Friday, June 1, 2018

MSNBC'S JOY REID CALLED FORETHNICALLY CLEANSING JEWS FROMISRAEL

June 1, 2018
 
Daniel Greenfield
11
MSNBC continues to maintain its red wall of silence on Joy Reid. But the ugliness just keeps rising.
The old blog posts by the progressive personality reek of every bigotry that the left claims to condemn. And, as Bre Payton at the Federalist notes, there's even a call to ethnically cleanse Jews from Israel.
Iran's pres strikes again Says "move Israel to Europe"
...
"You believe the Jews were oppressed, why should the Palestinian Muslims have to pay the price? You oppressed them, so give a part of Europe to the Zionist regime so they can establish any government they want. We would support it. So, Germany and Austria, come and give one, two or any number of your provinces to the Zionist regime so they can create a country there... and the problem will be solved at its root."
I hate to admit that Mr. Amadinejad has a point ...
Not only is Joy Reid a a racist, but she's illiterate. So there are two things that qualify her to work at MSNBC.
(and a plurality of the Israelis are former German nationals, plus lower castes consisting of Eastern Europeans, Russians, Sephardic Jews from the Mediterranean and at the bottom of the social pyramid, Falasha Africans ...)
Actually a majority of the Israelis are from the Middle East. Most of them having come from Muslim countries where they were persecuted.
Most Israelis are not and were not German nationals. Eastern Europe would be more on the money early on. Ben Gurion and Netanyahu's father were Polish Jews. As were many other Zionist leaders. Golda Meir was from Ukraine and then Milwaukee. The part of Russia today known as Belarus produced many others. I don't believe that a single Israeli prime minister was a German national or descended from them. German Jews made important contributions to building Israel. But the idea that they were the ruling elite is more racist nonsense from Joy Reid.
Reid's "lower castes" actually ran Israel.
But while Roseanne's comments were enough to get her fired and her show canceled, no amount of vile posts from Joy Reid will get MSNBC to dump her. Because there's a double standard here.

ABOUT DANIEL GREENFIELD

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
READ MORE
at

HARVEY WEINSTEIN AND THE CLINTON PROTECTION RACKET

It's no coincidence Harvey and Hillary were brought down at the same time.

May 31, 2018
 
Ann Coulter
18
Harvey Weinstein's recent perp walk reminds me of another great thing about Trump winning the election: Hillary Clinton isn't president. 

A New York Times article on Weinstein's court appearance noted how the "ground shifted" last year, finally ending the "code of silence" surrounding powerful men. Why "last year," if this has been going on for decades? 

The article explained that Weinstein's power was enormous, his connections extensive and his willingness to play dirty without bounds. Did Harvey lose his money and connections "last year"? 

Nope. But "last year" was the first year of Trump's presidency, or as I like to think of it, the first year of Hillary not being president. Ever. 

The liberal protection racket for sexual predators was always intimately intertwined with the Clintons. The template used to defend Bill Clinton became a model for all left-wing sexual predators. They all hired the same lawyers and detectives and counted on the same cultural elites to mete out punishment to anyone who stood in the way of their Caligula lifestyles. It was Total War against the original #MeToo movement. 

Even Teddy Kennedy never plotted revenge on reporters or smeared his sexual conquests as bimbos, trailer park trash and stalkers. That was the Clinton model. 

Showing how incestuous it was, in 2000 -- two years after Clinton's impeachment -- Weinstein used his publishing company, Talk/Miramax, overseen by Tina Brown, to take revenge on anyone involved in Clinton's impeachment. 

The publishing house commissioned a book by John Connolly to dig into the private sex lives of the people who had helped expose Bill Clinton, e.g., the lawyers behind Paula Jones' lawsuit, Ken Starr's staff, Linda Tripp lawyer Jim Moody, Matt Drudge, reporter Michael Isikoff and so on. 

Concise summary of the book: All of us were gay, except me, because I was having an affair with Geraldo Rivera.

We know this because drafts of the book, "The Insane Clown Posse," soon began to leak. Talk/Miramax's editor-in-chief Jonathan Burnham denied that any private eyes had been prying into our private lives and said he'd kill the book if it were true. 

I went on "Rivera Live" and produced a letter given to me by an ex-boyfriend from a private eye looking for dirt on me: 

"My office has been engaged by John C. Connolly, a writer who has performed work for Spy, New York, Premiere, Vanity Fair and a few other magazines. The project for which my services were engaged deals with January 16th, 1998, the day Monica Lewinsky was corralled by the office of the independent counsel. Mr. Connolly has described the goal as 'a day in the life of'-type book, and to that he has directed me to conduct interviews and look into the background and activities of a few peripheral characters, including the author of 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors,' one Ann Coulter. 

"Nils B. Grevillius, private investigator" 

As a result, the book was killed. But what if my ex hadn't given me that letter? 

No one cared about any of our private lives. The only point was to humiliate anyone who hadn't endorsed Clinton's treatment of women as his sexual playthings. 

There were plenty who did. 

Well into the Monica Lewinsky scandal -- which followed the Gennifer Flowers scandal, the Paula Jones scandal, the Dolly Kyle Browning scandal, the Elizabeth Ward Gracen scandal, the Sally Perdue scandal and the Kathleen Willey scandal -- feminist icon Gloria Steinem wrote her infamous New York Times op-ed, announcing the "One Free Grope" rule for progressive men. 

"He takes no for an answer," Steinem explained. Whether he was groping Kathleen Willey in the Oval Office or dropping his pants for Paula Jones in the Excelsior Hotel, she said, Clinton "accepted rejection." 

Soon thereafter, we found out about Juanita Broaddrick. 

As Bob Herbert wrote in The New York Times, the reaction of the feminists to Clinton's predatory behavior "can most charitably be described as restrained." (This was when the Times was still an occasionally serious newspaper.) 

Not one Senate Democrat voted to remove Clinton from office for various felonies related to his sexual assaults. 

The message was clear. Liberal men got a pass for any sexual misconduct, even rape. But woe be to those who accused them. (Even last year, NBC News was still following the old rule: It fired Ronan Farrow rather than publish his Weinstein expose.) 

Liberal males treated progressive politics like carbon credits for rape. Last year, MSNBC's Kasie Hunt reported that Democratic sexual predators on Capitol Hill say, "I can't be sexist; I'm a progressive." 

Recall that Weinstein's reaction to the accusations against him was to say: "I've decided that I'm going to give the NRA my full attention. I hope Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party. I'm going to do it at the same place I had my Bar Mitzvah." 

It's hard to avoid the impression that a big part of the reason Weinstein was finally exposed is that the Clinton machine is dead. Trump killed it. Would anyone have called out Weinstein if his good friend Hillary Clinton were "Madame President"? I doubt it. The Clinton protection racket would have gone on and on and on. 

After years of feminists excusing sexual predators, once the Clintons were out of the way, the dam broke. There was no reason to keep humiliating themselves by defending the indefensible. 

The Worst Generation has flatlined. There are no more Clintons to save. But as absolutely intellectually convinced as I am of the Clintons' demise, I'd feel a lot better if someone would keep a wooden stake handy. 
at

SEPARATION HYSTERIA

Media-celebrity axis targets Ivanka Trump, ignores Obama-era child trafficking.

May 31, 2018
 
Lloyd Billingsley
31
“Even if the immigration law is executed with perfection, there will be parents separated from their children.”
Could that be Steven Wagner, Acting Assistant Secretary Administration for Children and Families with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services? Or maybe it was hard-line ICE boss Thomas Homan? Or perhaps President of the United States Donald Trump at his Nashville rally?  
Actually, the speaker was Cecilia Muñoz, formerly of the National Council of La Raza and President Obama’s pick for White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. Muñoz was interviewed in 2011 for the PBS “Frontline” film Lost in Detention, which contends that “more than one million immigrants have been deported since President Obama took office. Under his administration, deportations and detentions have reached record levels. The get-tough policy has brought complaints of abuse and harsh treatment, including charges that families have been unfairly separated after being caught in the nationwide dragnet.”
Gretchen Gavett of PBS recalled the Muñoz statement on November 3, 2011, citing a report from the Applied Research Center, which found that, as of 2011, at least 5011 children were living in foster care and prevented from uniting with detained or deported parents. One in four deportees, the November, 2011 study found, have U.S.-born kids and face total loss of parental rights. 
The study told some parents’ stories, in great detail, but that prompted no outcry against the President of the United States Barack Obama for the deportations. Neither did activists target First Lady Michelle Obama for attention to daughters Malia and Sasha. Contrast that gentle, hands-off policy with the response to Ivanka Trump’s May 27 #SundayMorning photo with her two-year-old son, Theodore James Kushner. 
As Tyler O’Neil noted on PJ Media, CNN “boosted a manufactured controversy” over the photo. “It’s a photo of her embracing her two-year-old son,” said CNN anchor Brianna Keilar, “and critics are saying that the post is really tone-deaf amid the reports of families being separated at the Mexican border.” An eruption followed, in the best Pavolvian style. 
“I wonder what #SundayMorning is like for the parents of 1500 lost children your father is responsible for. F—k your #SundayMorning,” tweeted Halsey, known for her song “Bad at Love.” Cinema clown Jim Carrey tweeted “1500 innocent children ripped from their mothers’ arms at our border. Lost in Trump’s ‘system’. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddle masses yearning to breathe free — and we will torture them for wanting a better life. From Shining City to Evil Empire in under 500 days.” 
Comedian Chelsea Handler wondered “What in the world is wrong with this family? Is this picture supposed to remind Mexican asylum seekers what they’ve lost?” And someone called B-magic tweeted, “Are you kidding me? Your cognitive dissonance is a slap on the face of everyone in this country. How dare you post this picture when kids are being forced away from their parents with your father’s approval? You are an awful, awful person.” 
And so on, as another tweeted: “You’d almost never know her father’s administration, to which she is an adviser, was brutally separating migrant children from their asylum-seeking parents and lost track of 1,500 of them.”
In recent testimony,  Steven Wagner of HHS noted that from October to December of 2017, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, attempted to reach 7,635 UAC and their sponsors. Of this number, “ORR reached and received agreement to participate in the safety and well-being call from approximately 86 percent of sponsors.” 
From these calls, ORR learned that 6,075 unaccompanied alien children (UAC) remained with their sponsors, 28, had run away, five had been removed from the United States, and 52 had relocated to live with a non-sponsor. ORR was “unable to determine with certainty the whereabouts of 1,475,” but there was more to the story.  
On Monday, a day after the anti-Trump eruption, HHS Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan told reporters the notion that ORR “lost” 1500 immigrant children was “completely false.” 
The sponsors, “simply did not respond or could not be reached when the call was made.”
The core of the issue, Hargan explained was that “HHS has been put in the position of placing illegal aliens with the individuals who helped arrange for them to enter the country illegally. This makes the immediate crisis worse and creates a perverse incentive for further violation of federal immigration law.”
Hargan blamed “dangerous loopholes” in the U.S. immigration system and “until these laws are fixed, the American taxpayer is paying the bill for costly programs that aggravate the problem and put children in dangerous situations.” 
The anti-Trump tweeters also cited an ACLU report on the mistreat treatment of migrant children by U.S. customs and border protection. Like the photos of the children in cages, that report dates from 2014, during the administration of POTUS 44. That is hardly the only reality now being overlooked. 
Human trafficking is a crime and the celebrity-media-leftist outrage would be better directed at the Central American parents who put their own children in the hands of criminal smugglers. It was the previous administration, and leftist groups like Pueblo Sin Fronteras, that encouraged parents to partner with criminals. And Mexico’s PRI regime enabled the whole enterprise. 
The celebrity-media-left axis ignores these realities and targets Ivanka Trump for posting a photo of two-year-old Theodore James Kushner. Everything has limits, except anti-Trump hatred and hysteria. 

ABOUT LLOYD BILLINGSLEY

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of the new crime book, Lethal Injections: Elizabeth Tracy Mae Wettlaufer, Canada’s Serial Killer Nurse, and the recently updated Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation.
READ MORE
at

A CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT A CONSPIRACY THEORY

It’s a conspiracy theory if Trump says it, not if the media does.

May 31, 2018
 
Daniel Greenfield
59
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.
"Paranoia predisposed him to believe in nefarious, hidden forces driving events," the New York Times writes of Trump. "Political opportunism informed his promotion of conspiracy theories."
But that could just as easily apply to the New York Times.
The Times is unaware of the sublime hypocrisy of accusing the President of the United States of "sowing widespread suspicions about the government" even as it is doing just that.
The paper of broken record specializes in spreading conspiracy theories claiming that President Trump didn’t actually win the 2016 election but that “nefarious, hidden forces” made it happen. Its promotion of conspiracy theories about the 2016 election is obviously informed by its “political opportunism.”
But so are most conspiracy theories.
A conspiracy theory is usually the conspiracy. Democrats spread claims that the JFK assassination was a right-wing conspiracy. That conveniently redirected blame from the Socialist who pulled the trigger and from the Democrats who benefited from it. 9/11 conspiracy theories likewise shift blame away from Muslim terrorists and the Democrats who champion open migration from terror states like theirs.
Before the Democrats used conspiracy theories to delegitimize Trump’s electoral victory, they used them to delegitimize Bush’s victory. You don’t need to be a deep thinker to spot the opportunism.
Or the classic nature of the conspiracy theory: an infinitely expanding plot whose gnostic pleasures come from studying the endless roster of conspirators, the promise of a final takedown never to be delivered, and the seductive appeal of overturning an unwelcome reality with an appealing lie.
Why don’t conspiracy theories ever prosper? Because if they appear in the New York Times, they aren’t conspiracies. What is the Timesian definition of a conspiracy theory? Anything favorable to Trump.
Really.
“The Conspiracy Theory That Says Trump Is a Genius,” is the actual title of a Times op-ed.
Suggesting that the nation’s first billionaire president is a genius is an opinion. Not a conspiracy theory. On the other hand, proposing that the New York Times is biased against Trump is an indisputable fact.
Conspiracy theories, fake news, lies, scandals, corruption and abuses of power are not defined objectively, but along party lines. Timesians are convinced that conspiracies are something that lower class and wrong party people irrationally believe in. Instead truly rational people believe that the 2016 election must be overturned and the winner locked up because of some inchoate string of sentences that begin with Moscow, end with Facebook and take scenic detours through more exotic international locations and random businesses than Anthony Bourdain and a year’s worth of Forbes issues combined.
Successive New York Times stories have spun a web of Trump conspiracies from the Ukraine to Russia, from the United Arab Emirates to Israel. Either Trump is the world’s greatest genius or the New York Times is using crazy conspiracy theories to help sell skin care products to wealthy Manhattanites.
The Times bemoans “baseless stories of secret plots” right before it scoops them up and sells them. The day before that accusation, it ran a story headlined, “Ivanka Trump Wins China Trademarks, Then Her Father Vows to Save ZTE.” The evidence for that secret plot is a string of conjectures and innuendo.
Or baseless.
But it’s not just the Russians, it’s also the Chinese. And the Germans. "Big German Bank, Key to Trump's Finances, Faces New Scrutiny," is another Times hit piece. As is, “Trump's Business Ties in the Gulf Raise Questions" which brings in the Saudis. More Timesian conspiracism includes India, Israel and Uruguay.
The New York Times accuses President Trump of eroding trust in our institutions with conspiracy theories. But that’s exactly what the conspiracy theories it’s spreading are meant to do to elections. Spreading paranoia? That’s another conspiracy media special. The Russians are in your Facebook. Your friends are all fake. If your news isn’t certified by our fact checkers, you shouldn’t trust it.
After an election, the old battles are set aside and everyone agrees to work together. Instead we have an endless election because the media spread conspiracy theories to erode trust in those results.
And those conspiracy theories were based on opposition research from the losing campaign.
President Trump didn’t erode trust in institutions, institutions eroded trust in themselves by enlisting in a partisan campaign. The partisan agenda has always been plainly obvious because these investigations inevitably lead back to the Clinton campaign and its political allies. Unlike the media’s conspiracy theories about Trump conspiring with the Russians to win the election by posting ads on Facebook, the collusion between government agencies and the Democrats is an open book. Many of the media’s conspiracy theories about Trump, such as the Clinton-Steele dossier, the conspiracy’s founding text, originated from that collusion between political operatives and government officials.
Conspiracy theorists in the media left are accusing Trump of being a conspiracy theorist for questioning their conspiracy theory. But is a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory really a conspiracy theory?
Is accusing your opponents of spreading conspiracy theories about you really a conspiracy theory? Especially when they’re doing it on the front pages of every major newspaper in America? The media spreads conspiracy theories. Then it accuses anyone who questions its actions of conspiracy theorizing.
The dubious part of a conspiracy theory is not the ‘conspiracy’ part, but the ‘theory’ segment.
An actual conspiracy can be proven. A conspiracy theory however is just that. A theory. It never gains factual proofs. Instead it diverts attention from its failure to prove its central claim by expanding its sphere and scope, by personalizing, speculating and persecuting anyone it decides is a useful target.
And then, before you know it, you’ve spent a year blowing through millions of dollars, harassing people, breaking into their homes and accusing them of unrelated matters without ever proving collusion.
But don’t worry. The Mueller investigation is on track. That’s why it has to be classified. Like most conspiracy theories, the juiciest parts have to be kept secret because, well, don’t ask questions.
All will be revealed in time.
While Republican congressional investigations sought to declassify information, Mueller, the DOJ and the FBI have built a wall of secrecy. Every detail of the investigation, especially its origins, have had to be pried out from behind that wall. And those details, especially those involving the Steele dossier and how it made its rounds through the government, are damning, proven and germane to the conspiracy.
Unlike the media’s endless world tour of allegations, international conspiracies and vague insinuations, Spygate remains both specific and focused. And, unlike Russiagate, which has yet to even explain its central conspiracy theory of how the Russians actually rigged the election, the accusation is quite clear.
A conspiracy theory evolves into a conspiracy not through elite influencers, sheer volume of allegations or the creativity of their inventors… but through plausible means, motive and supporting facts.
Russiagate was always a toxic cocktail of pre-election dirty tricks and post-election sour grapes. Its central theory has never been adequately explained or justified because even its proponents are unable to explain just how the election was rigged or why Trump would turn to the Russians, instead of his own wildly successful messaging team, to run Facebook ads. If there’s one thing that everyone ought to be able to agree on, it’s that Trump has never lacked for marketing savvy. Meanwhile the most popular brand of Russian vodka is owned by the Brits and made in Illinois.
But the conspiracy to spread the conspiracy theory is real. And its roots have been tracked back through the media, the government and back to the Clinton campaign. While the Clinton-Steele dossier is a series of bizarre unfounded allegations, alternately described as non-credible or as so secret that the Russians would kill for it by its proponents, the conspiracy to seed it into an investigation and the media is not a theory. We know how it happened. We know how it was done. We know who paid for it, who the central players were and why they did it.
That’s not a theory. It’s a conspiracy.

ABOUT DANIEL GREENFIELD

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
READ MORE
at

CAIR APPLAUDS ROSEANNE CANCELLATION

She’s guilty of “Islamophobia,” and so must be silenced.

May 31, 2018
 
Robert Spencer
74
Roseanne has lost her show over a supposedly “racist” tweet, and the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is thrilled.
CAIR’s National Executive Director Nihad Awad crowed: “We welcome the swift and appropriate action taken by ABC and hope it sends a message that the promotion of hatred and bigotry will not be accepted by our nation’s entertainment industry. Ms. Barr has a First Amendment right to express her views, however Islamophobic or racist, but she does not have a constitutional right to a program on a national television network.”
One of the problems with Roseanne’s tweet, according to Lynette Rice in Entertainment, was that it targeted Valerie Jarrett, “an African-American woman who served as a senior adviser for Obama from 2009 to 2017, seemed to refer to conspiracy theories falsely painting her as a closeted Muslim.”
Not necessarily. Maybe Roseanne was referring to the close ties between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood. The former U.S. prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy in 2013 listed a great many strange collaborations between the State Department of Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett and Muslim Brotherhood organizations, including:
  • The State Department announced that the Obama administration would be “satisfied” with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood–dominated government in Egypt.
  • Secretary Clinton personally intervened to reverse a Bush-administration ruling that barred Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Brotherhood’s founder and son of one of its most influential early leaders, from entering the United States.
  • The State Department collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of governments heavily influenced by the Brotherhood, in seeking to restrict American free-speech rights in deference to Sharia proscriptions against negative criticism of Islam.
  • The State Department excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from its “Global Counterterrorism Forum,” a group that brings the United States together with several Islamist governments, prominently including its cochair, Turkey— which now finances Hamas and avidly supports the flotillas that seek to break Israel’s blockade of Hamas. At the forum’s kickoff, Secretary Clinton decried various terrorist attacks and groups, but she did not mention Hamas or attacks against Israel—in transparent deference to the Islamist governments, which echo the Brotherhood’s position that Hamas is not a terrorist organization and that attacks against Israel are not terrorism.
  • The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer 1.5 billion dollars in aid to Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in the parliamentary elections.
  • The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian territories, notwithstanding that Gaza is ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.
  • The State Department and the administration hosted a contingent from Egypt’s newly elected parliament that included not only Muslim Brotherhood members but a member of the Islamic Group (Gamaa al-Islamiyya), which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The State Department refused to provide Americans with information about the process by which it issued a visa to a member of a designated terrorist organization, about how the members of the Egyptian delegation were selected, or about what security procedures were followed before the delegation was allowed to enter our country.
Conspiracy theory? No.
Anyway, Roseanne's remarks are not “Islamophobic” (she didn’t actually say anything about Islam), although they certainly can be taken as racist (it’s unclear, however, that Roseanne knew that Jarrett is black), but one thing Awad said is telling: “Ms. Barr has a First Amendment right to express her views, however Islamophobic or racist, but she does not have a constitutional right to a program on a national television network.”
This echoes statements that Hamas-linked CAIR leaders have made many times. They have a formula they trot out every time: X has a First Amendment right to express his/her views, but he/she does not have a constitutional right to speak at a major university/address law enforcement officials/have a program on a national TV network, etc.
What Hamas-linked CAIR is trying to do is destroy the First Amendment under the guise of upholding it, and create an atmosphere in which everyone it accuses of “Islamophobia” and “racism” -- which would include not just those who post intemperate tweets, but those who discuss how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism.
CAIR is a quintessentially authoritarian organization, determined to silence all foes of jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, non-Muslims and others, by tarring them as “Islamophobic” and “racist” and destroying their reputations. And of course the Leftist media eagerly aids and abets them in this.

ABOUT ROBERT SPENCER

READ MORE
at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *