Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Radical Parents, Despotic Children

Sooner or later, Orwellian methods on campus will lead to Orwellian outcomes.

November 23, 2015
Students protesters at Yale; Photo Courtesy of: eurweb
“Liberal Parents, Radical Children,” was the title of a 1975 book by Midge Decter, which tried to make sense of how a generation of munificent parents raised that self-obsessed, politically spastic generation known as the Baby Boomers. The book was a case study in the tragedy of good intentions.
“We proclaimed you sound when you were foolish in order to avoid taking part in the long, slow, slogging effort that is the only route to genuine maturity of mind and feeling,”Miss Decter told the Boomers. “While you were the most indulged generation, you were also in many ways the most abandoned to your own meager devices.”
Meager devices came to mind last week while reading the “Statement of Solidarity” fromNancy Cantor, chancellor of the Newark, N.J., campus of Rutgers University. Solidarity with whom, or what? Well, Paris, but that was just for starters. Ms. Cantor also made a point of mentioning lives lost to terrorist attacks this year in Beirut and Kenya, and children “lost at sea seeking freedom,” and “lives lost that so mattered in Ferguson and Baltimore and on,” and “students facing racial harassment on campuses from Missouri to Ithaca and on.”
And this: “We see also around us the scarring consequences of decade after decade, group after group, strangers to each other, enemies even within the same land, separated by an architecture of segregation, an economy of inequality, a politics of polarization, a dogma of intolerance.”
It is an astonishing statement. Ms. Cantor, 63, is a well-known figure in academia, a former president of Syracuse University who won liberal acclaim by easing admissions standards in the name of diversity and inclusiveness. At publicly funded Rutgers she earns a base salary of $385,000, a point worth mentioning given her stated concern for inequality. The Newark Star-Ledger praised her as a “perfect fit” for the school on account of her “exceptional involvement in minority recruitment and town-gown relations.”
Yet this Stanford Ph.D. (in psychology) appears to be incapable of constructing a grammatical sentence or writing intelligible prose. All the rhetorical goo about the “architecture of segregation” and “dogma of intolerance” rests on deep layers of mental flab. She is a perfect representative of American academia. And American academia is, by and large, idiotic.
That’s why I’m not altogether sorry to see the wave of protests, demands, sit-ins and cave-ins sweeping university campuses from Dartmouth to Princeton to Brandeis to Yale. What destroys also exposes; what they are trashing was already trashy. It’s time for the rest of the country sit up and take notice.
For almost 50 years universities have adopted racialist policies in the name of equality, repressive speech codes in the name of tolerance, ideological orthodoxy in the name of intellectual freedom. Sooner or later, Orwellian methods will lead to Orwellian outcomes. Those coddled, bullying undergrads shouting their demands for safer spaces, easier classes, and additional racial set-asides are exactly what the campus faculty and administrators deserve.
In other words, the radical children who grew up to run the universities have duplicated the achievement of their parents, and taken it a step further. In three generations, the campuses have moved from indulgent liberalism to destructive radicalism to the raised-fist racialism of the present—with each generation left to its increasingly meager devices. Why should anyone want to see this farce repeated as tragedy 10 or 20 years down the road?
Education entrepreneurs have long been trying to find a new way forward, without much success. For-profit schools could help—if they weren’t the constant target of liberal invective and government investigations. It might help, too, if concerned alumni could apply greater pressure on their alma maters in the face of these campus uprisings. But as the Bass family discovered when they tried to establish a Western Civilization program at Yale some 25 years ago, rich schools can afford to blow off rich alumni.
A better way might be to found great new universities, as John D. Rockefeller did with the University of Chicago or Andrew Carnegie did with the Carnegie Technical Schools (later Carnegie Mellon) in Pittsburgh. Is there an Adelson or a Gates or a Walton University to be started along similar lines, perhaps on the campuses of colleges that have recently closed their doors? It would help, too, if these new schools adopted the model of Hillsdale College in Michigan (where there are no protests) by refusing to accept federal subsidies, thus relieving them of the strictures and mandates by which the government enforces political correctness.
The campus uprisings of 2015 are the latest symptom of the disease of the American academy. Nobody should be surprised by it. Whether the disease of the academy also becomes the disease of the American mind depends on how far we are willing to let this go. Another generation shouldn’t be incubated in idiocy before we try something new.
Write bstephens@wsj.com.

