AFDI PROTEST SARSOUR AT CUNY

CUNY is standing by its decision to honor pro-terror, sharia activist Linda Sarour. The norming of evil.

They disinvited Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Ann Coulter, Milos, legions of conservative thinkers and voices in defense of freedom, but a vicious, pro-sharia, Jew hater they will defend to the death and that is it right there. They fear jihad. They fear Islamic supremacists. They know no harm with come to them if they smear, defame, libel or cancel us. They know we don’t destroy, maim, behead like Sarsour supporters and their violent running dogs on the left.

Such sanction is so malignant and so evil, it cannot be ignored. There is a responsibility for the time we are living in. Ayn Rand said, "evil is made possible by the sanction youn give it. Withdraw your sanction."

We will be there. We will protest — this will not stand. Be there —

June 1st, Harlem’s Apollo Theater at 253 West 125th Street, from 5 – 7:30pm. RSVP on Facebook (click here) .

Let’s call upon President Trump to stop taxpayer funding of terror supporting universities.

Here is Sarsour's twitter feed:

The left’s chokehold on the nation’s most powerful institutions continues despite a Trump presidency and a Republican Congress, but this is a step too far. My colleagues and I are blacklisted from speaking at almost everywhere because we stand in defense of freedom and oppose jihad terror and sharia. Anytime we are scheduled to speak, terror-tied Islamic groups and their supremacist leaders demand we be cancelled. But this annihilationist is being given the honor of commencement speaker?

Adolf Hitler and his violent, antisemitic political party the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei – DAP (German Socialist Workers’ Party) — were on the outer fringe of German society until he was invited to join mainstream parties in opposition to the Versailles Treaty. Inviting Hitler to join mainstream political parties in supporting the German referendum of 1929 was key, as it gained the Nazi Party recognition and credibility it could never have hoped to have gained on its own. Influential German businessman and politician Alfred Hugenberg made a coalition with Hitler, which gave Hitler huge legitimacy. After failing at the ballot box, Hitler, like Islamic supremacists in the West, came to understand that that power was to be achieved not through revolution outside of the government, but rather through legal means, within the confines of the democratic system.

How appropriate that she be a darling of the left now.

An outspoken critic of Israel, Sarsour avidly supports the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) movement, a Hamas-inspired initiative that uses various forms of public protest, economic pressure, and lawsuits to advance the Hamas agenda of permanently destroying Israel as a Jewish nation-state.

Vis-a-vis the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, Sarsour favors a one-state solution where an Arab majority and a Jewish minority would live together within the borders of a single country. She made clear her opposition to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state when she tweeted in October 2012 that “nothing is creepier than Zionism.”

In 2004, Sarsour acknowledged that a friend of hers as well as a cousin were both serving long sentences in Israeli jails because of their efforts to recruit jihadists to murder Jews. Moreover, she revealed that her brother-in-law was serving a 12-year prison term because of his affiliation with Hamas.

Speaking of creepy realtives, Sarsour’s husband, Maher Judeh, mourned the 1998 death of the Hamas “master terrorists” Adel and Imad Awadallah; he praised the heroism of a Palestinian Authority police officer who had carried out a shooting attack at a checkpoint in Israel; he has expressed support for the terrorist organization Fatah; and he has lauded the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary organization.

In October 2011, Linda Sarsour, who holds free-market economics in low regard, expressed, on behalf of “Muslim New Yorkers,” “solidarity and support” for the pro-communist Occupy Wall Street movement. In 2011 as well, the Obama Administration honored Sarsour as a “champion of change.” Not surprisingly, Sarsour visited the White House on at least seven different occasions during her beloved president’s tenure.

In May 2012 Sarsour tweeted that the so-called “underwear bomber,” an Al-Qaeda operative who in 2009 had tried to blow up a Detroit-bound passenger jet in mid-flight, was actually a CIA agent participating in America’s “war on Islam.”

In November 2012 in Baltimore, Sarsour—ever eager to peddle her woeful tale of Islamic victimhood—spoke at a Muslim Public Affairs Council conference titled “Facing Race: Xenophobic Hate Crimes.” This is the same Council that views the murderous Jew-haters of Hezbollah as members of “a liberation movement” that is “fighting for freedom.”

Sarsour was outraged when a police officer and an FBI agent shot and killed a young black Muslim named Usaama Rahim in Boston on June 2, 2015, when Rahim lunged at them with a military-style knife as they attempted to question him about suspected terrorism-related activities. Naturally, Sarsour’s assessment of the incident confidently traced everything back to race: “At the end of the day, a Black man was shot on a bus stop on his way to work and we should treat this like any other case of police violence.” Period. End of story.

In August 2015 Sarsour spoke out in support of the incarcerated Palestinian Islamic Jihad member Muhammad Allan, a known recruiter of suicide bombers.

According to CounterJihad.com, Sarsour has attended and spoken at numerous rallies sponsored by Al-Awda, a group that views Israel as a terrorist, genocidal state whose very creation was a “catastrophe” for Arab peoples.

Sarsour has also solicited donations for the Hamas-affiliated Palestine Children’s Relief Fund.

There’s more.

She lied and wrongly portrayed the honor killing  of Shaima Alawadi by her husband as a racist-islamophobic-anti-Muslim killing.

She faked a hate crime against herself, scoring political points nationally by portraying a mentally ill black homeless man as a violent racist.

CUNY Defends Decision to Host Anti-Israel Activist as Commencement Honoree

Linda Sarsour will deliver commencement at taxpayer-funded school

By Adam Kredo, Free Beacon, April 26, 2017:

The City University of New York (CUNY), a taxpayer-funded institution, is doubling down on its decision to host a leading anti-Israel activist who has been accused of anti-Semitism as its honored commencement speaker next month, a move that has generated calls for New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo to step in and cancel the address.

CUNY is set to host Linda Sarsour, a leading voice in the anti-Israel movement who has been condemned by human rights groups for her rhetoric and promotion of terrorism against the Jewish state.

Sarsour, a Palestinian American and executive director of the Arab American Association of New York, is scheduled to give the commencement speech for CUNY’s Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy.

Local lawmakers and pro-Israel activists have expressed outrage over the decision, calling on CUNY to cancel Sarsour’s appearance. CUNY leaders have continued to praise Sarsour and maintain the speech will take place as scheduled.

Sarsour has earned a reputation as one of the country’s most virulent anti-Israel activists. She has attacked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “bigot” and routinely condemns the Jewish state as racist. Sarsour attracted outrage in 2015 when she tweeted out a picture of a Palestinian child with a rock in his hand accompanied by the caption, “the definition of courage.”

Sarsour became a darling of the activist left as a participant in the Women’s March against President Donald Trump and other demonstrations. She also has embraced and partnered with Rasmea Odeh, an anti-Israel activist and convicted terrorist who was recently found guilty of immigration fraud in the United States for failing to disclose her ties to terrorism.

Dov Hikind, a New York City assemblyman and pro-Israel advocate, told the Washington Free Beacon that Americans across the country should be outraged that a taxpayer-funded school is celebrating an individual who once praised child terrorism.

“This is a woman who not so long ago put out a tweet with a picture of a young child holding rocks in his hand and Linda Sarsour put in that message, ‘the definition of courage,'” Hikind said in an interview with the Free Beacon.

“The idea this woman would get this honor at a CUNY commencement, a place my tax dollars pay for, is unbelievable audacity.”

Sarsour “is someone who is an apologist for terrorists, and that’s who we need to be an example for graduate students at a tax-funded university here in New York?” Hikind asked. “How do you justify in any way [these views]? People should speak out everywhere. This should be a no brainer.”

While Hikind and other pro-Israel voices have spoken out against Sarsour’s appearance at CUNY, Cuomo and activist voices such as the Anti-Defamation League have remained silent.

“The ADL speaks out 24/7 on defamation of the Jewish people and nothing can be more defamatory than Linda Sarsour’s statements about Jews and her glorification of Arabs throwing rocks at Israelis,” Hikind said in a statement. “But following the invitation from CUNY for Sarsour to address their graduates, the ADL’s silence has been deafening and shameful.”

One senior official at a national Jewish organization told the Free Beacon that Sarsour’s appearance at CUNY demonstrates that anti-Israel activism is still being mainstreamed.

“Linda Sarsour advocates a version of feminist intersectionality that, by design, excludes liberal Jews who support Israel but welcomes radical Muslims who deny women’s rights,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak on record. “In that sense she’s perfect for today’s upside-down academy. That doesn’t make what she says or what CUNY’s doing any less disgraceful. It makes the whole thing more disgraceful.”

CUNY has defended its decision to host Sarsour, telling students in a community message it is committed to all types of free speech.

Ayman El-Mohandes, the dean of CUNY’s Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, said in a statement that CUNY is committed to academic freedom.

“I hope you all join me in my firm view that a diversity of viewpoints and an open exchange of ideas is at the heart of our country’s strength, and our university’s strength,” El-Mohandes said in a statement. “It is why we at CUNY are so committed to academic freedom, a bedrock principle of our university.”

“This will be a very special and meaningful commencement for all of us,” El-Mohandes added. “I hope to see you all there to celebrate women in leadership.”

Please consider supporting this valuable program and our other work at AFDI. We are only just beginning to produce videos that will change the national conversation at the best possible time: when real change can be made.

As you can see from the furious attacks on Trump, the Left is in panic and meltdown mode, and is lashing out ever more desperately and fiercely. We must be more active and determined than ever now, or defeat could be snatched from the jaws of victory. That’s why our video series is so much needed: to help ensure that the swamp is indeed drained, now when it is possible.

Please help us in this all-important work, now more than ever.

Please contribute here, NOW-- or send a check to:

AFDI

Attention: Pamela Geller

1040 1st Avenue

#121

New York, NY 10022

When writing about God and Jesus, The Daily Jot means YHVH as God and Yeshua Ha Mashiach as Jesus--the actual original names and the true nature and character of them.

PS. Please use the "Share This Email" link below to pass this on to as many people as you can!  

Federal Land Grabs Have Gotten out of Control. Why Trump’s Executive Order Is a Positive Sign.

Draining the swamp doesn’t just mean shrinking the size of federal bureaucracies. It means reducing the role of government throughout our society—including its ability to seize land.

A good place to start is President Donald Trump’s executive order, which calls for a review of national monument designations—a tool long used by presidents to unilaterally restrict land use.

The tradition of presidents designating national monuments began in 1906 when President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act.

That law was intended to prevent the looting of archaeological and Native American structures and objects, and it gave the federal government an expeditious path to do so.

Unsurprisingly, its use has evolved into a federal power tool for making land grabs that cater to special interests, rather than welcoming input from local affected parties, such as the outdoor tourist industry, Native American tribes, or simply the people living in the community.

Such land grabs date way back before President Barack Obama. Before his last-minute monument designations, 16 presidents designated more than 140 monuments covering over 285 million acres of land and marine areas.

Like every other environmental decision ordered by a new administration, the left responded to Trump’s executive order by predicting that it will reduce America the Beautiful to a dumpster fire.

As one publication put it, the order is a “sop to right-wing radicals who are hostile to public lands—and really hate Obama.” (They forgot to mention the hatred for puppies and rainbows, too).

Contrary to the media spin, the issue at hand is not about environmental stewardship, but taking decisions away from states, private citizens, and local interests.

For more than a century, the president of the United States has had the power to unilaterally designate land as a national monument, without input from Congress or the affected states.

Such action from the president either prohibits or restricts economic opportunity in the area, and often does more environmental harm than good.

Reading The Washington Post article on Trump’s order, one could easily assume that there is no local opposition to the controversial 1.35 million acre monument designation at Bears Ears declared by Obama in the final days of his presidency—one of the presumed targets of Trump’s executive order.

The Post gives the false impression that only elected Republican members of Congress opposed Obama’s designation.

The article highlights that a coalition of tribes, environmentalists, archaeologists, and outdoor industry groups all lobbied Obama for the protection at Bears Ears. Yet the author conveniently fails to include opposition from, you know, the local tribes and people that actually live in San Juan County.

For instance, members of the Navajo of San Juan County tribe—the county where Bears Ears resides—rescinded their support for the monument designation. Chester Johnson, of the Aneth Navajo chapter said,

At that time when they switched to national monument they didn’t share it back with the community what their intent was. Aneth is the only one chapter that had the backbone to stand up and say, ‘Look central government, you don’t do that. You share it with us what the intent is for our region, the land that we use for centuries.’

Another Aneth chapter member, Susie Philemon, fought back tears as she urged opposition to the designation, underscoring the fact that they have strong incentives, both economic and spiritual, to protect and preserve the land.

She stressed that “[t]here are people that still graze there, they reside there, and they make that place their livelihood and you cannot just take that away.”

San Juan County leaders staunchly opposed Obama’s designation.

Native American Rebecca Benally, the first woman elected to the San Juan County Commission, voiced opposition to the centralized decision, saying, “My constituents do not want a national monument in San Juan County because it’s just another federal overreach with empty promises.”

As loudly as the local community, the Navajo of San Juan County tribe, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, and members of Congress and state officials voiced their concerns, they all fell on deaf ears.

The problem of unilateral land designation dates much further back than Obama and Bears Ears.

Although Obama designated the contentious Bears Ears monument in Utah as he walked out the White House door, the use of the Antiquities Act is a bipartisan problem. Presidents from both parties have abused the power to restrict land use.

A review of the use of the Antiquities Act designations is a welcome and necessary first step, but ultimately Congress needs to intervene.

Congress should recognize that states, local governments, and private citizens are the best arbiters of how to manage land and should repeal the Antiquities Act or limit the president’s power by requiring congressional, state, and local approval for any national monument designation.

Whether the issue is logging, recreation, conservation, or energy extraction, such decisions are most effectively made at the state and local levels. An antiquated law more than 110 years old shouldn’t ruin the lives of communities. (For more from the author of “Federal Land Grabs Have Gotten out of Control. Why Trump’s Executive Order Is a Positive Sign.” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/04/federal-land-grabs-gotten-control-trumps-executive-order-positive-sig

Paul Golding of Britain First responds to threats about what will happen if he and other Islam critics don’t “embrace Islam and save themselves from the hellfire”

( Muslims do not assimilate, they infiltrate! )

...

Former boxer turned Islamic extremist has released a video stating that Britain First leader Paul Golding, former EDL leader Tommy Robinson, and commentator Katie Hopkins should fear for their lives!

Be sure to watch it to the end. LOL

Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=4fD8dlvYtS4

Share this news

Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit…British Jews are abandoning (far left) Labour Party in droves

Gee i wonder why

( Muslims do not assimilate, they infiltrate! )

Let us hope that our people wake up and do the same to the Socialist Democratic Party and put a end to mess that is corrupt and do not have any moral virtue and stand in the way of the will of the American People!!!

The watchman on mhe wall sounding the ALARM

Despite their traditional left-leaning loyalty, just 8.5% of Jews in Britain plan to vote for the Labour Party in the upcoming general election in Britain this year.

Times of Israel  Prominent far-left Jewish Labour Party activist Robert Philpot said that “many of the bonds between the [Labour] party and Britain’s Jews have snapped.”

“While historically the party held close ties with Jewish voters, it has lost support for appearing to be anti-Israel. With Jeremy Corbyn (below) at the helm, that’s set to get worse,” Philpot, who is a director of the extremist leftist “Progress” lobby, said.

“American Jews have remained, alongside African-Americans, one of the Democratic party’s most loyal constituencies,” Philpot continued. Britain’s Jews, however, have long since become detached from their traditional moorings on the political left.

Difficulties for Labour in the community were compounded by the fact that virulent opposition to Israel was one of the hallmarks of the hard left, while attacks on the Jewish state became a mainstay of debates in many local parties.

Of course, Jewish voters do not vote on the single issue of Israel and many voted for Margaret Thatcher three times. Tony Blair may, as one former aide put it, have purged his party of its “anti-Israelism,” but his commitment to education, emphasis on the values of community and reciprocal responsibility, and desire to rid Labour of its knee-jerk hostility to entrepreneurialism, all resonated with many Jews.

Nonetheless, the period since Labour’s loss of office seven years ago has snapped many of the bonds between the party and Britain’s Jews.

Worse, however, was yet to come: as anti-Semitic attacks in Britain doubled, Labour remained inexplicably silent for four months. Shortly after, Miliband burned his final bridges with many Jews, whipping his MPs to back a parliamentary vote, proposed by Labour backbencher Grahame Morris endorsing unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. (In 2014, Morris compared the Israeli army to IS; he is now a member of Jeremy Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet away on sick leave.)

Jeremy Corbyn’s hostility to Israel is deeply entrenched. As Dave Rich wrote in his recent book, “The Left’s Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti-Semitism,” he came of age politically during the era of decolonization. Rich argued that to Corbyn’s generation of leftists, Zionism is “a racist, colonialist ideology, and Israel an illegitimate remnant of Western colonialism in the Middle East.”

Edgar1981  Over a third of its MPs in Parliament are committed to the total destruction of Israel and actively push for a total boycott of Israel to achieve this aim.

The Labour Party

• Forced its own leader and PM Tony Blair out of office because he supported Israel’s right to defend itself against Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists in 2006.
• Not only was their mayoral candidate none other than Ken Livingstone, the country’s bestknown antisemite, anti-Israel, pro-Jihad politician, a Labour Party Muslim extremist has just becoe Mayor of London
• Represented in the House of Lords by Lord Ahmed remarked that the prison sentence he received – 12 weeks for dangerous driving – when his Jaguar ploughed into a stationary car on the M1, killing its driver – said, “due to pressure that had been placed on the courts by .. Jewish friends who own newspapers and TV channels”. He added: “My case became more critical because I went to Gaza to support Palestinians”, something that these Jews “opposed”.

Share this news

THANK TRUMP: U.S. Border Control Agents are doing their jobs again because designated terrorist group CAIR whining about “Muslim profiling” again

( Muslims do not assimilate, they infiltrate! )

“…look to the Muslim woman as an indicating factor. By the way she wears her hijab. If the hijab is a solid color it indicates religiosity. If it’s a patterned scarf, with colors, it’s more likely that she is less religious.”  –  confirms Customs and Border Protection official

There has already been a 1035% Jump in religious (MUSLIM) profiling and interrogation cases at U.S. Ports of Entry.

CAIR   Preliminary data reveals that cases of U.S. Customs and Boarder Protection (CBP) Muslim profiling accounted for 23 percent of all Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) case intakes in the first three months of 2017. This represents a 1035 percent increase in CBP typed cases in 2017 over the same period in 2016.

Of the 193 CBP cases recorded from January-March 2017, 181 were reported after the January 27 signing of the Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” also known as the Muslim Ban. These 181 post-Muslim ban cases exceeded the combined total of the 136 CPB cases that CAIR documented in the previous three years.

Under Obama, it was more like this:

This significant increase in CBP related incidents has occurred in the context of the Trump administration’s early efforts to convert anti-Islam campaign rhetoric into U.S. policy. CBP incidents have not been limited to travelers from countries targeted by the Muslim ban.

Marry a Muslim and you’ll will be subjected to enhanced screening, too.

While the deluge of reported incidents is significant, the practice of unequal treatment of Muslims at U.S. ports of entry is not new. Recent revelations resulting from a 2013 CAIR lawsuit, which challenges invasive questioning at U.S. borders about religious practices, add further insight into faith-based profiling by federal officials.

Broader context: Converting anti-Islam campaign rhetoric into U.S. policy

The first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency witnessed initial efforts to translate his anti-Islam campaign rhetoric into official U.S. policy. These efforts included populating his administration with a number of officials who have a history of problematic and misleading politically incorrect statements about Islam and Muslims.

Do this in an airport now and your ability to board the plane could be delayed.

It also included an evolving effort to fulfill his campaign promise of a ban on Muslim entry into the U.S. There were also reports of substantive movement toward an executive order directing the Secretary of State to determine whether to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization, a witch hunt rooted in conspiracy theories peddled by the U.S. Islamophobia network and intended to eviscerate American Muslim civil society.

CBP’s invasive religious questioning not limited to Muslim travelers from Muslim ban countries but from all countries

While invasive questioning about an individual’s personal religiosity at U.S. ports of entry is not a new phenomenon, reports of the abusive practice have escalated under President Trump.

In January, CAIR chapters in Florida, California and New York filed complaints with the CBP, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) over reports of systematic questioning of American Muslim citizens about their religious and political views by CBP. These complaints have been acknowledged by the agencies but no conclusions have been issued.

In one high-profile incident, Muhammad Ali Jr., son of the iconic American boxer, reported that government officials, “asked me, where was I born and what my religion was, where did I get the name from.”

Citizens of staunch U.S. allies were also targeted. Canadian Fadwa Alaoui reported that border officials asked her, “‘Do you practice? Which mosque do you go to? What is the name of the imam? How often do you go to the mosque? What kind of discussions do you hear in the mosque? Does the imam talk to you directly?’” She was also asked about “her views on Trump.”

CAIR has documented a number of invasive questions asked of travelers including:

1. Are you a devout Muslim?

2. Are you Sunni or Shia?

3. What school of thought do you follow?

4. Which Muslim scholars do you follow?

5. Which current Muslim scholars do you listen to?

6. Do you pray five times a day?

7. Why do you have a prayer mat and Quran in your luggage?

8. Have you visited Saudi Arabia?

9. What do you think of the USA?

10. What are your views about jihad?

11. What mosque do you attend?

12. Do any individuals in your mosque have any extreme/radical views?

13. Does your Imam express extremist views?

14. What are the views of other Imams or other community members that give the Friday sermon at your mosque? Do they have extremist views?

15. Have you ever delivered the Friday prayer? What did you discuss with your community?

16. What are the names and telephone numbers of parents, relatives, and/or friends?

Share this news

“You are a woman. You must respect me.”

Says young Muslim invader punk to an older Austrian woman in Vienna.

( Muslims do not assimilate, they infiltrate! )

IF YOU CAN’T SEE VIDEO, CLICK TIME/DATE STAMP AT BOTTOM TO VIEW AT TWITTERhttp://www.barenakedislam.com/2017/04/25/you-are-a-woman-you-must-respect-me/

THE WATCHMAN ON THE WALL SOUNDING THE ALARM

Audio: Robert Spencer on Islam, the Media, Universities and Free Speech

April 25, 2017 10:51 am By Robert Spencer 8 Comments

I appeared on Accuracy in Media’s Alex Nitzberg Show several days ago. Here is the story, and you can listen to the full interview here.

“Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer on Islam, the Media, Universities and Free Speech,” by Alex Nitzberg, Accuracy in Media, April 24, 2017:

Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer rejects the notion that “Islam is a religion of peace,” and asserts that to confront terrorism people must understand that the terrorists’ ideology derives from Islamic “texts and teachings.”

“And it is not racism or bigotry or hatred to note that jihadis are using the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and hatred and supremacism,” Spencer explained during an interview on “The Alex Nitzberg Show.” “And it’s not indicting all Muslims. If Muslims are not doing that then great, more power to ‘em. But those who are we need to deal with realistically.”

While Spencer does not contend that all Muslims advocate terrorism, he asserts that Islamic doctrine itself calls for terrorism and that “Anybody who has read the Quran—and more importantly, anybody who’s read the Quran and understands and has also read how it is interpreted by mainstream Islamic authorities—nobody in that position could believe that Islam is a religion of peace.”

He explains that “…Islamic teaching in the Quran, in the traditions of Muhammad and in Islamic law, all mandate warfare against unbelievers and any informed Muslim who is honest will acknowledge that.”

However, Spencer notes that not every individual Islamic adherent is required by Islamic teaching to commit terrorist acts: “…you can perfectly well be a peaceful Muslim and be very devout and not be acting upon the jihad verses because jihad is a collective obligation on the Islamic community and if some people are discharging that obligation, then others don’t have to.”

In order to bolster America’s national security, Spencer says the nation needs to enact President Donald Trump’s immigration ban and increase its scope. He says America faces a binary option:

“…we either inconvenience some harmless people and bar them from coming in or we allow in some jihad terrorists who are going to kill Americans.”

He said the idea advocated by some that “…we’ll simply vet them more properly…” would be ineffective “…because of Islam’s doctrines of deception and because the Islamic State very carefully trains its people…” to deceive screeners.

Spencer’s biography at Regnery Publishing states that he “lives in a secure, undisclosed location.” He confirmed this information during the interview and said that he has “been threatened many times.”

“It’s unfortunately the case that pretty much anybody who has spoken out about these issues in a realistic manner and has dared to identify the motivating ideology behind jihad terrorism is threatened in this way,” he said.

Jihad Watch aggregates news stories related to Islam and terrorism, and Spencer provides commentary on many of these stories. When asked about his analysis of the media’s coverage of Islam and terrorism, he declared:

“Well it’s abysmal. Most of the time it’s frankly apologetic. The media seems to consider one of its responsibilities to be after every terror attack to make sure that people don’t think ill of Islam or Muslims and not to report on the attack accurately. They search for all sorts of alternative explanations for terror attacks and try to exonerate Islam from any responsibility for the crimes done in its name and in accord with its teachings. And so they are in other words actively engaging in misleading the American people and keeping them ignorant and complacent about a genuine threat. And so their role is positively counterproductive.”

When questioned about his experience in speaking on college campuses, Spencer, who has spoken at many universities, stated:

“Generally I assume that any college is going to be a hostile environment with a lot of self-righteous and very poorly informed students trying to shout me down, sometimes some physically menaced and sometimes I don’t get to speak at all…because of being shouted down. Sometimes they allow me to speak and then I’m subjected to a great deal of hostile questioning. I don’t mind hostile questioning at all and I’m always ready to go into the fray and to defend my position, but I think it’s just sort of indicative of how colleges today have become centers of leftist indoctrination and propaganda and are in no sense anywhere in the country with maybe a couple of exceptions here and there, but in no sense are they institutions of actual higher learning where people engage with and deal with alternative points of view.

The college students today are not taught to engage with points of view that are unpopular or unwelcome but rather to treat them with violence or to shout them down. And this is kind of institutionalized thuggery that reminds me of the early days of Nazi Germany when Brownshirts would go to college campuses and where there were anti-Nazi professors they would shout them down and brutalize them, and nowadays it’s the left doing the same thing. They’re reviving that same kind of fascism in the name of anti-fascism.”

During a presentation at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2016 Restoration Weekend, Spencer recounted a story about an event at a college where he asked a student about her opinion of his work after she stated that her class had spoken about his books—and she responded by declaring, “Hate speech is not free speech.”

Questioned about the prevalence of this view among other collegians, Spencer explained that while this was his first encounter with that expression, it is an “increasingly common statement that I’ve heard many times since then.”

Spencer stated, “…there are many, many students today who think that there is some sort of objectively identifiable category called hate speech that does not have First Amendment protection and they don’t realize that their leftist worldview is just a leftist worldview and is not objective fact, and so they think that to object to it or to deviate from it is hate speech and ought to be shut down. This is the very definition of authoritarianism and tyranny and I fear for the future of the United States when these little thugs are full grown and are in charge of our institutions, unless there is some serious pushback, then they will certainly destroy what remains of free speech protection and impose some sort of authoritarian leftist regime that would criminalize any dissent from the leftist line. Clearly there are many, many college students who would love to do just that right now.”

The watchman on the wall sounding the ALARM

Migrant Crimes up 52 Percent in Germany

Migrant crime “increased disproportionately” in Germany in 2016, according to a report released Monday by the Interior Ministry.

The number of migrant criminal suspects increased by 52.7 percent from 2015 to 2016. Migrants account for 8.6 percent of all crime suspects in Germany — up from 5.7 percent in 2015.

Politically or ideologically motivated crimes by foreigners went up by 66.5 percent, with 3,372 cases throughout the year.

“There is nothing there to sugarcoat,” Federal Minister of the Interior Thomas de Maiziere said of the statistics, according to Deutsche Welle. “There is an overall rise in disrespect, violence, and hate.”

Germany suffered a series of jihadi attacks in 2016 — including the truck massacre at a Christmas market in Berlin. Crimes motivated by Islam increased by 13.7 percent last year. (Read more from “Migrant Crimes up 52 Percent in Germany” HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/04/migrant-crimes-52-percent-germany/

PS. Please use the "Share This

The Real Threats to Science: Sloppiness, Bias and Fraud

I had dinner with a friend of mine in New York’s Cornelia St. Café. She told me about her Brooklyn neighborhood’s March for Science: “A neighbor child organized a parade around our block. It was adorable: kids made up their own signs and their own chants.”

It sounds adorable. Also vaguely creepy. Like this San Francisco restaurant owner announcing that “food is inherently political.” Her Middle Eastern eatery, she claims is the place where people will have open and honest conversations. Well, maybe some people.

The Brooklyn Children’s March for Science? It reminds me of when Soviet kids used to playact show trials of their peers. All to defend St. Vladimir Lenin’s glorious Revolution. Read The Whisperers if you want to see how creepy the politicization of everything can become. The essence of the totalitarian impulse is: Everything is political. Fortunately for us, that impulse isn’t backed by guns yet. Just tweets, marches and shoving matches in the street.

The Left craves a substitute for religion or morality. They want certain truths to be self-evident and unquestionable. So they yoke science to their ideology. The better to bash political opponents over the head.

What Would You Do to Get Your Paper Published?

Meanwhile there is a real, actual crisis in science taking place today: a massive failure to replicate major medical scientific findings.

Springer publishing last week retracted 107 papers from the journal Tumor Biology. Retraction Watch called it the most retractions from a single journal in history. The studies were pulled because the authors had compromised the peer review process. How? By getting editors to submit their paper to fake peer reviewers. In some cases, the authors submitted real scientists’ names but gave editors fake email addresses. That allowed them to review their own papers.

Think about it: So-called scientists risking the health of cancer patients to ensure that their precious papers get published. Like abusive clergy, they are a tiny minority. But they are bad apples who need to be tossed out fast.

This is the tip of the iceberg. A major review of landmark studies in cancer research found that “scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (or 11 percent of) cases. Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research, this was a shocking result.”

Last week, Retraction Watch also published a letter from a biostatistician pointing out that many recent studies in ten major biology journals contained a basic and crucial omission: the sample size of the study was either unclear or unknown. In Cell, a major biology journal, 8 out of 10 recent articles published did not provide a clear sample size. Failing to report the sample size means it’s virtually impossible to replicate the finding. This is statistics 101. What better way to avoid scrutiny?

Scientific Progress Requires a Commitment to Truth

A similar problem plagues the psychological sciences. Here the pressures are mostly to produce the results pleasing to the social justice tribe (minus any justice for unborn babies).

Protecting science is enormously important. Marching in the streets just makes things worse.

Scientific progress requires scientists whose first and fearless commitment is to the truth, not to partisan visions of social justice. Scientists are of course also human beings. So they are tempted by the same things other people are tempted by: applause, money, status, fear of social exclusion.

Cleaning up science is a job for scientists with integrity. There is little you and I can do about it.

Well, there is one thing: taxpayers could insist that data from any government funded studies be posted online upon publication. President Trump, are you listening? (For more from the author of “The Real Threats to Science: Sloppiness, Bias and Fraud” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/04/real-threats-science-sloppiness-bias-fraud/

Mike Lee Warns Trump About Taxpayer Funding of Soros Groups Overseas

For eight years, U.S. foreign assistance was tied to a leftist political agenda rather than American interests, and it’s now up to President Donald Trump to correct that, Sen. Mike Lee said Tuesday.

Lee took particular aim at U.S. support during the Obama administration for the overseas work of nonprofits bankrolled by liberal billionaire George Soros.

“Whatever one’s views about abortion, energy regulation, alternative family structures, they are neither core international priorities of the American people, nor essential to American national security. They are domestic political controversies, pet causes of a sort of privileged, globalist elite,” Lee said in the speech at The Heritage Foundation.

“Yet for eight years under President Obama’s administration, they were the substance of a global reeducation campaign, funded by … American taxpayers,” the Utah Republican said.

Lee made the remarks, in which he specifically criticized the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, ahead of a panel discussion on U.S. foreign assistance at The Heritage Foundation.

“President Trump and his team must change the culture of American diplomacy towards one that prioritizes American interests and respects the sovereignty and self-determination of other peoples,” Lee said.

Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget proposal would cut funding for the State Department and USAID by 28 percent.

The senator noted that Eastern European countries are more socially conservative than Western European countries because of the influence of Catholic and Orthodox churches. He said they also are more economically conservative because of their past suffering under communism.

The citizens of countries such as Macedonia, Poland, and Albania see the U.S. government spending money on progressive political causes as a “well-funded external political activism that undermines legitimate governments and long-held cultural norms of their nations with leftist policies and leftist politicians,” Lee said, adding:

And who can question their concerns, when the State Department and USAID have provided millions of American taxpayer dollars to organizations in Eastern Europe associated with well-known progressive advocates like George Soros and his Open Society Foundations, who make no secrets about the kinds of politics they support?

The mission of USAID, which has a $22.7 billion annual budget, is to fight poverty and promote democracy abroad.

A State Department spokesman told The Daily Signal in a written statement that USAID money is properly accounted for.

“USAID is committed to accountability and transparency and to the oversight of U.S. government funds to ensure they are not subject to waste, fraud, or abuse,” the spokesman said in an email. “USAID regularly conducts rigorous reviews and audits of programs implemented by partner organizations. These reviews are conducted to measure the programs’ effectiveness and efficiency and to ensure their compliance with applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.”

Lee’s chief example was Macedonia:

Macedonia today is embroiled in a governing crisis that has been brought about largely by external interference in domestic issues and political processes. The crisis has deepened the political divide in the country and threatens to inflame ethnic tensions.

Such unrest is like an engraved invitation to an opportunist like [Russian President] Vladimir Putin, who can inflame divisions and actively court populations who feel that they have been betrayed by the United States.

From 2012 through 2016, USAID gave $4.8 million to Foundation Open Society-Macedonia, a division of the Soros-funded nonprofit, “in partnership with four local civil society organizations,” according to the agency’s website.

The conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch has sued the State Department and USAID for detailed information about funding for Foundation Open Society-Macedonia.

Open Society Foundations spokesman Maxim Tucker disputed much of Lee’s comments about the Soros-funded groups in a statement to The Daily Signal. Tucker said in an email:

Senator Lee must know that since 1973, U.S. law prohibits USAID from funding groups that support abortion as a method of family planning–it’s simply false to suggest that the Open Society Foundations or its affiliated organizations use USAID funding to promote abortion rights abroad.

Indeed, we administer only a fraction of USAID funding and that money goes on to local organizations working on local issues–such as health care, infrastructure, education, community activism, and journalism. We do spend nearly a billion dollars of our own money each year funding a wide range of groups that promote human rights, democracy, and good governance.

In central and Eastern Europe, these groups are increasingly attacked or smeared by corrupt and authoritarian governments seeking to deflect legitimate criticism of their leadership.

Lee and five other Republican senators last month wrote Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asking for a review of USAID dollars going to fund political causes, including Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

“The department’s initial response was dismissive of our concerns, and refused to promise any such review,” Lee said during his remarks Tuesday, which may be seen in their entirety here:

“The immediate priority for the Trump administration is to get the right appointees into key positions at the State Department and USAID,” Lee said later, adding:

President Trump, Secretary Tillerson, and other administration officials must also clarify the position of the United States on a number of foreign policy issues, especially in areas where the Obama administration left a damaging impact or caused confusion about U.S. priorities.

USAID doesn’t have a presence in Ireland, for example, according to James Walsh, a former member of Ireland’s senate. Walsh spoke at Heritage’s forum about how the State Department has backed progressive causes in Ireland, including abortion and same-sex marriage.

Walsh said “the most prominent support for so-called progressive causes” has come from U.S.-based nonprofits.

However, Walsh said, the U.S. Embassy in Dublin provided financial help to set up the LGBT group Shout Out. He said that group had “a very prominent role” in Ireland’s 2015 referendum that legalized same-sex marriage.

Walsh added:

The known support from the official U.S. government sources may be relatively modest, but it contributes greatly to an impression which the rhetoric of the Obama administration strongly underlined. And that is that the U.S. government is actively and vigorously promoting these euphemistically called progressive causes around the world and is prepared to interfere in what many people would regard as a matter exclusively for the domain of the people of that particular country.

The State Department did not have an immediate answer for The Daily Signal about whether the embassy financially supported the new lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender group in Ireland. (For more from the author of “Mike Lee Warns Trump About Taxpayer Funding of Soros Groups Overseas” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/04/mike-lee-warns-trump-taxpayer-funding-soros-groups-overseas/