her joint address.
Calling the surge of interest in right-wing politics a “wave” that “engulfs us,” Ms. Merkel noted the sentiment “seems to come from the United States,” but in an oblique reference to President-Elect Donald Trump said it was an issue she was dealing with in Europe, too. She said:
“Look at the European parliament. There are a lot of people who are looking for simplistic solutions and are preaching simplistic solutions which are very unfriendly policies. We have them here in Europe, too, we have them in Germany too.”
Apparently blaming this rising populism — politics that are popular with voters — on the internet, the German chancellor implied the internet would have to be subject to restrictive censorship laws as were enacted by many European nations to stem the disruptive effect of the printing press. She said:
“Digitisation is a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change and transformation in society. Look at the history of the printing press, when this was invented what kind of consequences it had. Or industrialisation, what consequences that had.
By Pamela Geller - on November 18, 2016
FREE SPEECHobamamerkel-large_transst8wkhhiigcqf-eu4anh8rk1mdtumceh_nearsd702i
15
The internet is the last frontier of the freedom of speech. It has not been controlled by large media companies or government oversight; nor should it be. Chancellor Merkel seems to believe that she was undone not by her catastrophic migrant policy, but by the fact that its consequences were published online at sites like this (while ignored by institutional media).
This is where totalitarianism starts. Hitler, too, shut down free speech.
This is exactly why the First Amendment was enshrined in our Constitution — because who would decide what’s good and what’s forbidden? Merkel? Obama? We know where Obama stands on this issue. He has long been a foe of our First Amendment rights. But he is history. And I predict Merkel will be, too, in the upcoming elections.
Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.
Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear, while other groups curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others.
Speech that is offensive to some must not be curtailed, but protected. If speech that offends a group is outlawed, that group has absolute power, and a free society is destroyed. A group that cannot be criticized cannot be opposed. It can work its will no matter what it is, and no one will be able to say anything to stop it.
MERKEL WITH OBAMA: INTERNET ‘DISRUPTIVE’ FORCE THAT HAS TO BE ‘CONTAINED, MANAGED, AND STEERED’ BY GOVERNMENT
By Oliver Lane, Breitbart, November 17, 2016:
U.S. President Barack Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel smile during their press conference at the German Chancellery in Berlin, Germany November 17, 2016. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
U.S. President Barack Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel smile during their press conference at the German Chancellery in Berlin, Germany November 17, 2016. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Speaking at a joint press conference with outgoing American President Barack Obama on his farewell tour, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made chilling remarks about her views on the need for government to control the internet and slammed anti-Islamisation protesters who she accused of hijacking the German spirit for liberty.
German Chancellor Merkel, who is presently deciding whether to run for a historic fourth term on the strength of her pro-migrant policies which have seen her lauded with praise by President Obama, moved to address populism in her joint address.
Calling the surge of interest in right-wing politics a “wave” that “engulfs us,” Ms. Merkel noted the sentiment “seems to come from the United States,” but in an oblique reference to President-Elect Donald Trump said it was an issue she was dealing with in Europe, too. She said:
“Look at the European parliament. There are a lot of people who are looking for simplistic solutions and are preaching simplistic solutions which are very unfriendly policies. We have them here in Europe, too, we have them in Germany too.”
Apparently blaming this rising populism — politics that are popular with voters — on the internet, the German chancellor implied the internet would have to be subject to restrictive censorship laws as were enacted by many European nations to stem the disruptive effect of the printing press. She said:
“Digitisation is a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change and transformation in society. Look at the history of the printing press, when this was invented what kind of consequences it had. Or industrialisation, what consequences that had.
European Union Orders British Press NOT to Report when Terrorists are Muslims
European Union Orders British Press NOT to Report when Terrorists are MuslimsEuropean Union Orders British Press NOT to Report when Terrorists are Muslims
by Yves Mamou
November 18, 2016 at 5:00 am
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9190/media-censorship-muslims-terrorists
Comment
This is the moment where hate speech laws become a greater threat to democracy and freedom of speech than hate speech itself.
In France, Muslim terrorists are never Muslim terrorists, but "lunatics," "maniacs" and "youths".
To attack freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not anti-hate speech; it is submission.
By following these recommendations, the British government would place Muslim organizations in a kind of monopoly position: they would become the only source of information about themselves. It is the perfect totalitarian information order.
Created to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one's race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.
It is disturbing to wonder how long the EU will strongly engage its experts and influence to cut through existing legal obstacles, in a quest to criminalize any type of criticism of Islam, and to submit to the values of jihad.