Donald Trump’s appeal is as American as Andrew Jackson

November 23, 2015
Donald Trump retweets inaccurate statistics about black murders
After the Paris attacks, conventional wisdom held that Republican voters would finally turn away from political outsiders and reward candidates representing sobriety and experience. No one stopped to consider that, actually, voters might be drawn to the guy who memorably said of ISIS that he would “bomb the [expletive] out of them.”
Not only has Donald Trump not been hurt by Paris, he has bumped up in the aftermath (Ben Carson, on the other hand, has indeed dropped). The cliché about Trump is that he’s defying the laws of political gravity. If Trump is cutting against the contemporary political grain — certainly, no one else could get away with being as routinely careless and insulting in his statements — he’s also tapping into one of America’s deepest cultural and political wellsprings.
In large part, Donald Trump is a Jacksonian, the tradition originally associated with the Scotch-Irish heritage in America and best represented historically by the tough old bird himself, Andrew Jackson. Old Hickory might be mystified that a celebrity New York billionaire is holding up his banner (but, then again, Jackson himself was a rich planter). Trump is nonetheless a powerful voice for Jacksonian attitudes.
Historian Walter Russell Mead once wrote a memorable essay on the Jacksonianism that, so many years later, serves as a very rough guide to the anti-PC and fiercely nationalistic populism of the 2016 Trump campaign.
Trump has trampled on almost every political piety, and gotten away with it, even when he has been factually wrong or had to backtrack. “The Jacksonian hero dares to say what the people feel and defies the entrenched elites,” Mead writes. “The hero may make mistakes, but he will command the unswerving loyalty of Jacksonian America so long as his heart is perceived to be in the right place.”
Trump condemns the political system and everyone who has thrived in it. For Jacksonians, Mead writes, “Every administration will be corrupt; every Congress and legislature will be, to some extent, the plaything of lobbyists. Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy.”
Trump is obsessed with how other countries are taking advantage of us. He is tapping into the Jacksonian fear of, in Mead’s words, politicians “either by ineptitude or wickedness serving hostile foreign interests.”
Trump is hell on criminals and unwelcoming to illegal immigrants and Syrian refugees, reflecting what Mead characterizes as the Jacksonian’s “absolute and even brutal distinction drawn between the members of the community and outsiders.”
Trump never sweats the details. Jacksonians, according to Mead, believe “that while problems are complicated, solutions are simple.” The side in a public debate that “is endlessly telling you that the popular view isn’t sufficiently ‘sophisticated’ or ‘nuanced’ — that is the side that doesn’t want you to know what it is doing, and it is not to be trusted.”
Trump doesn’t believe in limited government. “Jacksonians believe that the government should do everything in its power to promote the well-being — political, moral, economic — of the folk community,” Mead writes. “Any means are permissible in the service of this end, as long as they do not violate the moral feelings or infringe on the freedoms that Jacksonians believe are essential in their daily lives.”
Trump isn’t ideologically consistent. The Jacksonian philosophy, Mead notes, “is an instinct rather than an ideology — a culturally shaped set of beliefs and emotions rather than a set of ideas.”
Finally, national honor is a paramount value for Jacksonians, a concern that can be heard in Trump’s signature promise to make America great again. He will out-bully and out-fox our adversaries, and as for ISIS, he will bomb and water-board it into submission.
It’s tempting to see Trump as something wholly new, the reality star who represents the merger of entertainment and popular culture. He’s also something centuries old, the populist railing against a corrupt and ineffectual elite that will, through his chastisement, get the comeuppance it deserves.

Scandal’s ‘No Regrets’ Abortion: Sheer Fantasy

By Matt Purple — November 24, 2015

The first scene of the first episode of the hit ABC political drama Scandal goes something like this: “Blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah you’re hired.” Two Aaron Sorkin wannabes on speed meet at a bar for a job interview and spend a couple minutes shoveling impossibly complex sentences past each other, until one christens their mutual Washingtonian hyper-competence by offering the other a job. It’s one of those shows. I didn’t watch past the pilot.
Scandal somehow stayed off my radar for its next five seasons, despite its Wizard of Oz–like omnipresence on Netflix. That is, until last week’s episode. It featured Senator Mellie Grant — think Wendy Davis, only with a job — staging a sanctimonious filibuster to protest her own Republican party’s efforts to endanger Planned Parenthood funding. This is nothing new; the aforementioned Sorkin speech-torched hundreds of religious-right straw men in The West Wing.

