Saturday, September 1, 2018

DSA SOCIALIST CANDIDATE JULIA SALAZAR LIED ABOUT EVERYTHING

DSA SOCIALIST CANDIDATE JULIA SALAZAR LIED ABOUT EVERYTHING

August 31, 2018
 
Daniel Greenfield
13
If the DSA had any integrity whatsoever, it would drop Julia Salazar like an old shoe. Ditto for Cynthia Nixon and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who have continued to back Salazar for State Senate even as her lies continue crumbling like an aged Brooklyn tenement.
First, her claims of being Jewish came apart.
A 2009 funeral notice for her father, a former commercial airline pilot named Luis Hernan Salazar, indicates that the service was held at the Prince of Peace Catholic Church in Ormond Beach, Florida. When reached by phone, Alex Salazar, the candidate’s older brother and the operator of a number of Florida mango farms, said that one of their father’s brothers was a Jesuit priest. (He also seemed to know very little about her campaign and seemed surprised when I told him she stood a good chance of winning.) “There was nobody in our immediate family who was Jewish … my father was not Jewish, we were not raised Jewish,” he said. Their mother, Christine Salazar, indicated in a public September 2012 Facebook post that she planned on attending services at the Brooklyn Tabernacle, a nondenominational evangelical church in downtown Brooklyn. 
Nor was Julia Salazar an immigrant. Instead she had to admit that she was born in Miami.
Her family members have once again made it clear that her biography has no connection to reality.
Salazar has told a few outright falsehoods, in particular claiming that her family immigrated from Colombia when, in reality, she, her brother and mother were born and raised in the United States and her father first came to United States as a teenager and was naturalized before Salazar was even born.
“My family immigrated to the U.S. from Colombia when I was a baby, and my mom ended up raising my brother and me as a single mom, without a college degree and from a working-class background,” Julia Salazar said in a July interview with Jacobin Magazine.
Alex Salazar characterizes their early years very differently. He remembers them being financially comfortable, living in a big house along a river in Jupiter, Florida. Each of the siblings had their own rooms. The six-figure income that their father, Luis Hernan Salazar, earned as a pilot meant that the family could afford to set aside college savings funds of about $6,000 for each child. “We were very much middle class. We had a house in Jupiter along the river, it was in a beautiful neighborhood,” Alex Salazar said in a telephone interview. “I feel very strongly about my family and I want to tell the truth.”
Alex Salazar directly contradicts Julia’s statement on the Chapo Trap House podcast that “My family immigrated to the U.S. from Colombia when I was a little kid.” Moreover, Alex disputes Julia’s recent backpedaling equivocations on Twitter and interviews that their parents “raised us between two different places,” and “Colombia is where my family was and where I was in the first years of my life.”
On the contrary, Alex says, they were raised entirely in Florida. He remembers a handful of brief trips to Colombia to visit family. The exact number of their trips is unclear, but the “back and forth” childhoodbetween Colombia and South Florida that Julia Salazar describes is also rebutted by her mother, Christine Salazar. Alex and Christine Salazar also note, as Julia readily acknowledges, that their father first came to the country as a teenager.
The family also made family trips to Colombia, where Luis and Christine were married and Alex was baptized by an uncle who was a priest; Julia Salazar was baptized as a Catholic in the U.S., according to Christine
So yes, Julia Salazar was not raised Jewish. Period.
She lied about that, about being an immigrant and about being poor. 
And her attempts to wriggle out just make her look worse.
Julia had said in a statement on Twitter that “I was raised by a single mom who didn’t have a college degree. My father didn’t graduate from high school,” but her father did attend a high school in Santa Barbara, California, according to Alex and Christine. 
Nor is that the only questionable aspect that particular claim. Christine Salazar did, in fact, graduate from college. A representative of Florida Atlantic University confirmed that Christine Crane (Christine Salazar’s maiden name) received a B.A. degree in psychology in 1999.
Julia Salazar pointed out in response that she was 8 years old by that time and so her mother raised her without a college degree up to that point. Since her parents separated when she was six, that means there were two years that she lived only with her mother before Christine graduated from college.
This is truly pathetic.
While the Salazar parents divorced in the late 1990s – hence Julia’s claim of being raised by a single mother – Luis paid child support until an illness left him disabled and unable to work in his final years. The divorce inspired Christine to go back to school and begin a new career in the pharmaceutical industry.
But at no point did Christine receive financial assistance from her children to “to help make ends meet,” as Julia Salazar’s campaign website suggests, in reference to Julia’s job at a grocery store during high school. “My kids always worked, from the time they were 14. I encouraged that because I thought there was a lot of value in that in terms of learning and responsibility so that was the purpose behind them having part-time jobs. … not the light bill,” Christine Salazar said in a telephone interview. This is consistent with Alex’s recollection that Julia’s job was to earn her own spending money and never to help out with household expenses.
And it just keeps getting worse.
Aside from such apparent fabrications, however, are Salazar’s statements that are not ambiguous, such as a recent interview with Jewish Currents in which she said, “We didn’t all have permanent residence in the U.S.” Everyone in her family was a U.S. citizen because her father became a U.S. citizen sometime around 1984, according to her mother.
But the DSA will go on standing by her. The Daily News will keep giving her favorable coverage. If Not Now and other anti-Israel hate groups will go on shrieking that her family probably just hates a woman of color.