According the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) -- part of the Council of Europe -- the British press is to blame for increasing hate speech and racist violence. On October 4, 2016, the ECRI released a report dedicated only to Britain. The report said:
some traditional media, particularly tabloids... are responsible for most of the offensive, discriminatory and provocative terminology. The Sun, for instance, published an article in April 2015 entitled "Rescue boats? I'd use gunships to stop migrants", in which the columnist likened migrants to "cockroaches"...
The Sun newspaper has also published inflammatory anti-Muslim headlines, such as its front page of 23 November 2015 which read "1 in 5 Brit Muslims' sympathy for jihadis", along with a picture of a masked terrorist wielding a knife...
The ECRI report establishes a direct causal link between some tough headlines in British tabloids and the security of the Muslims in the UK. In other words, the British press is allegedly inciting readers to commit "Islamophobic" acts against Muslims.
ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fueling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety.
ECRI is basing its report on a recent study from Matthew Feldman, Professor at Teesside University. This study compiled anti-Muslim incidents before and after terrorist's attacks.
In the seven days prior to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, where 12 people were killed, there were 12 reported (anti Muslim) incidents, but in the seven days following, there were 45. This pattern was similar in relation to the terror attacks in Sydney, in December and Copenhagen, in February.
So, according to the ECRI and scholars of Teesside University, when Muslim jihadists murder people and the press reports that killers are Muslims, the press, and not Islamists, is encouraging "Islamophobic incidents" in Britain. According to ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund, "It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians."
For the ECRI, the biggest problem is:
"... where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators' motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations."
The report does not explain what could be "alternative explanations." But we can find examples in French press: when a Muslim attacks a soldier and tries to take his gun, he is not an Islamist terrorist, but a "lunatic." Such attacks by "lunatics" are very common in France.
The French press downplays attacks by deciding not to name Muslim perpetrators: incriminating a "Mohamed" could, in the minds of French journalists, incite retaliations against Muslims. In another example, Muslim gangs cannot be connected to any form of violence, so they become "youths." In France, Muslim terrorists are never Muslim terrorists, but "lunatics", "maniacs" and "youths."
But that is France. In Britain, tabloids are not so polite, and they understand perfectly the intentions of the ECRI report: to ban the word "Muslim" when it is associated with "violence or terrorism."
The ECRI Report Marks a U-Turn in Free Speech
This is the moment where hate speech laws become a greater threat to democracy and freedom of speech than the hate speech itself. Prohibiting journalists from naming "Islamic terrorism," and encouraging them to hide the association of Muslims with terrorism, is an attempt to misrepresent the truth in the same way the former Soviet Union censored the truth. Taking advantage of some real racist articles in tabloids -- not many, because not many are quoted in the report -- to attack freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not anti-hate speech; it is submission.
The proof of submission lies in ECRI's recommendations to the British government:
"establish an independent press regulator";
"rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards";
"review the provisions on incitement to hatred with a view to making them more effective and usable";
"establish a real dialogue with Muslims in order to combat Islamophobia. They should consult them on all policies which could affect Muslims";
amending the Editor's Code of Practice to ensure that members of groups can submit complaints as victims against biased or prejudicial reporting concerning their community"
By following these recommendations, the British government would place Muslim organizations in a kind of monopoly position: they would become the only source of information about themselves. It is the perfect totalitarian information order. If a breach of that kind would open in the future, no doubt all the lobbies would rush into the breach: political parties, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, multinationals, everyone.
The British government did not fall into the trap, and firmly rebuffed ECRI's demands. It told the European council body:
"The Government is committed to a free and open press and does not interfere with what the press does and does not publish, as long as the press abides by the law."
In Great Britain, and in all countries of European Union, anti-hate laws already exist. Created to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one's race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.
These laws have also been invoked often by Islamists to sue against anti-Islamist speech (cartoons of Muhammad, blasphemy against Islam, etc.) as manifestations of "racism" -- fortunately with little success. Most court cases that Islamists have initiated have failed because Islam is not a race.
Agnes Callamard, expert on human rights, writes in reference to the United Nations Charter:
"ARTICLE 19 recognises that reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression may be necessary or legitimate to prevent advocacy of hatred based on nationality, race, religion that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The organisation does not extend such legitimate restrictions to offensive and blasphemous expressions."
It is disturbing to wonder how long the EU will strongly engage its experts and influence to cut through existing legal obstacles, in a quest to criminalize any type of criticism of Islam, and to submit to the values of jihad.
Yves Mamou, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.
Follow Yves Mamou on Facebook
by Yves Mamou
November 18, 2016 at 5:00 am
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9190/media-censorship-muslims-terrorists
Comment
This is the moment where hate speech laws become a greater threat to democracy and freedom of speech than hate speech itself.
In France, Muslim terrorists are never Muslim terrorists, but "lunatics," "maniacs" and "youths".
To attack freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not anti-hate speech; it is submission.
By following these recommendations, the British government would place Muslim organizations in a kind of monopoly position: they would become the only source of information about themselves. It is the perfect totalitarian information order.
Created to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one's race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.
It is disturbing to wonder how long the EU will strongly engage its experts and influence to cut through existing legal obstacles, in a quest to criminalize any type of criticism of Islam, and to submit to the values of jihad.
According the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) -- part of the Council of Europe -- the British press is to blame for increasing hate speech and racist violence. On October 4, 2016, the ECRI released a report dedicated only to Britain. The report said:
some traditional media, particularly tabloids... are responsible for most of the offensive, discriminatory and provocative terminology. The Sun, for instance, published an article in April 2015 entitled "Rescue boats? I'd use gunships to stop migrants", in which the columnist likened migrants to "cockroaches"...
The Sun newspaper has also published inflammatory anti-Muslim headlines, such as its front page of 23 November 2015 which read "1 in 5 Brit Muslims' sympathy for jihadis", along with a picture of a masked terrorist wielding a knife...
The ECRI report establishes a direct causal link between some tough headlines in British tabloids and the security of the Muslims in the UK. In other words, the British press is allegedly inciting readers to commit "Islamophobic" acts against Muslims.
ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fueling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety.
ECRI is basing its report on a recent study from Matthew Feldman, Professor at Teesside University. This study compiled anti-Muslim incidents before and after terrorist's attacks.
In the seven days prior to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, where 12 people were killed, there were 12 reported (anti Muslim) incidents, but in the seven days following, there were 45. This pattern was similar in relation to the terror attacks in Sydney, in December and Copenhagen, in February.
So, according to the ECRI and scholars of Teesside University, when Muslim jihadists murder people and the press reports that killers are Muslims, the press, and not Islamists, is encouraging "Islamophobic incidents" in Britain. According to ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund, "It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians."
For the ECRI, the biggest problem is:
"... where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators' motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations."
The report does not explain what could be "alternative explanations." But we can find examples in French press: when a Muslim attacks a soldier and tries to take his gun, he is not an Islamist terrorist, but a "lunatic." Such attacks by "lunatics" are very common in France.
The French press downplays attacks by deciding not to name Muslim perpetrators: incriminating a "Mohamed" could, in the minds of French journalists, incite retaliations against Muslims. In another example, Muslim gangs cannot be connected to any form of violence, so they become "youths." In France, Muslim terrorists are never Muslim terrorists, but "lunatics", "maniacs" and "youths."
But that is France. In Britain, tabloids are not so polite, and they understand perfectly the intentions of the ECRI report: to ban the word "Muslim" when it is associated with "violence or terrorism."
The ECRI Report Marks a U-Turn in Free Speech
This is the moment where hate speech laws become a greater threat to democracy and freedom of speech than the hate speech itself. Prohibiting journalists from naming "Islamic terrorism," and encouraging them to hide the association of Muslims with terrorism, is an attempt to misrepresent the truth in the same way the former Soviet Union censored the truth. Taking advantage of some real racist articles in tabloids -- not many, because not many are quoted in the report -- to attack freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not anti-hate speech; it is submission.
The proof of submission lies in ECRI's recommendations to the British government:
"establish an independent press regulator";
"rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards";
"review the provisions on incitement to hatred with a view to making them more effective and usable";
"establish a real dialogue with Muslims in order to combat Islamophobia. They should consult them on all policies which could affect Muslims";
amending the Editor's Code of Practice to ensure that members of groups can submit complaints as victims against biased or prejudicial reporting concerning their community"
By following these recommendations, the British government would place Muslim organizations in a kind of monopoly position: they would become the only source of information about themselves. It is the perfect totalitarian information order. If a breach of that kind would open in the future, no doubt all the lobbies would rush into the breach: political parties, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, multinationals, everyone.
The British government did not fall into the trap, and firmly rebuffed ECRI's demands. It told the European council body:
"The Government is committed to a free and open press and does not interfere with what the press does and does not publish, as long as the press abides by the law."
In Great Britain, and in all countries of European Union, anti-hate laws already exist. Created to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one's race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.
These laws have also been invoked often by Islamists to sue against anti-Islamist speech (cartoons of Muhammad, blasphemy against Islam, etc.) as manifestations of "racism" -- fortunately with little success. Most court cases that Islamists have initiated have failed because Islam is not a race.
Agnes Callamard, expert on human rights, writes in reference to the United Nations Charter:
"ARTICLE 19 recognises that reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression may be necessary or legitimate to prevent advocacy of hatred based on nationality, race, religion that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The organisation does not extend such legitimate restrictions to offensive and blasphemous expressions."
It is disturbing to wonder how long the EU will strongly engage its experts and influence to cut through existing legal obstacles, in a quest to criminalize any type of criticism of Islam, and to submit to the values of jihad.
Yves Mamou, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.
Follow Yves Mamou on Facebook
Pompeo Statement on his Nomination to Lead the Central Intelligence Agency | Congressman Mike Pompeo
Pompeo Statement on his Nomination to Lead the Central Intelligence Agency | Congressman Mike PompeoPress Releases
Pompeo Statement on his Nomination to Lead the Central Intelligence Agency
f t #
Washington, November 18, 2016 | T.W. Arrighi ((202) 225-6216) | 0 comments
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 18, 2016
Washington, D.C.: T.W. Arrighi
(202) 225-6216 (Office)
(202) 590-0609 (Mobile)
Wichita, KS: Sean Robinson
(316) 262-8992 (Office)
(316) 644-0832 (Mobile)
Pompeo Statement on his Nomination to Lead the Central Intelligence Agency
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS), commented today on his nomination by President-elect Trump to lead the Central Intelligence Agency.
Pompeo said, “I am honored and humbled to accept the President-elect’s nomination to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. This was a difficult decision. I have genuinely loved representing the people of Kansas in Congress—working to make our community stronger and more prosperous. But ultimately the opportunity to lead the world’s finest intelligence warriors, who labor tirelessly to keep this nation and Kansas safe, is a call to service I cannot ignore.
I want to thank the people of the 4th District who entrusted me over the past six years to be their voice in our nation’s capital. I will continue to represent you in this new post with the highest level of honesty, integrity, and vision.”
Pompeo serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, an Army veteran, and ran two small businesses before joining Congress in 2011.
Pompeo Statement on his Nomination to Lead the Central Intelligence Agency
f t #
Washington, November 18, 2016 | T.W. Arrighi ((202) 225-6216) | 0 comments
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 18, 2016
Washington, D.C.: T.W. Arrighi
(202) 225-6216 (Office)
(202) 590-0609 (Mobile)
Wichita, KS: Sean Robinson
(316) 262-8992 (Office)
(316) 644-0832 (Mobile)
Pompeo Statement on his Nomination to Lead the Central Intelligence Agency
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS), commented today on his nomination by President-elect Trump to lead the Central Intelligence Agency.
Pompeo said, “I am honored and humbled to accept the President-elect’s nomination to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. This was a difficult decision. I have genuinely loved representing the people of Kansas in Congress—working to make our community stronger and more prosperous. But ultimately the opportunity to lead the world’s finest intelligence warriors, who labor tirelessly to keep this nation and Kansas safe, is a call to service I cannot ignore.
I want to thank the people of the 4th District who entrusted me over the past six years to be their voice in our nation’s capital. I will continue to represent you in this new post with the highest level of honesty, integrity, and vision.”
Pompeo serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, an Army veteran, and ran two small businesses before joining Congress in 2011.
CAIR Unhappy With Trump’s Reported Pick for National Security Adviser
CAIR Unhappy With Trump’s Reported Pick for National Security AdviserCAIR Unhappy With Trump’s Reported Pick for National Security Adviser
By Patrick Goodenough | November 18, 2016 | 4:18 AM EST
Former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. (AP Photo, File)
(CNSNews.com) – President-elect Donald Trump has offered the key post of national security adviser former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (ret.), the Associated Press reported Thursday, citing an unnamed senior Trump official.
Flynn, who served as head of the DIA from 2012 to 2014, has been advising the Trump campaign on national security issues.
He is also an outspoken critic of radical Islam and shari’a (Islamic law), and has attracted the ire of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Earlier Thursday, CAIR issued a statement urging Trump not to appoint him “because of his history of anti-Muslim comments and associations.”
It quoted him as comparing Islam to “a cancer” during an event in Texas earlier this year hosted by ACT for America, an organization which CAIR described as an “anti-Islam hate group.”
“A person who believes the faith of one fourth of the world's population is a ‘cancer’ should not be advising the president on anything, let alone on our nation’s security,” said CAIR national Executive Director Nihad Awad.
“We urge President-elect Trump not to appoint General Flynn to any administration post, and if he already has made that decision, to find another candidate who does not hold such bigoted views.”
Flynn this year published a book entitled The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies.
He was promoting the book at the event in Texas last August referred to by CAIR’s Awad.
“Islam is a political ideology,” Flynn told the audience in Dallas, in the context of talking about the spate of Islamic terror attacks over the summer that included those in Orlando, Fla., in the French city of Nice, in Baghdad, in Bangladesh, at the Istanbul airport in Turkey, on a train in Germany, and elsewhere.
“It is a political ideology,” he continued. “It definitely hides behind this – this notion of it being a religion.”
“I have a very, very tough time,” Flynn went on, “because I don’t see a lot of people screaming ‘Jesus Christ’ with hatchets or machetes or rifles, shooting up clubs or hatcheting, you know, literally axing families on a train.”
“So we have a problem,” he said. “It’s like cancer – I’ve gone through cancer in my own life – so it’s like cancer. And it’s like a malignant cancer though in this case, that has metastasized. Like I just said, the number of attacks in 22 countries in just the last 45 days …”
Answering questions after his remarks Flynn, in response to a theological query, replied, “If there’s a god that believes in chaining a human being inside a cage, pouring gasoline over their head and then lighting them on fire or – that’s one way – or taking children and dropping them into acid baths, or taking women and girls, young girls, and raping them constantly for just the sheer sick pleasure, because they can – then to me that’s not a god. That’s the devil.”
CAIR, which calls itself “the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization,” has a record of labeling its critics “Islamophobes.”
In his book, Flynn is critical of attempts to introduce aspects of shari’a into America.
“It is no accident that Radical Islamists in America are pushing very hard and very systematically to gain legal standing for Sharia, and to forbid any and all criticism of Islam; these are all steps towards creating an Islamic state right here at home,” he writes.
“We have to thwart these efforts and encourage criticism of those who support them. There are many American Muslims who have spoken out against the advance of Radical Islam in the United States, and they are predictably singled out by the Islamic radicals in our country and, to a degree, shunned by politically motivated people in our own government.”
“If we cannot criticize the radical Muslims in our own country, we cannot fight them either in America or overseas,” Flynn writes. “Unless we can wage an effective ideological campaign in the United States, we will not be able to defeat the jihadis on foreign battlefields, because we will not understand the true nature of our enemy.”
Patrick Goodenough Follow
Patrick Goodenough
Bio | Archive
Spencer Journalism Fellow
More from Patrick Goodenough
By Patrick Goodenough | November 18, 2016 | 4:18 AM EST
Former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. (AP Photo, File)
(CNSNews.com) – President-elect Donald Trump has offered the key post of national security adviser former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (ret.), the Associated Press reported Thursday, citing an unnamed senior Trump official.
Flynn, who served as head of the DIA from 2012 to 2014, has been advising the Trump campaign on national security issues.
He is also an outspoken critic of radical Islam and shari’a (Islamic law), and has attracted the ire of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Earlier Thursday, CAIR issued a statement urging Trump not to appoint him “because of his history of anti-Muslim comments and associations.”
It quoted him as comparing Islam to “a cancer” during an event in Texas earlier this year hosted by ACT for America, an organization which CAIR described as an “anti-Islam hate group.”
“A person who believes the faith of one fourth of the world's population is a ‘cancer’ should not be advising the president on anything, let alone on our nation’s security,” said CAIR national Executive Director Nihad Awad.
“We urge President-elect Trump not to appoint General Flynn to any administration post, and if he already has made that decision, to find another candidate who does not hold such bigoted views.”
Flynn this year published a book entitled The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies.
He was promoting the book at the event in Texas last August referred to by CAIR’s Awad.
“Islam is a political ideology,” Flynn told the audience in Dallas, in the context of talking about the spate of Islamic terror attacks over the summer that included those in Orlando, Fla., in the French city of Nice, in Baghdad, in Bangladesh, at the Istanbul airport in Turkey, on a train in Germany, and elsewhere.
“It is a political ideology,” he continued. “It definitely hides behind this – this notion of it being a religion.”
“I have a very, very tough time,” Flynn went on, “because I don’t see a lot of people screaming ‘Jesus Christ’ with hatchets or machetes or rifles, shooting up clubs or hatcheting, you know, literally axing families on a train.”
“So we have a problem,” he said. “It’s like cancer – I’ve gone through cancer in my own life – so it’s like cancer. And it’s like a malignant cancer though in this case, that has metastasized. Like I just said, the number of attacks in 22 countries in just the last 45 days …”
Answering questions after his remarks Flynn, in response to a theological query, replied, “If there’s a god that believes in chaining a human being inside a cage, pouring gasoline over their head and then lighting them on fire or – that’s one way – or taking children and dropping them into acid baths, or taking women and girls, young girls, and raping them constantly for just the sheer sick pleasure, because they can – then to me that’s not a god. That’s the devil.”
CAIR, which calls itself “the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization,” has a record of labeling its critics “Islamophobes.”
In his book, Flynn is critical of attempts to introduce aspects of shari’a into America.
“It is no accident that Radical Islamists in America are pushing very hard and very systematically to gain legal standing for Sharia, and to forbid any and all criticism of Islam; these are all steps towards creating an Islamic state right here at home,” he writes.
“We have to thwart these efforts and encourage criticism of those who support them. There are many American Muslims who have spoken out against the advance of Radical Islam in the United States, and they are predictably singled out by the Islamic radicals in our country and, to a degree, shunned by politically motivated people in our own government.”
“If we cannot criticize the radical Muslims in our own country, we cannot fight them either in America or overseas,” Flynn writes. “Unless we can wage an effective ideological campaign in the United States, we will not be able to defeat the jihadis on foreign battlefields, because we will not understand the true nature of our enemy.”
Patrick Goodenough Follow
Patrick Goodenough
Bio | Archive
Spencer Journalism Fellow
More from Patrick Goodenough
UNBELIEVABLE! Obama FLATLY REFUSES To Call Off Unhinged Anti-Trump Protesters – American Lookout
UNBELIEVABLE! Obama FLATLY REFUSES To Call Off Unhinged Anti-Trump Protesters – American LookoutUNBELIEVABLE! Obama FLATLY REFUSES To Call Off Unhinged Anti-Trump Protesters
Obama: Proud To Be An American Because Of Our Strength In Reposes To Terrorism
Members of Trump’s team have asked President Obama to appeal to the unhinged leftists tearing apart American cities because they’re angry Trump won. And he refused! What vindictive man.
The Hill reports:
Obama won’t call off anti-Trump protesters
President Obama won’t try to call off protests against Donald Trump, he said Thursday, ignoring pleas from the president-elect’s advisers to denounce the nationwide demonstrations.
“I would not advise people who feel strongly or are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised over the course of the campaign, I would not advise them to be silent,” Obama said during a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Obama said protests are just something Trump would have to get used to as the leader of the free world.
“I’ve been the subject of protests during the course of my eight years,” he said. “And I suspect that there’s not a president in our history that hasn’t been subject to these protests.”
Make no mistake. Obama is doing this out of spite.
Conservatives may have protested Obama’s policies in the form of the Tea Party. But they didn’t riot after his election in 2008. And they didn’t disrupt his inauguration as these leftists have vowed to do with Trump.
Obama’s refusal to intervene makes him look like a very small man.
RELATED ITEMS:DONALD TRUMP, ELECTION 2016, FAR LEFT, FEATURED, LIBERAL HYPOCRISY, NEWS, OBAMA, POLITICS, PROTESTS
Obama: Proud To Be An American Because Of Our Strength In Reposes To Terrorism
Members of Trump’s team have asked President Obama to appeal to the unhinged leftists tearing apart American cities because they’re angry Trump won. And he refused! What vindictive man.
The Hill reports:
Obama won’t call off anti-Trump protesters
President Obama won’t try to call off protests against Donald Trump, he said Thursday, ignoring pleas from the president-elect’s advisers to denounce the nationwide demonstrations.
“I would not advise people who feel strongly or are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised over the course of the campaign, I would not advise them to be silent,” Obama said during a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Obama said protests are just something Trump would have to get used to as the leader of the free world.
“I’ve been the subject of protests during the course of my eight years,” he said. “And I suspect that there’s not a president in our history that hasn’t been subject to these protests.”
Make no mistake. Obama is doing this out of spite.
Conservatives may have protested Obama’s policies in the form of the Tea Party. But they didn’t riot after his election in 2008. And they didn’t disrupt his inauguration as these leftists have vowed to do with Trump.
Obama’s refusal to intervene makes him look like a very small man.
RELATED ITEMS:DONALD TRUMP, ELECTION 2016, FAR LEFT, FEATURED, LIBERAL HYPOCRISY, NEWS, OBAMA, POLITICS, PROTESTS
Michigan Electors Say Clinton Supporters Sending Them Death Threats, Vicious Emails - The Geller Report
Michigan Electors Say Clinton Supporters Sending Them Death Threats, Vicious Emails - The Geller ReportMichigan Electors Say Clinton Supporters Sending Them Death Threats, Vicious Emails
By Cheryl Chumley - on November 18, 2016
DEMOCRATS: PARTY OF TREASONbanerianwalker
7
At least one elector who’s due to cast a formal ballot electing Donald Trump to the presidency – in accordance with America’s constitutional Electoral College process – said he’s been receiving vicious messages, including death threats, from those who’d rather he cast his vote for Hillary Clinton.
Michael Banerian, 22, is supposed to join with 15 other Michigan electors on December 19 to vote for Trump. But Banerian said Trump opponents have been pressuring him to instead pick Clinton.
“You have people saying ‘you’re a hateful bigot, I hope you die,'” he said, the Detroit News reported. “I’ve had people talk about shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out. And I’ve received dozens and dozens of those emails. Even the non-threatening-my-life emails are very aggressive.”
The Detroit News confirmed at least one of Banerian’s emailed messages included death threats – specifically, that the writer of the message would “put a bullet” in Banerian’s mouth.
And he’s not the only elector being threatened.
From the Detroit News:
“Trump’s opponents have deluged Banerian and other GOP electors with pleas and nasty emails to reverse course and cast their ballots for Clinton, according to the Michigan Republican Party. …
“Another elector, Kenneth Crider, said he hasn’t received any death threats or intimidating emails but has gotten more than 300 emails from people in other states asking him to vote for Clinton instead of Trump on Dec. 19.
“The 51-year-old heating and air conditioning professional from Livonia said many of the emails were from teachers and professors trying to explain to him the gravity of the situation, urging him to change his mind.”
To these two electors’ credit, both shrugged off the threats and said they were voting for Trump, no matter the intimidation.
A petition on Change.org is calling on electors to choose Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.
A petition on Change.org is calling on electors to choose Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.
But their story is only reflective of the outright outrageous opposition movement that’s been brewing on the left since Trump’s victory, as seen in the violent street protests at city spots around the nation and in an online petition at Change.org calling for electors to choose Clinton.
“We are calling on the electors to ignore their states’ votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton,” the petition said. “Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.”
The petition has more than 4.3 million signatures.
By Cheryl Chumley - on November 18, 2016
DEMOCRATS: PARTY OF TREASONbanerianwalker
7
At least one elector who’s due to cast a formal ballot electing Donald Trump to the presidency – in accordance with America’s constitutional Electoral College process – said he’s been receiving vicious messages, including death threats, from those who’d rather he cast his vote for Hillary Clinton.
Michael Banerian, 22, is supposed to join with 15 other Michigan electors on December 19 to vote for Trump. But Banerian said Trump opponents have been pressuring him to instead pick Clinton.
“You have people saying ‘you’re a hateful bigot, I hope you die,'” he said, the Detroit News reported. “I’ve had people talk about shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out. And I’ve received dozens and dozens of those emails. Even the non-threatening-my-life emails are very aggressive.”
The Detroit News confirmed at least one of Banerian’s emailed messages included death threats – specifically, that the writer of the message would “put a bullet” in Banerian’s mouth.
And he’s not the only elector being threatened.
From the Detroit News:
“Trump’s opponents have deluged Banerian and other GOP electors with pleas and nasty emails to reverse course and cast their ballots for Clinton, according to the Michigan Republican Party. …
“Another elector, Kenneth Crider, said he hasn’t received any death threats or intimidating emails but has gotten more than 300 emails from people in other states asking him to vote for Clinton instead of Trump on Dec. 19.
“The 51-year-old heating and air conditioning professional from Livonia said many of the emails were from teachers and professors trying to explain to him the gravity of the situation, urging him to change his mind.”
To these two electors’ credit, both shrugged off the threats and said they were voting for Trump, no matter the intimidation.
A petition on Change.org is calling on electors to choose Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.
A petition on Change.org is calling on electors to choose Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.
But their story is only reflective of the outright outrageous opposition movement that’s been brewing on the left since Trump’s victory, as seen in the violent street protests at city spots around the nation and in an online petition at Change.org calling for electors to choose Clinton.
“We are calling on the electors to ignore their states’ votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton,” the petition said. “Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.”
The petition has more than 4.3 million signatures.
Merkel With Obama: Internet ‘Disruptive’ Force that Has to Be ‘Contained, Managed, and Steered’ by Government - The Geller Report
Merkel With Obama: Internet ‘Disruptive’ Force that Has to Be ‘Contained, Managed, and Steered’ by Government - The Geller ReportMerkel With Obama: Internet ‘Disruptive’ Force that Has to Be ‘Contained, Managed, and Steered’ by Government
By Pamela Geller - on November 18, 2016
FREE SPEECHobamamerkel-large_transst8wkhhiigcqf-eu4anh8rk1mdtumceh_nearsd702i
15
The internet is the last frontier of the freedom of speech. It has not been controlled by large media companies or government oversight; nor should it be. Chancellor Merkel seems to believe that she was undone not by her catastrophic migrant policy, but by the fact that its consequences were published online at sites like this (while ignored by institutional media).
This is where totalitarianism starts. Hitler, too, shut down free speech.
This is exactly why the First Amendment was enshrined in our Constitution — because who would decide what’s good and what’s forbidden? Merkel? Obama? We know where Obama stands on this issue. He has long been a foe of our First Amendment rights. But he is history. And I predict Merkel will be, too, in the upcoming elections.
Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.
Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear, while other groups curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others.
Speech that is offensive to some must not be curtailed, but protected. If speech that offends a group is outlawed, that group has absolute power, and a free society is destroyed. A group that cannot be criticized cannot be opposed. It can work its will no matter what it is, and no one will be able to say anything to stop it.
MERKEL WITH OBAMA: INTERNET ‘DISRUPTIVE’ FORCE THAT HAS TO BE ‘CONTAINED, MANAGED, AND STEERED’ BY GOVERNMENT
By Oliver Lane, Breitbart, November 17, 2016:
U.S. President Barack Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel smile during their press conference at the German Chancellery in Berlin, Germany November 17, 2016. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
U.S. President Barack Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel smile during their press conference at the German Chancellery in Berlin, Germany November 17, 2016. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Speaking at a joint press conference with outgoing American President Barack Obama on his farewell tour, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made chilling remarks about her views on the need for government to control the internet and slammed anti-Islamisation protesters who she accused of hijacking the German spirit for liberty.
German Chancellor Merkel, who is presently deciding whether to run for a historic fourth term on the strength of her pro-migrant policies which have seen her lauded with praise by President Obama, moved to address populism in her joint address.
Calling the surge of interest in right-wing politics a “wave” that “engulfs us,” Ms. Merkel noted the sentiment “seems to come from the United States,” but in an oblique reference to President-Elect Donald Trump said it was an issue she was dealing with in Europe, too. She said:
“Look at the European parliament. There are a lot of people who are looking for simplistic solutions and are preaching simplistic solutions which are very unfriendly policies. We have them here in Europe, too, we have them in Germany too.”
Apparently blaming this rising populism — politics that are popular with voters — on the internet, the German chancellor implied the internet would have to be subject to restrictive censorship laws as were enacted by many European nations to stem the disruptive effect of the printing press. She said:
“Digitisation is a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change and transformation in society. Look at the history of the printing press, when this was invented what kind of consequences it had. Or industrialisation, what consequences that had.
By Pamela Geller - on November 18, 2016
FREE SPEECHobamamerkel-large_transst8wkhhiigcqf-eu4anh8rk1mdtumceh_nearsd702i
15
The internet is the last frontier of the freedom of speech. It has not been controlled by large media companies or government oversight; nor should it be. Chancellor Merkel seems to believe that she was undone not by her catastrophic migrant policy, but by the fact that its consequences were published online at sites like this (while ignored by institutional media).
This is where totalitarianism starts. Hitler, too, shut down free speech.
This is exactly why the First Amendment was enshrined in our Constitution — because who would decide what’s good and what’s forbidden? Merkel? Obama? We know where Obama stands on this issue. He has long been a foe of our First Amendment rights. But he is history. And I predict Merkel will be, too, in the upcoming elections.
Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.
Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear, while other groups curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others.
Speech that is offensive to some must not be curtailed, but protected. If speech that offends a group is outlawed, that group has absolute power, and a free society is destroyed. A group that cannot be criticized cannot be opposed. It can work its will no matter what it is, and no one will be able to say anything to stop it.
MERKEL WITH OBAMA: INTERNET ‘DISRUPTIVE’ FORCE THAT HAS TO BE ‘CONTAINED, MANAGED, AND STEERED’ BY GOVERNMENT
By Oliver Lane, Breitbart, November 17, 2016:
U.S. President Barack Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel smile during their press conference at the German Chancellery in Berlin, Germany November 17, 2016. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
U.S. President Barack Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel smile during their press conference at the German Chancellery in Berlin, Germany November 17, 2016. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Speaking at a joint press conference with outgoing American President Barack Obama on his farewell tour, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made chilling remarks about her views on the need for government to control the internet and slammed anti-Islamisation protesters who she accused of hijacking the German spirit for liberty.
German Chancellor Merkel, who is presently deciding whether to run for a historic fourth term on the strength of her pro-migrant policies which have seen her lauded with praise by President Obama, moved to address populism in her joint address.
Calling the surge of interest in right-wing politics a “wave” that “engulfs us,” Ms. Merkel noted the sentiment “seems to come from the United States,” but in an oblique reference to President-Elect Donald Trump said it was an issue she was dealing with in Europe, too. She said:
“Look at the European parliament. There are a lot of people who are looking for simplistic solutions and are preaching simplistic solutions which are very unfriendly policies. We have them here in Europe, too, we have them in Germany too.”
Apparently blaming this rising populism — politics that are popular with voters — on the internet, the German chancellor implied the internet would have to be subject to restrictive censorship laws as were enacted by many European nations to stem the disruptive effect of the printing press. She said:
“Digitisation is a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change and transformation in society. Look at the history of the printing press, when this was invented what kind of consequences it had. Or industrialisation, what consequences that had.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)