There are two fundamental ways to view Islam in the West, and it is now clear those who hold to the “Islam is a religion of peace” view, which has held sway over the affairs of the West for so long, are fighting a desperate rear-guard action to remain in charge following Trump’s rise to power.
T. Belman. I have some trouble with this article.
While I was coming to the conclusion that Trump wanted to walk back “radical Islamic terrorism” stuff, this article confirmed my suspicions.
ISIS may not be “Islamic”, jihad, both stealth and violent, is. With Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood pushing this, we must push back.
This article also ignores what is happening in Europe. A conquest of Europe is taking place according to Islamic doctrine. Europe will be transformed and not for the better.
As for American immigration policies, I am more concerned about the Islamization of America than about the odd terrorist that comes in.
America should ban the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR and should institute policies that push assimilation. She must abandon the multicultural policy.
Since 9/11, there has been an orthodoxy split in Western politics. On one side are people who say that we should not call the global security problem “radical Islam,” partly because that tars millions of non-terrorist Muslims and their religion with the brush of radicalism. On the other are people who say that we must call it “radical Islam,” partly because the motives for terrorism by Muslims trace to the commands of Islam, and if we don’t make that clear, terrorists can just keep hiding among their co-religionists.
T. Belman. Israel can no longer try to be bipartisan. Israel must do what it must do and let the cards fall where they may. American Jews no longer control the Democratic Party. AIPAC is useless. It couldn’t prevent the takeover of the party. Did it even try? American Jews must rethink what it means to be pro-Israel. This will align them more with Israel and less with the Democratic Party.
The Democrats are in a dangerous place for themselves, for the US and for the American Jewish community.
Was former Secretary of labor and assistant attorney-general Tom Perez’s victory over Congressman Keith Ellison over the weekend in the race to serve as the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee a victory of centrist Democrats over radical leftists in the party? That is how the mainstream media is portraying Perez’s victory.
Along these lines, Prof. Allen Dershowitz, a lifelong Democrat who promised to quit the party if Ellison was elected due to his documented history of antisemitism and hostility toward Israel, hailed Perez’s election. Speaking to Fox News, Dershowitz said that Perez’s election over Ellison “is a victory in the war against bigotry, antisemitism, the anti-Israel push of the hard Left within the Democratic Party.”
At the Munich Security Conference this month, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman declared his commitment to the two-state solution and reiterated his vision for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict based on a regional arrangement with land and population swaps. Lieberman has studied history, and it appears the foremost intellectual and historical lessons he has learned stem from the experiences of European nations.
Indeed, after World War Two, millions of people in Europe were forced to emigrate from their isolated ethnic, religious, or national regions, and join their geographically distant brethren; and in the wake of the murderous atrocities, sovereignty over numerous enclaves changed hands. In Arab countries as well, “coexistence” between ethnic groups and minorities was characterized by destruction, murder and migration, as the world stood idly by.
President Trump presents a problem to those who look at politics in terms of systematic ideologies. He is either disinclined or unable to lay out his agenda in that way. So perhaps it was inevitable that Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who does have a gift for thinking systematically, would be so often invoked by Mr. Trump’s opponents. They need him not just as a hate object but as a heuristic, too. There may never be a “Trumpism,” and unless one emerges, the closest we may come to understanding this administration is as an expression of “Bannonism.”
T. Belman. I will be attending this convention on Tuesday as I have followed Feiglin for some time now and know a number of his key American people.
‘Zehut’ Party founder grants Arutz Sheva interview ahead of opening conference: ‘Message burning in my bones: State must fulfill mission’.
Moshe Feiglin, former Knesset member, founder and candidate to head the Zehut (“Identity”) party, imparts his political, economic, and social philosophy in an exclusive and extended interview with Arutz Sheva.
Feiglin is not hesitant to say he is preparing for elections and says the government is in its final stretch: “An average government in Israel serves two-and-a-half years, so we are in the final stretch of an average term and this conference brings Zehut into the political dialogue. We will vote in our convention using the primary system. Following the conference we will create tools such as a political slogan and campaign slogans. This conference is going to be unique, full of passion and culture, joy and hope.”
T. Belman. I am in touch with a number of experts who say that Flynn didn’t lie to Pence. It is obvious that Trump wanted him out rather than in. He could have stood by him. But there is more to it than that. Why didn’t Trump replace him with a similarly minded guy. On the contrary he chose the opposite who espoused that Islam is a religion of peace. Did Trump want to abandon his line about “radical Islamist terrorism”? We will have to see if Trump continues using that phrase.
The fact that McMaster in his first public remarks after his appointment, stood in opposition to his boss. Its like he was giving a message. McMaster also immediately selected McCain to head an important committee on National Security. Perhaps Trump threw Flynn under the bus in a deal made with McCain to buy McCain’s silence on Russia and Islam. We will see.
Why should I challenge the powerful words of Bryan Wright or the extensive reporting of Adam Kredo? The political assassination of General Mike Flynn was carried out by a cabal of CIA officials and Obama loyalists, in tandem with allies in the media. It’s an ugly spectacle, damaging to our national interests, and perhaps unique in our history, as Senator Cruz has said.
Flynn’s phone calls with Russian officials, which took place before he officially entered the White House, do not appear to violate any law. Yet the release of classified information about them certainly is a crime. As Wright says, “The spies who are plotting against President Trump are breaking U.S. laws. They’re violating their oaths. And they’re committing treason to remedy (perceived) treason.”
An amendment to the Planning and Building Law that will increase enforcement and penalties for illegal construction is being ardently opposed by Arab MKs and dovish rights groups on the grounds that it ignores alleged government failures to provide Arabs with the means to build legally.
“We are concerned this will punish people who have no choice and will lead to the criminalizing of people who did not build with the intention of committing a crime or an offense,” said Raghad Jaraisy, head of the Arab minority project at the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.
So much for the moderate Muslim
In December 2015, a small group of Muslims met in Washington, DC to discuss the reform of Islam. With media fanfare, they named themselves the Muslim Reform Movement (MRM), issued a Declaration for Muslim Reform, and became the new face of “Muslim reformers.”
Note: Michael Anton is Deputy Assistant to the President for Strategic Communications, National Security Council. This article was prepared before the author accepted his current position. The views here reflect only those of the author. They do not represent the views of the Trump administration, the National Security Advisor, or the U.S. government.
In a year of upset political apple carts, none were rattled harder, or lost more fruit, than traditional notions of American foreign policy. Donald Trump shocked a lot of people over a lot of issues. But no anti-Trump Republican economists orchestrated elaborate letters, with hundreds of signatories, to swear they would never serve in a Trump administration. No dissident Republican trade negotiators ostentatiously switched parties and vowed to support Trump’s opponent. Nor did Republican immigration experts flood the cable networks to renounce and denounce their party’s nominee.
Yet all of the above—and more—happened with respect to foreign policy. The specific reasons why Republican foreign policy operatives chose to denounce Trump’s plans may never be clear. We shall instead explore what we think they had in mind.
WASHINGTON — As commander of an armored cavalry troop, H. R. McMaster fought in the largest tank battle of the Persian Gulf war, earning a Silver Star in the process. Afterward, the young captain reflected on how different his experience had been from the accounts he had read about Vietnam.
So when he arrived at the University of North Carolina for graduate studies in fall 1992, questions swirled through his head: How had Vietnam become an American war? Why did American troops die without a clear idea of their mission? “I began to seek answers to those questions,” he later wrote.
T. Belman. The fact that McMaster should say these things within days after his appointment tells us a lot. And you can assume that the resignation of Flynn was part of the deal. Normally, if Flynn had to go for some error you would expect that a “look-alike” would be appointed in his place. This time the opposite.
The question is, what did Trump get in return?
NSA pick McMaster told the National Defense University that “the Islamic State is not Islamic.”
President Trump has confirmed that retired Lt. General H.R. McMaster is his new choice to be his National Security Adviser. There have been indications that the Republican establishment has been trying to co-opt Trump and keep him from effecting the sweeping reform that he has promised, and this appointment could indicate that at least for the moment, these forces have gained the upper hand.
A source that has asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals has informed me that he was present in August 2014 when McMaster was the featured speaker for the President’s Lecture Series at National Defense University in Washington, D.C. McMaster addressed an assembly of all the students in the colleges of the university, including the National War College, the College of International Security Affairs (CISA), the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy (formerly the Industrial College of the Armed Forces), and the others.
Trump is correct in realizing that there are two distinct types of Muslim immigrants, and the government now has proof of that in writing.
This article is being written in Cincinnati, Ohio, where the the hottest topic in the news, as it is in the media all across the USA, is President Trump’s executive order of three weeks ago, banning immigration to the USA from seven Islamic countries which he claims are terror-ridden. The countries on the list are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. This order is in line with the promise Trump made to his voters during the election campaign, a promise made in answer to the growing fears Americans have regarding Muslim immigration.
The source of the fears is a combination of four factors:
A unique, funny and disarming man gets to the parts of America that Obama seems not to have noticed, even those populated by African-Americans.
Many serious people have researched and written about anti-Semitism—but only a handful have attained a large, popular audience. This is understandable since the subject is sobering, even frightening. Often, our most distinguished experts find themselves preaching to the converted or only to other scholars who specialize in this area. How can we wake civilians up if they glaze over at our footnotes, taste despair, not triumph, in our documentation, and fail to understand our complex analyses?
And then there are the gatekeepers who refuse to review such work—and if they do, make it a point to find just the right kind of critic, (often someone Jewish), who will mock and minimize the idea that contemporary anti-Semitism exists, or that it endangers Jews or the Jewish state. They tend to deem such work “hysterical,” “Cassandra-like,” lacking in nuance, utterly misguided.
T. Belman. Talk about fake news. Add man-made climate change to the list. All antisemitism derives from fake news. The distorted opinions on Trump are part of this story. So is the Palestinian narrative.
The infamous Joseph Goebbels said “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
And thus all lies are supported by limiting free speech and advocating political correctness.
You will recall the Torah words “na’aseh v’nishma“ – “We will do and we will hear/understand.” I just read an article which mandates advocates to win people over on an emotional level because once you have their heart they are oblivious to truth.
In other words, fake news captures the heart. What comes later has little effect.
by DEROY MURDOCK, NATIONAL REVIEW October 16, 2014 4:30 PM
So why did his administration sit on the evidence of Saddam Hussein’s WMDs? New media accounts — including coverage by NRO’s Patrick Brennan — confirm what I repeatedly have written since the depths of Operation Iraqi Freedom: The late dictator Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass death, and the United States of America was correct to invade Iraq, find these toxins, and destroy them.
Also vital: padlocking this Baathist general store for militant-Islamic terrorism. As I explained on July 17, 2006: While the liberal press gently sleeps, evidence continues to mount that Hussein had WMDs, though perhaps not in quantities that would bulge warehouses.
Two new projects seek to stop the dramatic drop in water levels at the world’s lowest point.
By Zafrir Rinat, HAARETZ | Feb. 24, 2017
It has been hard to find reasons for optimism about the Dead Sea in recent years. Its water level has continued to fall at a rate of over a meter per year, while thousands of sinkholes are appearing in the dried-out areas around its shores – systematically destroying the tourism and transportation infrastructure in the region.
Until recently, plans to artificially stream water into the Dead Sea looked like a distant dream. But all those involved in trying to save the sea are convinced such a project is feasible, although they admit concerns about possible environmental dangers.
Next week, a special issue on the matter will be published by the Israeli journal Ecology & Environment. The journal will provide an up-to-date and extensive picture of the reality at one of the world’s most important natural wonders.
Column: How conservatism is changing in the Trump era
Decades of intellectual and political activity preceded the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. William F. Buckley Jr. founded National Review in 1955. A little less than a decade later, National Review publisher William Rusher helped orchestrate Barry Goldwater’s presidential nomination. The following year, 1965, Buckley ran for mayor of New York City and Irving Kristol, then still a member of the anti-Communist left, founded The Public Interest. The year after that, Reagan was elected governor of California. The 1970s saw the proliferation of single-issue interest groups that comprised the New Right. The first Conservative Political Action Conference was held in 1973. In 1977, a year after losing the Republican nomination to incumbent Gerald Ford, Reagan addressed the conference. “The new Republican Party I am speaking about,” he said, “is going to have room for the man and the woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat, and the millions of Americans who may never have thought of joining our party before, but whose interests coincide with those represented by principled Republicanism.” When President Reagan took office in 1981, he could count on 25 years of accumulated conservative thought, argument, rhetoric, policy proposals, and political experience. The movement came first. The voters followed.
T. Belman. This is beyond belief.
President Trump’s new National Security Advisor doesn’t believe it is “helpful” to say the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.”
President Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser has told his staff that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are perverting their religion, rejecting a key ideological view of other senior Trump advisers and signaling a potentially more moderate approach to the Islamic world.
The adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic,” according to people who were in the meeting.