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

WITH UNRWA DEFUNDING, TRUMP MAKES CONSERVATIVE WISH LISTS INTO REALITY

August 31, 2018
 
Daniel Greenfield
16
It's stunning how under President Trump, conservative wish lists, the shoot-for-the-moon stuff, becomes reality.
In 2014, I wrote, "Defund the UNRWA".
The UNRWA’s Gaza staff has its own union. In the 2012 election, a pro-Hamas bloc won the support of most of the union with 25 out of 27 seats on a union board.
When there was talk of reforming the UNRWA by removing Hamas members from its ranks, the editor of a Hamas paper wrote that, "Laying off the agency employees because of their political affiliation means laying off all the employees of the aid agency, because…they are all members of the ‘resistance,’ in its various forms."
"I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll," a former UNRWA Commissioner General said, "and I don’t see that as a crime."
"Hamas as a political organization does not mean that every member is a militant, and we do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another," he added.
The United States provided $130 million to the UNRWA in 2013. The UNRWA's operations in Gaza would not be viable without that money.
The original "refugees" that the UNRWA was set up to cater to are for the most part dead. The UNRWA has become another UN boondoggle funding a welfare state for “refugee camps” that are older, bigger and more developed than many Middle Eastern cities.
It's time to defund the UNRWA.
At the time I wrote it, I didn't seriously think that any administration would actually do it. And here we are. It's real.
The Administration has carefully reviewed the issue and determined that the United States will not make additional contributions to UNRWA. When we made a U.S. contribution of $60 million in January, we made it clear that the United States was no longer willing to shoulder the very disproportionate share of the burden of UNRWA’s costs that we had assumed for many years. Several countries, including Jordan, Egypt, Sweden, Qatar, and the UAE have shown leadership in addressing this problem, but the overall international response has not been sufficient.
Beyond the budget gap itself and failure to mobilize adequate and appropriate burden sharing, the fundamental business model and fiscal practices that have marked UNRWA for years – tied to UNRWA’s endlessly and exponentially expanding community of entitled beneficiaries – is simply unsustainable and has been in crisis mode for many years. The United States will no longer commit further funding to this irredeemably flawed operation. 
The terrorist welfare state is in trouble. Hamas will lose its employment agency.

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

WILLIAMS: Immigrants And Disease

Nurse.
Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
ByWALTER E. WILLIAMS
 6.1k views
The Immigration and Nationality Act mandates that all immigrants and refugees undergo a medical screening examination to determine whether they have an inadmissible health condition. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has technical instructions for medical examination of prospective immigrants in their home countries before they are permitted to enter the U.S. They are screened for communicable and infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis, polio, measles, mumps and HIV. They are also tested for syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases. The CDC also has medical screening guidelines for refugees. These screenings are usually performed 30 to 90 days after refugees arrive in the United States.
But what about people who enter our country illegally? The CDC specifically cites the possibility of the cross-border movement of HIV, measles, pertussis, rubella, rabies, hepatitis A, influenza, tuberculosis, shigellosis and syphilis. Chris Cabrera, a Border Patrol agent in South Texas, warned: "What's coming over into the U.S. could harm everyone. We are starting to see scabies, chickenpox, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections and different viruses." Some of the youngsters illegally entering our country are known to be carrying lice and suffering from various illnesses. Because there have been no medical examinations of undocumented immigrants, we have no idea how many are carrying infectious diseases that might endanger American children when these immigrants enter schools across our nation.
According to the CDC, in most industrialized countries, the number of cases of tuberculosis and the number of deaths caused by TB steadily declined during the 100 years prior to the mid-1980s. Since the '80s, immigrants have reversed this downward trend in countries that have had substantial levels of immigration from areas where the disease is prevalent. In 2002, the CDC said: "Today, the proportion of immigrants among persons reported as having TB exceeds 50 percent in several European countries, including Denmark, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. A similar proportion has been predicted for the United States." The number of active TB cases among American-born citizens declined from an estimated 17,725 in 1986 to 3,201 in 2015. That was an 80 percent drop. Data reported to the National Tuberculosis Surveillance System show that the TB incidence among foreign-born people in the United States (15.1 cases per 100,000) is approximately 13 times the incidence among U.S.-born people (1.2 cases per 100,000). Those statistics refer to immigrants who are legally in the U.S. There is no way for us to know the incidence of tuberculosis and other diseases carried by those who are in our country illegally and hence not subject to medical examination.
This public health issue is ignored by all those Americans championing sanctuary cities. The public health issue is also ignored by Americans clamoring for open borders, and that includes many of my libertarian friends. By the way, in the late 19th century and early 20th century, when masses of European immigrants were trying to enter our country, those with dangerous diseases were turned back from Ellis Island. Americans hadn't "progressed" to the point of thinking that anyone in the world has a legal right to live in America. Neither did they think that it was cruel or racist to take measures to prevent our fellow Americans from catching diseases from foreigners.
But aside from diseases, there is the greater threat of welcoming to our shores people who have utter contempt for Western values and want to import anti-Western values to our country, such as genital mutilation, honor killings and the oppression of women. Many libertarian types make the argument that we would benefit from open borders when it comes to both people and goods. That vision ignores the important fact that when we import, say, tomatoes from Mexico, as opposed to people, to the U.S., they are not going to demand that we supply them with welfare benefits.
The bottom line is that we Americans have a right to decide who enters our country and under what conditions. If we forgo that right, we cease to be a sovereign nation. But that may not be important to some Americans.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
at

BOMBSHELL: Source Close To Pope Benedict Confirms Private Sanctions Were Placed On Abusive Cardinal; He Regularly Disobeyed Them

"It’s better if something is sleeping to let it sleep"

Pope Benedict XVI leads his final general audience before his retirement in St Peter's Square on February 27, 2013 in Vatican City, Vatican.
Guido MARZILLA / Contributor / Getty Images
ByPAUL BOIS
 53.1k views
Less than a week has passed since Archbishop Viganò's bombshell testimony alleging that Pope Francis participated in covering up for sexually abusive Cardinal McCarrick and many questions remain that have not been answered.
In an 11-page letter released this past Sunday, Archbishop Viganò, former Nuncio from the Vatican to Washington, D.C., alleged that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had been sanctioned under Pope Benedict XVI only to have those sanctions removed by Pope Francis upon his ascendancy in 2013. Cardinal McCarrick had an alleged history of sexually abusing male seminarians and, according to Viganò, was ordered by Pope Benedict to refrain from saying Mass or public ministry.
"The cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance," Archbishop Viganò wrote in his memo.
Pope Francis has chosen to remain silent regarding the allegations while Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, the first counsellor at the apostolic nunciature in Washington, D.C. when the sanctions were allegedly handed down to McCarrick, said flatly that Viganò "said the truth" in his letter. No hard evidence beyond testimony and witness have been provided, though Viganò did say the proof of him being informed of those sanctions can be found "in the archives in the nunciature in Washington."
Since the letter's release, the mainstream Catholic press has worked tirelessly to discredit the former Nuncio's claims by pointing out that Cardinal McCarrick enjoyed a robust public life in the waning years of Pope Benedict's reign, which makes little sense if he had sanctions placed upon him. Viganò countered the criticism, however, by noting that McCarrick openly defied the sanctions placed upon him, which would explain why he made regular public appearances in the D.C. archdiocese and other corners of the Catholic Church.
Speaking with Edward Pentin of National Catholic Register, a "reliable source" close to Pope Benedict who wished to remain anonymous confirmed that the pope did place sanctions upon Cardinal McCarrick (the details of which were disclosed privately) and the disgraced prelate regularly disobeyed them. From the report:
The source said the allegations of abuse of seminarians by McCarrick, now 88, were "certainly something known" to Benedict. And, he said, "Certainly, it was known that McCarrick was a homosexual, that was an open secret, all were very aware of that." (However, it is important to note that there is no evidence that Church authorities either in the Vatican or in the U.S. were aware of any allegations of sexual abuse of minors by McCarrick until long after Benedict had resigned as Pope.)
But, as mentioned in the Register’s initial report on the testimony on Aug. 25, the Pope Emeritus was "unable to remember very well" how the matter was handled, according to the source. As far as Benedict could recall, the source said the instruction was essentially that McCarrick should keep a "low profile." There was "no formal decree, just a private request."
The source also noted that, after he had retired as Archbishop of Washington D.C., McCarrick continued to be "very able" and "influential at high levels — ecclesiastical, cultural and political" and so could ignore the sanctions imposed upon him.
"Effectively, he was able not to hear what he had to hear," the source said.
Other outlets have pointed to photos of Cardinal McCarrick alongside Pope Benedict in Rome to disprove the Nuncio's testimony, but the source claims that McCarrick "knew better not to appear here in Rome," though he would visit on occasion due to his level of influence "even though he had no permission." McCarrick would make requests for a private papal audience but was denied every time.
Some have claimed that Pope Benedict had McCarrick participate in talks with China during the years of his supposed sanctions to contradict the Nuncio, but the Holy See in China claims he had "absolutely no influence" there for at least the past five years.
The question that now remains is what were the extent of the sanctions placed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict and why were they so private? Also, if he broke them so often, why did the pope not place tougher penalties? The source told NCR: "As well as being very active, the media and public opinion didn’t speak any more about McCarrick, and sometimes it’s better if something is sleeping to let it sleep," noting that it was important to be "very careful and prudent with McCarrick."
A recent article in LifeSiteNews also showed that proof of the sanctions being lifted against Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Francis was at least hinted at in a June 2014 Washington Post piece headlined, "Globe-trotting Cardinal Theodore McCarrick is almost 84, and working harder than ever." The article suggested that the Cardinal had been sidelined under Benedict.
"McCarrick is one of a number of senior churchmen who were more or less put out to pasture during the eight-year pontificate of Benedict XVI," the Post piece states. "But now Francis is pope, and prelates like Cardinal Walter Kasper (another old friend of McCarrick’s) and McCarrick himself are back in the mix, and busier than ever."
At one point, the article even highlighted a joke that supposedly took place between Pope Francis and McCarrick about how the the devil wasn’t ready for the Cardinal in hell. The bizarre exchange is used as an introduction to "the improbable renaissance that McCarrick (was) enjoying" under Francis.
"I guess the Lord isn’t done with me yet," he told the pope.
"Or the devil doesn’t have your accommodations ready!" Francis shot back with a laugh.
McCarrick loves to tell that story, because he loves to tell good stories and because he has a sense of humor as keen as the pope’s. But the exchange also says a lot about the improbable renaissance that McCarrick is enjoying as he prepares to celebrate his 84th birthday in July(2014).
The Post article noted that McCarrick had been traveling abroad at a much faster rate following the ascendancy of Pope Francis. "Sometimes McCarrick’s travels abroad are at the behest of the Vatican, sometimes on behalf of Catholic Relief Services," says the piece. "Occasionally the U.S. State Department asks him to make a trip."
"But Francis, who has put the Vatican back on the geopolitical stage, knows that when he needs a savvy back channel operator he can turn to McCarrick, as he did for the Armenia trip," it added.
If that's not proof enough of his censure under Benedict, the article recounts how McCarrick was "sort of spinning his wheels under Benedict. Then Francis was elected, and everything changed."
at

'Cosmo' Covergirl Is 'Morbidly Obese' Body Acceptance Model

Screenshot: Twitter
ByAMANDA PRESTIGIACOMO
Body positivity activist and model Tess Holliday will be featured on the cover of Cosmopolitan U.K.’s October issue, set to hit newsstands on Friday.
Holliday, a key figure in the pro-obesity movement, gushed over the swimsuit cover on Twitter. "I’m literally a COSMO GIRL!! Can’t believe I’m saying that!" she said, adding, "If I saw a body like mine on this magazine when I was a young girl, it would have changed my life."
Progressive outlets like The Huffington Post were also pleased with the cover. "Tess Holliday is everything the fashion industry needs. She doesn't conform to the (metaphorically and literally) narrow standard of beauty that's been set by society, she's a role model for others who have felt excluded in this way, and she's downright honest," said HuffPo's Ron Dicker.
Holliday made waves when her #EffYourBeautyStandards campaign on Instagram went viral, racking up millions of copycat hashtags. "I created [the campaign] out of frustration," the model told Cosmopolitan U.K. "I was angry and sad that people kept commenting on my pictures saying, 'You’re too fat to wear that!' or 'Cover up! No one wants to see that!' And then one night I was lying in bed and thought, 'F*** that!' So I posted an image with four photographs of myself wearing things that fat women are often told we 'can’t wear', and encouraged others to do the same."
As the Pluralist reports, Holliday falls under the most severe of the CDC's obesity categories, "morbidly obese." "At a ​reported weight of 280 pounds and 5 feet, 5 inches tall, Holliday would fall under the most severe category of obesity, ​according to the Center for Disease Control's Body Mass Index calculator," the outlet reports.
An individual is considered to be morbidly obese if he or she is "100 pounds over his/her ideal body weight, has a BMI of 40 or more, or 35 or more and experiencing obesity-related health conditions, such as high blood pressure or diabetes." Among the health issues related to extreme obesity are Type 2 Diabetes, high blood pressure/heart disease, osteoarthritis, sleep apnea, depression, and infertility.
But as people have raised concerns about glamorizing severely unhealthy lifestyles, industry leaders have embraced Holliday, suggesting that you can't really tell somebody's health from looking at them, even if they are morbidly obese.
"Holliday identifies as a fat woman; we chose to give her a platform because she has insightful things to say about thriving in a world that devalues bodies of size," said Editor-in-chief of Self magazine Carolyn Kylstra, adding, "You don’t know how healthy or unhealthy a person is just by looking at them, you don’t know what their health goals and priorities are, and you don’t know what they’ve already done or are planning to do for their health going forward."
Kylstra also slammed those who are skeptical of normalizing obesity for their "concern trolling," which is "counterproductive" and "abusive."
"And moreover, you should know that concern trolling—using a person’s perceived health to justify making them feel bad about themselves—isn’t just counterproductive, it’s abusive," she wrote.
Unfortunately, the #EffYourBeautyStandards campaign will not shield you from heart disease.
at

Sensibly Speaking Podcast #156: Let's Talk About Human Rights





Published on Aug 31, 2018
SUBSCRIBED 19K
This week, my wife Melissa and I have a fairly informal discussion about the topic of rights in our world, specifically human rights and civil rights. We discuss the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the consequences, troubles and issues with implementing them around the world and especially here at home in the United States. Enjoy! 
#HumanRights #UnitedNations #CivilRights

SHOP FOR CRITICAL MERCHANDISE
http://shop.spreadshirt.com/chrisshelton

My book, Scientology: A to Xenu, is available here:
Paperback: https://goo.gl/yYIl2t
Kindle edition: http://goo.gl/K51ySi
Audio edition: http://goo.gl/1yvlYS

Subscribe to my podcast at http://sensiblyspeaking.com or on iTunes at https://goo.gl/1QDUHS
at
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *