Saturday, September 1, 2018

DEM CONGRESSMAN TO ICE PERSONNEL: "YOU WILL NOT BE SAFE"

August 30, 2018
 
Daniel Greenfield
63
Democracy really does die in darkness. But, unlike removing the security clearances of top CNN talking heads, actual threats against working law enforcement personnel are of no interest to the media's born again decency scolds and their police state correspondents.
A Democratic lawmaker issued a startling warning to government officials involved in “illegal” deportations that they “will not be safe” from future punishment when Donald Trump is no longer president.
“If you are a US government official and you are deporting Americans be warned,” Arizona Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego tweeted early Thursday. “When the worm turns you will not be safe because you were just following orders. You do not have to take part in illegal acts ordered by this President's administration.”
Chris Crane, the president of the National ICE Council, which represents thousands of ICE employees, accused Gallego of inciting violence against them as they “enforce the nation’s laws and keep our communities safe.”
“It should be frightening to every American that a sitting member of Congress would threaten the safety of any person and their family, and incite the public to take acts of violence against them, let alone the lives of those whose job it is to protect us and keep us safe,” Crane said in a statement.
This isn't really new.
Before the current wave of harassment of ICE personnel in defense of illegal alien migrants, the Dems and their leftist allies pulled some of the same stunts to protect Muslim terrorists. And Dem legislators were happy to threaten interrogators. Once Obama came to power, nothing much came of it. But it's not without precedent. Dems have been known to direct threats against the military and law enforcement for doing their job and interfering with the political agendas and clients of the left. Democracy dying in darkness to the applause of the Washington Post. 

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

GOOD RIDDANCE TO THE VILLAGE VOICE

August 31, 2018
 
Daniel Greenfield
1
The Village Voice, that alt-left rag that even most New Yorkers thought had died years ago, is dead. Again. 
At least until someone buys the brand and starts it up again.
The lefty tabloid, which for years existed on Kool cigarette ads and sex trafficking, had gone into a slow and steady decline. First the Voice became free. And then no one read it anyway. Its final stories typify its mix of LES nostalgia and attempts to glom on to recent trends.
There are rants about landlords, a piece on Robert Crumb, attacks on conservatives and mourning the loss of New York's soul. 
Sadly, New Yorkers, (these days mostly hipsters and people from the Midwest who moved here to work in publishing), will be deprived of future trenchant stories from the 1980s like these.
Once upon a time the Village Voice was at least relevant to something. Now it's nostalgic noise. An echo of a time of partial gentrification when the areas it served were still hip, instead of faux hip, when everyone didn't have access to all the concert schedules on their phone, and when its huge smeared pages seemed like a pathway to something cool for twenty something readers at Simon and Schuster, instead of a pathetic joke.
The Voice goes silent with a bad faith millennial whimper. With a defense of Sarah Jeong, the New York Times' new racist, titled, "Oh the Caucasity", and with Emma Whitford insisting that Julia Salazar, who lied about being Jewish and immigrant, was really telling the truth.
But that wasn't enough to save the Voice, which was never going to be able to compete on lefty malice with the likes of Splinter or Gawker. Its pop culture coverage was inferior. As was everything else. It was a local paper for a scene that was no longer local and that had no more locals. It was a nostalgia trip for people who were no longer there. It was irrelevant. And now it's dead.

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

MCCAIN OUTRAGE IS ABOUT BASHING CONSERVATIVES

August 31, 2018
 
Daniel Greenfield
28
All the outrage about an insufficient degree of respect being paid to Senator McCain is not about respect. It's not about paying tribute to him. It's about using his death to settle scores with political enemies. 
Take Ron Radosh's latest Daily Beast piece which is mainly a list of conservatives who have failed to pay proper tribute to McCain.
"And after his (Trump's) tweet offering his family “deepest sympathies and respect,” but omitting anything about McCain’s legacy, the dog whistle to his followers was made clear," he writes.
What was the dog whistle? Who knows.
"Some do praise his record of service to the nation, they do not dwell on “the ideas to which he devoted his public life.”
What are those ideas? Who knows.
"The only reason McCain is being praised, Rush Limbaugh explained, “is the opportunity it provides to continue to savage Donald Trump… showing Trump coming up short on virtually every measure.” It evidently has little to do with McCain’s principles, dignity, and willingness to stand by what he believes."
Except Radosh's article demonstrates Limbaugh's point.
It's little more than a lazy roundup of quotes from a few conservative thinkers combined with enthusiastic arm waving about McCain's "ideas", without ever spelling them out, about his principles, dignity, etc, which are mentioned only at the end and never elaborated on.
If Radosh were really brimming over with respect for these ideas and principles, he could have dedicated an article to them. But he found it much more worthwhile to use McCain's death to settle ideological scores. But McCain isn't Kirov. And using his death to attack conservatives while making passing vague references to his ideas or principles is the height of cynicism. 
If McCain's ideas are so compelling, surely they deserve an article of their own. But instead what engages the professional McCain mourner class seems to be using his death to deliver their own "Friends, Romans and Countrymen" speech in the hopes of turning some imagined mob on Trump. But the mob hasn't materialized and will never materialize. The latest outrage that incenses political elites leaves the rest of the country cold. And the average American, including Trump voters, respects McCain's death far more than the pundits trying to use him as a political weapon. 

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

UN/ISLAM'S LATEST CENSORSHIP PUSH ACCUSES FACEBOOK OF GENOCIDE

August 31, 2018
 
Daniel Greenfield
12
The left has only one mode, one objective and one watchword. Bad faith totalitarianism. Outrage is used to manufacture pretexts for depriving people of their basic rights while turning over absolute power to the left. Rinse, repeat until everyone is dead.
The left has been pushing Facebook censorship aggressively for the last few years.
Its latest pretext is Muslim violence against Hindus and Buddhists in Myanmar, accompanied by UN claims that the Muslim Rohingya colonists are the victims of "genocide".
And that Facebook can be put on trial for failing to censor any views dissenting from the UN.
The United Nations has warned Facebook that it risks being dragged into international war crimes trials for its role in future human rights violations, as it called on the social network to address hate speech more quickly.
Zeid Ra'ad Al-Hussein, the UN’s human rights chief, said the company risked becoming an accessory to horrific crimes and that the company had not taken violence in Burma incited on the social network seriously.
Al-Hussein is a Jordanian Muslim prince. The idea of a royal from a country with little in the way of human rights supervising human rights is almost as much of a joke as Al Jazeera, an operation of the Qatari royals, being treated as a legitimate independent media outlet.
It comes after a UN report into atrocities in Burma this week said Facebook had been “a useful instrument for those seeking to spread hate”.
Speaking in Geneva, Mr Al-Hussein said Facebook risked being subpoenaed in future trials “of those accused of the worst crimes” if it did not learn its lesson from the violence.
"We felt early on very uncomfortable with what we were seeing in Myanmar, (but) in the early meetings that we had with Facebook, I didn't think they were taking it seriously," Mr Al-Hussein said. "Hopefully they've now awoken."
He added that “their role would be brought into question” in other cases "where Facebook is the dominant medium in a country where you see a deterioration of human rights conditions".
“They have to be sure that they know where they are and what side of the law they are on.”
Mr Al-Hussein suggested that Facebook should be regulated by international human rights law, instead of by national governments.
If the US is on top of things, it needs to make it very clear that American companies are not subject to "international human rights law" and will not be threatened with it for failing to censor online content. The next step will be to push censorship of Mohammed cartoons and anything else that offends Islamic theocracy while threatening international trials of any company that does not comply.


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

THE EXTREMELY DUBIOUS UN GENOCIDE REPORT ON MYANMAR

August 31, 2018
 
Daniel Greenfield
14
The UN report accusing Myanmar of genocide over its attempts to defend its Buddhist and Hindu population against Islamic violence is out. Its conclusions are as unsurprising as its methodology is dubious. The report was instigated by the UN Human Rights Council, an organization stacked with tyrannies, particularly Islamic ones. Current members include Islamist regimes like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Allies of the Rohingya Muslim colonists are prevalent. Buddhist and Hindu countries are underrepresented.
The report's methodology is quite scanty. The UN mission never actually made it into Myanmar. It claims to have "interviewed 875 witnesses who had fled the country". But while the report draws all sorts of conclusions and makes all sorts of accusations about the government, it's unclear if anyone in a position to know about government actions was actually interviewed, as opposed to the Muslim insurgent population.
There is little mention of Muslim violence and that is left mostly vague. For example, the UN report states, " Other abuses allegedly perpetrated by ARSA, including several incidents where Rakhine and members of other ethnic groups, including the Mro, were killed, require further investigation, as does the killing of up to 100 Hindu men and women from Kha Maung Seik. The Mission’s primary source information on the latter incident corroborates the killing, but is inconclusive as to the perpetrator. Other militant or criminal groups were also active in the region and may also have been responsible for abuses."
ARSA is a Jihadist organization run out of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Both members of the farce that is the UN Human Rights Council.  
And though the UN mission had far more access to Muslims than to the members of the indigenous population whom it's accusing of genocide, it hasn't managed to figure out who committed the murder of Hindus. But yet we're expected to believe that without ever entering Myanmar, it knows everything that happened there. 
The report is a push for censorship, a whitewash of Islamic violence and a dangerous precedent for once again exploiting the UN to bolster Islamic violence when it fails to achieve its goals on its own.

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

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ AND DSAST AND BY ANTI-ISRAEL ACTIVIST WHOLIED ABOUT BEING JEWISH

August 31, 2018
 
Daniel Greenfield
21
The evidence is mounting that Julia Salazar, a DSA candidate for State Senate in New York, lied about being raised Jewish. The BDS supporter and anti-Israel activist with hate groups such as If Not Now, was caught out in a Tablet article. 
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. 
In response to these revelations, Julia Salazar rushed out a bunch of angry denials, contradictory stories and attacks on the Jewish community. She admitted that she had been born in Miami, but tried to attribute her previous claims of being an immigrant to a staff member.
Except that she was caught on video making those claims out loud.
The latest evidence hasn't been helpful either.
A former fellow student at Columbia University, meanwhile, told Haaretz that the Democratic socialist had “lied about her immigrant identity and she’s lying about being Jewish.”
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the former student said Salazar first spoke with him in 2010, expressing a desire to be involved in pro-Israel activism, and “stated unequivocally that she wasn’t Jewish.”
The former student said Salazar became active in the Christians United For Israel organization around this time. “In July 2011, she attended the CUFI summit and in the fall semester she nominally founded CUFI at Columbia University.”
Later, he said, they discussed her decision to join a CUFI trip to Israel, “after she expressed interest in going and we clearly discussed the fact that Birthright wasn’t an option since she wasn’t Jewish,” he said, referring to the free roots trip for Diaspora Jews.
But despite the evidence, fellow socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Democratic Socialists of America stand by their grifter. They've repeated Salazar's bizarre accusations that pointing out her lies is an attack on a "woman of color". (Salazar's mother was Italian.)
New York City DSA co-chair Bianca Cunningham responded to Jewish outrage at Salazar's appropriation of a Jewish identity to attack the Jewish community by doubling down on accusation of racism aimed at Jews. The DSA has bought its anti-Semitic ticket and is riding.
This isn't the DSA's first brush with anti-Semitism.
However, on October 6, 2017 she claimed non-Jews could not be Zionists without being influenced by Jewish friends or loved ones. In this same exchange, she commented that she “enjoys listening to Farrakhan’s sermons”, as well as claiming Democrats turn a blind eye to Palestinians, and “justify it by bringing up the Holocaust. As if what happened 70 years ago justifies what is happening now.”
Just the continued Corbynization of the American left.

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
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *