Wednesday, November 07, 2018

If the Synagogue Shooter Were Muslim, the Media Would Be Defending Him

Excerpt:
There are two groups that plot terrorist attacks against Jewish synagogues and centers in America and Europe: Nazis and Muslims. 

The media unequivocally condemns Nazis, but equivocates when the attackers are Muslims. 

When a Nazi attacks a synagogue, the media blames Republicans. But when a Muslim attacks a synagogue, the media will claim that he was a mentally ill man entrapped by the FBI. Buford O. Furrow and Robert Bowers are monsters, but Abdul Rahman and Ahmed Ferhani are victims. 

President Trump has never expressed an ounce of sympathy for Bowers. Instead he firmly demanded justice. “Anybody who does this deserves the death penalty. When people do this they should get the death penalty and they shouldn’t have to wait years and years. Now the lawyers are going to get involved and we’ll be ten years down the line. Anybody that does this to innocent people who are in temple or in church, should pay the ultimate price.” 

It’s the media which has repeatedly expressed sympathy for synagogue terrorists. 

The same media busy blaming the Squirrel Hill synagogue attack on Trump would have been defending the terrorist if his name had been Rahman instead of Robert. 

And the media has two things in common with the Squirrel Hill synagogue shooter.

Robert Bowers hated Trump. And he hated the Jews in the Trump administration. “Trump is surrounded by kikes,” he complained. 

The media responded to Bowers’ attack by going after Jews. 

The Atlantic decided to publish an execrable blood libel by Franklin Foer which called for "shunning Trump’s Jewish enablers. Their money should be refused, their presence in synagogues not welcome." Julia Ioffe, who had previously been fired for a Trump incest tweet, but was hired anyway by GQ, accused Trump of being responsible for the synagogue shooting. But not before blaming pro-Israel Jews. 

The media isn’t just exploiting the murder of Jews to attack Trump. It’s even sickeningly exploiting the murder of Jews to attack Jews. 

That isn’t opposing anti-Semitism. It’s engaging in it. 

When you oppose anti-Semitism, then you oppose the murder of Jews. By Nazis and by Muslims. 

By anyone. Period. 

The Left’s position on the murder of Jews is wholly politically opportunistic. It opposed the murder of Jews by Hitler, and supported the murder of Jews by Stalin. And now it opposes the murder of Jews by neo-Nazis and supports the murder of Jews by Islamic terrorists. 

Its moral preening after the Squirrel Hill shootings is the posturing of a depraved movement. 

The same journalists and activists lecturing on Trump’s complicity in the massacre were outraged when he cut funding to the Palestinian Authority terrorists who are being paid to murder Jews. 

On a November four years ago, two Muslim terrorists entered a synagogue in Har Nof, Jerusalem. 

They used axes, knives and a gun to murder four Rabbis, three of them Americans. Photos showed a floor covered in blood and torn prayer books. 

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine which took responsibility for the attack is popular on college campuses. Its signage is often displayed by campus hate groups like Students for Justice in Palestine. British leftist leader Jeremy Corbyn was photographed with the attack mastermind. 

And the payments to the terrorists continued, paid for with foreign aid from the United States. 

President Trump has called for ruthless action against the Muslim and Neo-Nazi murderers of Jews. If the media wants to sincerely oppose anti-Semitism, it could take a lesson from him. 

Or it can go on exploiting the Neo-Nazi murder of Jews to promote the agenda of the Islamist murderers of Jews.


READ MORE

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Monday, November 05, 2018

Americans Have Almost Entirely Forgotten Their History

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of "The Right Side of History" podcast. 

A study by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation found that only 1 in 3 Americans can actually pass the U.S. citizenship test, which asks the most basic questions about our history and how our system of government works.

Passing the test requires answering 60 percent of questions correctly, but a majority of those participating in the survey couldn’t even do that.

*********************************************

One of our biggest problems today is that we often focus on tearing down our history rather than learning from it. That needs to change.

If these sobering test results tell us anything, it’s that we need to consider a fundamental change in how we approach education in the United States. And despite what some voices say, education funding is not the problem.


Sunday, November 04, 2018

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service, which celebrated its 70th anniversary on July 5, is imploding

U.K.'s Healthcare Horror Stories Ought To Curb Dems' Enthusiasm for Single-Payer


READ MORE

Saturday, November 03, 2018

And the truth shall set you free

Watch:

Friday, November 02, 2018

TIMELINE: For those who are confused about the 14th Amendment (1868) and anchor babies

Clark Baker (former LAPD):

For those who are confused about the 14th Amendment (1868) and anchor babies, I hope that this timeline helps:
* In 1792, the Democrat Party was formed. They are, essentially, the party of slavery.
* In 1808, Congress abolishes the slave trade in America.
* In 1818, the Democrats become the majority in Congress. Using their majority, they begin to undo these anti-slavery decisions.
* In 1820, the Democrat Party passes the Missouri Compromise, institutionalizing slavery in half of the territories.
* For the next thirty years, Democrats passed multiple laws promoting and protecting slavery, culminating in 1850 with the Fugitive Slave Law. This law ended all rights to jury trials, representation, and habeas corpus from any black who was ACCUSED (proof was unnecessary) of being a slave.
* In 1854, Democrats pass the Kansas-Nebraska act, opening up those territories to slavery, thus exceeding even the limits of the Missouri Compromise.
* In 1854, the REPUBLICAN party is formed to end slavery. Six of the nine planks in their fledgling platform statement deal with civil rights issues.
* In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sanford that blacks are considered inferior and thus not covered by the phrase “all men” in the Declaration of Independence; that they are property covered by the 5th Amendment; and that no black—not even a free black—could ever become a citizen of the United States. The Democrats support the decision.
* In 1861, Democrat Party waged a war to protect and defend slavery, resulting in countless horrors and 650,000 deaths. White Christian men (like my great-grandfather and his brothers) were the first in human history to fight to free slaves and restore the Union.
* In 1865, REPUBLICANS pass the 13th Amendment, ending slavery. 100% of Republicans vote for it. Even among northern Democrats, it only received the support of 23%. In spite of the 13th Amendment, Southern Democrats continued to deny blacks their citizenship rights. Democrats responded by forming the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) to enforce the Democrat Party platform, control elections, impose segregation and suppress the black vote.
* In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed, establishing citizenship for all in Federal law.
100% of Republicans vote for it.
0% of Democrats vote for it.
In spite of the 14th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to prevent blacks from enjoying the real fruits of their citizenship, especially the right to vote.
* In 1868, the 15th Amendment is passed, establishing the right to vote for all people, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
100% of Republicans vote for it.
0% of Democrats vote for it.
* From 1866–1875, the REPUBLICAN Congress passes 19 civil rights laws. Democrats oppose them all.
During the 1960s, bureaucrats misinterpreted the 14th Amendment to include the babies of tourists and illegals. Few Americans questioned it - until now. . .