The jarring part of the episode came when crisis-management guru Olivia Pope (also hyper-competent, in case you were concerned) was shown lying on a table to offer up her own contribution to the abortion industry. As we watched, a doctor readied a suction machine. Later, we see Pope sitting by a Christmas tree, smiling contently, sipping wine as though nothing had happened, à la Planned Parenthood’s Deborah Nucatola — who enjoyed a generous pour of vino at lunch while talking about “less crunchy” abortion techniques in the undercover Center for Medical Progress videos.

The Christmas hymn “Silent Night” plays in the background during Pope’s abortion, which seems like the optimal choice if you’re looking to callously invert the Nativity. Presumably another carol, say, “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer,” would have been less effective, though at least that one takes the same flip approach to death.

The next day, feminists were swinging from church bells and singing in the streets. Writers at The AtlanticSlate, the Daily Beast, and elsewhere lauded Pope’s abortion for seeming so normal. “There’s no regret expressed for the child Olivia would not be raising,” crowed Kevin Fallon. He continued: “The morality of being pro-choice? Not even addressed” and praised the scene for its “realism.”

We demand realism in our television shows these days; no longer Dickens, our guiding star is Zola. And TV has readily provided, with unvarnished examinations of call girls, unhappy Brooklyn Millennials, mob bosses, and ancient Romans. Sometimes, as with The Borgias and House of Cards, TV producers use realism as an excuse to create soapy plots and deliver excessively pitiless portrayals of humanity. But elsewhere, realism has made for incisive treatments of previously forbidden topics. Even Netflix’s incredible new show Jessica Jones — ostensibly a Marvel superhero caper — wrangles with sexual trauma in a surprisingly well-rounded way.

Abortion is an exception to this trend. The most likely way to write abortion into a modern Hollywood script is to strip it of its realism and sterilize it into a 30-second political statement that’s characterized chiefly by what it omits: “no regret.” There will never be a heroine who grieves over her choice to terminate her pregnancy. The new model is Olivia Pope, blithe with the yuletide spirit. Just as abortion must be discussed with euphemistic gibberish such as “medical procedure” and “pro-choice,” so too must it be shown in only one dimension, lest the concerns of those anti-woman extremists be validated.

Contrary to feminist hosannas, there was nothing groundbreaking in the Scandal holiday episode. Grey’s AnatomyDegrassiFriday Night Lights, and Girls have all featured positive or at least neutral portrayals of abortion, and Norman Lear terminated Maude’s pregnancy all the way back in 1972. With the onwards-and-upwards attitude taken by Scandal’s writers, the show merely delivered a new twist on an old theme. Outside of South Park (“Abortion is the ultimate form of cheating! You’re cheating nature itself”), it’s difficult to think of a show that has ever taken the opposite stance, attacking abortion with as much zeal as Scandal had in normalizing it.

Despite Scandal’s “no regrets” approach, though, abortion isn’t a “normal” issue. It’s controversial, multifaceted, and consequential. So it seems to me that if we’re going to have legal abortion and realistic television, then we should have realistic examinations of abortion on television. That includes the emotional consequences, the abortionists who can no longer stomach their jobs, the ultrasounds, the aborted remains in the trash, the whole kit and caboodle. So when does that show get green-lit?

Also unrealistic about the Scandal episode was Senator Grant’s illiterate objection to Planned Parenthood funding in the Republican budget. It had been wrongly categorized, Grant said, as discretionary spending and could therefore be cut in the future. In reality, Planned Parenthood is funded mostly through Medicaid, which is technically mandatory spending but also subject to the normal appropriations process, as discretionary spending is. That means Grant, and by extension Scandal, wants it instead to beoff-limits mandatory spending, which is reserved for entitlement payouts such as Social Security, Medicare, and veterans’ benefits.

That’s abortion according to Hollywood: a festivity, an entitlement, a fiction.

— Matt Purple is the deputy editor of Rare Politics.

Germans Opposed to Mass Migration are "Free to Leave"

November 24, 2015

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (left): "The Chancellor has the situation under control. I Have My Vision. I Will Fight For It."

Asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and the Middle East are continuing to pour into Germany in record numbers, despite freezing temperatures and snow.

More than 180,000 migrants arrived during the first three weeks of November, on track to surpass the previous monthly record of 181,000 migrants recorded in October.

With 300 newcomers now arriving every hour, Germany is expected to receive more than one million asylum seekers in 2015, and at least as many in 2016. After factoring in family reunifications, the actual number of migrants could exceed 10 million, and some believe that Germany's Muslim population is on track to nearly quadruple to an astonishing 20 million by 2020.

German voters are beginning to wake up to the true cost — financial, social and otherwise — of the migration crisis, but they apparently do not have much say about the future direction of their country. According to Walter Lübcke, the district president of Kassel, a city in state of Hesse, citizens who disagree with the government's open-door immigration policy are "free to leave Germany."

What follows is a brief round-up of recent developments, which offer a glimpse into Germany's future:

Matthias Lücke, senior researcher at the Kiel Institute of the World Economy (Institut für Weltwirtschaft, IfW), estimates that the migrant crisis will end up costing German taxpayers at least 45 billion euros a year, or more than four times the 10 billion euros forecast by the federal government. Lücke says tax increases are the only way to pay for this expenditure.

Gabriel Felbermayr, director of the Munich-based Center for International Economics (Ifo Zentrum für Außenwirtschaft), estimates that the migrant crisis will cost German taxpayers 21.1 billion euros this year alone. "This includes costs for housing, food, day care centers, schools, German language courses, training and administration," he said in an interview with Der Spiegel.

N24 television news reports that up to 50% of the asylum seekers arriving in Germany have gone into hiding and their whereabouts are unknown by German authorities. They presumably involve economic migrants and others who are trying to avoid deportation if or when their asylum applications are rejected.

In a bestselling new book, Tania Kambouri, a German police officer, describes the deteriorating security situation in Germany due to migrants who have no respect for law and order. In an interview with Deutschlandfunk radio, she said:
"For weeks, months and years I have noticed that Muslims, mostly young men, do not have even a minimum level of respect for the police. When we are out patrolling the streets, we are verbally abused by young Muslims. There is the body language, and insults like 'sh** cop' when passing by. If we make a traffic stop, the aggression increases ever further, this is overwhelmingly the case with migrants. 
"I wish these problems were recognized and clearly addressed. If necessary, laws need to be strengthened. It is also very important that the judiciary, that the judges issue effective rulings. It cannot be that offenders continue to fill the police files, hurt us physically, insult us, whatever, and there are no consequences. Many cases are closed or offenders are released on probation or whatever. Yes, what is happening in the courts today is a joke. 
"The growing disrespect, the increasing violence against police... We are losing control of the streets."
A video showing a Muslim threatening a German man openly on the street was posted on YouTube. The Muslim can be heard saying:
"I am telling you honestly, Islam will come to Germany, whether you like it or not. Your daughter will wear a headscarf (hijab). Your son will wear a beard. Okay. And your daughter will marry a bearded man. 
"We are reproducing faster and faster. You Germans are not getting any children. In the best case you get two children. We make seven to eight children. Okay mate? And then we take four wives each, then we have 22 children. Maybe you Germans have one child and a dog. Huh? And that's it. 
"Mate. This is not our fault, it is your fault. If you exploited our countries, colonized our countries, so that you can drive a Mercedes and use your digital camera, huh? 
"So Allah (blessed be his name), the Almighty God, will make it so that we will conquer you. Not with war, here in Germany, but with birth rates, first and foremost. Secondly, we will marry your daughters. And your daughter will wear a Muslim headscarf. That is how it is. Now you can get really mad. I can see the hate in your eyes."
Another video shows hundreds of Muslims, some carrying the black flag of jihad, marching through the streets of downtown Hannover.

Amid a growing sense of insecurity, Germans are increasingly taking measures to protect themselves. Sales of pepper spray have skyrocketed by 600% during the past two months and stores across Germany are all sold out, according to the German newsmagazine Focus. Manufacturers say additional supplies will not be available for another six or seven weeks. "Manufacturers and distributors say the huge influx of foreigners in recent weeks has apparently frightened many people," according to Focus.

Wolfgang Wehrend, chairman of the Military Reserve Association (Reservistenverbandes) in North Rhine-Westphalia, called on the government to reinstate compulsory military service for all men and women in Germany aged 18 and over. "It is about the security of our country," he told the Rheinische Post. Germany formally ended conscription in July 2011. Wehrend said conscription could also be a way to promote integration:
"When young people work together as a matter of course in the army, the Federal Agency for Technical Relief (Technischen Hilfswerk), the fire brigades, the relief and care services, people from different ethnic groups and religions may grow closer. At least there is a chance."
Meanwhile, the guardians of German multiculturalism unleashed a firestorm of criticism against Jürgen Mannke, director of the Teacher's Association of Saxony-Anhalt (Philologenverbandes Sachsen-Anhalt, PhVSA), after he advised underage female students to guard against "superficial sexual adventures" with Muslim asylum seekers. In the group's quarterly membership magazine, Mannke wrote:
"An immigrant invasion is inundating Germany. Many citizens are ambivalent about this. There is no doubt that it is our human duty to help people who are facing existential distress due to war and political persecution. But it is extremely difficult to distinguish these people from those who come to our country for purely economic or even criminal motives. 
"If one examines the current images of the waves of refugees, one cannot overlook that many young, strong, mostly Muslim men have chosen to apply for asylum in Germany, because they find ideal conditions here, or so they think. 
"Many of the men come here without their families or wives, and certainly not always with the most honest of intentions. From our ethical and moral perspective, women are not treated equally in Muslim countries and often are not treated with dignity. It is only natural that these young, often uneducated men also have a need for sex. 
"Against the backdrop of their ideas about the role of women in their Muslim cultures, the question remains: how can they live out their sexuality or seek relationships in Germany without conflicting with the norms of our society? 
"Already, we hear from conversations with acquaintances in many places about sexual harassment in their daily lives, especially on public transportation and in supermarkets. As responsible educators, we ask ourselves: How can we enlighten our young girls aged 12 and up so that they do not engage in superficial sexual adventures with often certainly attractive Muslim men?"
Mannke later apologized for his politically incorrect choice of words: "I hereby declare that I never intended to defame people of other religions, nations and cultures or to foment fear to serve nationalistic stereotypes or to generalize."

In Bad Tölz, a town in Bavaria, local politicians and the media branded the managers of the "Brucklyn" discotheque as "Nazis" and "racists" after they banned male migrants from the premises. German women had complained that the men were harassing them, even following them into the female restroom.

The club's manager, Thomas Greil, said he had no other option: he was concerned about the wellbeing of the female patrons. He said that after a group of 30 or 40 migrants arrived, native Germans left the club in droves.

In a statement, Greil said:
"We are not excluding anyone, we are just trying to run a business. If we ignore the complaints of our female guests, we have to expect that many of our regular customers will stay away for the short or long term, and we will incur a loss of sales. We have monthly costs of a five figure sum. Financially, we do not know how long can we cope with this. We are overwhelmed."
The culture-oriented radio station of the German national Deutschlandradio service,Deutschlandradio Kultur, interviewed Frank Künster, who has been a nightclub bouncer for more than 20 years. He said:
"It sounds racist, but groups of men from immigrant backgrounds just behave differently, especially towards women, and that is harmful to the club. You have to give the women space to feel comfortable. This is not the case when there are only men, many of whom want to grope female bums."
In Berlin, lawmakers are considering emergency legislation that would allow local authorities to seize private residences to accommodate asylum seekers.

The proposal — which would effectively suspend Germany's constitutional guarantee of private property — would authorize police forcibly to enter private homes and apartments without a warrant to determine their suitability as housing for refugees and migrants.

The legislation, proposed by Berlin Mayor Michael Müller of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), would amend Section 36 of Berlin's Public Order and Safety Law (Allgemeine Gesetz zum Schutz der öffentlichen Sicherheit und Ordnung, ASOG), which currently allows police to enter private residences only in extreme instances, to "avert acute threats," that is, to fight serious crime. Müller now wants to expand the scope for warrantless inspections to include "preventing homelessness."

The proposal was kept secret from the public until November 9, when the leader of the Free Democrats (FDP) in Berlin, Sebastian Czaja, warned the measure would violate the German Constitution. He said:
"The plans of the Berlin Senate to requisition residential and commercial property without the consent of the owner to accommodate refugees is an open breach of the constitution. The attempt by the Senate to undermine the constitutional right to property and the inviolability of the home must be resolutely opposed."
Since then, both the mayor's office and the Senate have remained silent about their plans.
Gunnar Schupelius, a columnist with the Berlin newspaper BZ, has investigated further. In a November 10 article, he wrote:
"A strange report made the rounds at the weekend: The Senate would authorize the police to enter private homes to house refugees, even against the will of the owner. I thought it was only satire, then a misunderstanding, because the Basic Law, Article 13, states: 'The home is inviolable.' 
"So I went on a search for the source of this strange report and found it. There is a 'proposal' which the Senate Chancellery (Senatskanzlei) has apparently circulated among the senators. The Senate Chancellery is another name for the mayor's office. The permanent secretary is Björn Böhning (SPD)... 
"The proposal is clear: The police can enter private property without a court order in order to search for housing for refugees when these are threatened with homelessness. You can do that 'without the consent of the owner.' And not only should the police be allowed to do this, but also the regulatory agencies. 
"This delicate 'proposal' attracted little public attention. Only Berlin FDP General Secretary Sebastian Czaja spoke up and warned of an 'open preparation for breach of the constitution.' Internally, there should have been protests. The 'proposal' suddenly disappeared from the table. Is it completely gone or will it return? 
"If the need is really this great, then Governing Mayor Michael Müller should come clean rather than prepare for secret and surreptitious intrusions into private homes. 
"But Michael Müller is conspicuous by his absence. He has not addressed the crisis in the Senate. He also refuses to meet with citizens. Nor is he personally visiting the refugee shelters. He has gone into seclusion, from where he has declared that accommodating the refugees is his top priority."
Meanwhile, the German government wants to bring in even more migrants. Speaking at a meeting of the Social Democrats (SPD) in Berlin on November 12, German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel argued that Germany should bring in a "large contingent" of migrants in order to prevent human traffickers from profiting from the migrant crisis.

Gabriel apparently wants to airlift tens of thousands of migrants to Germany. "No one should die on the way to Europe, which must be our goal," he said. If other European countries refuse to participate in the plan, he said, "Germany should take the lead."

According to Gabriel, "What matters is not the number of people who come to Germany, but the speed at which they come." He added that the federal government should double the budget for building new housing for migrants.

Nuremberg Mayor Ulrich Maly countered: "The same empathy we show for refugees we must show to our own people, the host society."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel continues to double down on her open-door asylum policy. In a November 13 interview with the public broadcaster ZDF, Merkel responded to critics: "The Chancellor has the situation under control. I have my vision. I will fight for it."

Soeren Kern
 is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in early 2016.

Monday, November 23, 2015

Obama's Love for Jihadis and Hate for Christians

November 23, 2015

Not impressed: U.S. President Barack Obama makes a face after answering a question about U.S. politicians opposed to taking in Syrian refugees speaking at the APEC summit in Manila, Philippines, Wednesday
President Barack Obama reacts after answering a question about U.S. politicians opposed to taking in Syrian refugees speaking at the APEC summit in Manila, Philippines, last Wednesday.

Obama recently lashed out against the idea of giving preference to Christian refugees, describing it as "shameful."  "That's not American.  That's not who we are.  We don't have religious tests to our compassion," loftily added the American president.

Accordingly, the administration is still determined to accept 10,000 more Syrian refugees, almost all of whom will be Muslim, despite the fact that some are ISIS operatives, while many share the ISIS worldview (as explained below).

Yet right as Obama was grandstanding about "who we are," statistics were released indicating that "the current [refugee] system overwhelmingly favors Muslim refugees. Of the 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States so far, only 53 are Christians while 2,098 are Muslim."

Aside from the obvious – or, to use Obama's own word, "shameful" – pro-Muslim, anti-Christian bias evident in these statistics, there are a number of other troubling factors.

For starters, the overwhelming majority of "refugees" being brought into the United States are not just Muslim, but Sunnis – the one Muslim sect that the Islamic State is not persecuting and displacing.  After all, ISIS – and most Islamic terrorist groups (Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, Al Shabaab, Hamas, et al.) – are all Sunnis.  Even Obama was arguably raised a Sunni.

In this context, how are Sunnis "refugees"?  Whom are they fleeing?  Considering that the Obama administration defines refugees as people "persecuted by their government," most of those coming into the U.S. either aided or at least sympathized with the jihad against Assad (even if they revealed their true colors only when the time was right).

Simply put, some 98% of all refugees belong to the same Islamic sect as ISIS does.  And many of them, unsurprisingly, share the same vision – such as the "refugees" who recently murdered some 120 people in France, or the "refugees" who persecute Christian minorities in European camps and settlements.  (Al Azhar – the Sunni world's most prestigious university of Islamic law, which co-hosted U.S. President Obama's 2009 "A New Beginning" speech – was just recently exposed as teaching and legitimizing all the atrocities that ISIS commits.)

As for those who are being raped, slaughtered, and enslaved based on their non-Sunni religious identity – not by Assad, but by so-called "rebel" forces (aka jihadis) – many of them are being denied refuge in America.

Thus, although Christians were approximately 10 percent of Syria's population in 2011, only one percent has been granted refuge in America.  This despite the fact that, from a strictly humanitarian point of view – and humanitarianism (Obama's "compassion") is the chief reason being cited in accepting refugees – Christians should receive priority simply because they are the most persecuted group in the Middle East

At the hands of the Islamic State, which supposedly precipitated the migrant crisis, Christians have been repeatedly forced to renounce Christ or die; they have been enslaved and raped; and they have had more than 400 of their churches desecrated and destroyed.1 

ISIS has committed no such atrocities against fellow Sunnis, they who are being accepted into the U.S. in droves.  Nor does Assad enslave, behead, or crucify people based on their religious identity (despite Jeb Bush's recent, and absurd, assertions).

Obama should further prioritize Christian refugees simply because his own policies in the Middle East have directly exacerbated their plight.  Christians and other religions minorities did not flee from Bashar Assad's Syria, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or Moammar Gaddafi's Libya.  Their systematic persecution began only after the U.S. interfered in those nations in the name of "democracy," succeeding only in uncorking the jihadi terrorists whom the dictators had long kept suppressed.

Incidentally, prioritizing Christian refugees would not merely be an altruistic gesture or the U.S. government's way of righting its wrongs: rather, it brings many benefits to America's security.  (Unlike Muslims or even Yazidis, Christians are easily assimilated into Western nations due to the shared Christian heritage, and they bring trustworthy language and cultural skills that are beneficial to the "war on terror.") 

Finally, no one should be shocked by these recent revelations of the Obama administration's pro-Muslim and anti-Christian policies.  They fit a clear and established pattern of religious bias within his administration.  For example:

  • While inviting scores of Muslim representatives, the State Department is in the habit of denying visas to solitary Christian representatives.
  • When a few persecuted Iraqi Christians crossed the border into the U.S., they were thrown in prison for several months and then sent back to the lion's den to be enslaved, raped, or murdered.
  • When the Nigerian government waged a strong offensive against Boko Haram, killing some of its terrorists, Secretary of State John Kerry fumed and called for the "human rights" of the jihadis (who regularly slaughter and rape Christians and burn their churches).  More recently, Kerry "urged Tajikistan not to go overboard in its crackdown on Islam."
  • When persecuted Coptic Christians planned on joining Egypt's anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution of 2013, the U.S. said no
  • When persecuted Iraqi and Syrian Christians asked for arms to join the opposition fighting ISIS, D.C. refused.
  • When the U.N. Security Council held a meeting to discuss the genocide against Christians and other minorities, although "many high level delegations from UN member states addressed the Security Council meeting, some at the Foreign Minister level, the United States failed to send … a high ranking member of the State Department."
Most recently, as the White House works on releasing a statement accusing ISIS of committing genocide against religious minorities such as Yazidis – who are named and recognized in the statement – Obama officials are arguing that Christians "do not appear to meet the high bar set out in the genocide treaty" and thus likely will not be mentioned.

In short, and to use the president's own words, it is the Obama administration's own foreign and domestic policies that are "shameful," that are "not American," and that do not represent "who we are." 

Yet the question remains: will Americans take notice and do anything about their leader's policies – which welcome Islamic jihadis while ignoring their victims – or will their indifference continue until they too become victims of the jihad, in a repeat of Paris or worse?

1 Even before the new "caliphate" was established, Christians were and continue to be targeted by Muslims – Muslim mobs, Muslim individuals, Muslim regimes, and Muslim terrorists, from Muslim countries of all races (Arab, African, Asian, etc.) – and for the same reason: Christians are infidel number one.  See Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians for hundreds of anecdotes before the rise of ISIS as well as the Muslim doctrines that create such hate and contempt for Christians who are especially deserving of refugee status.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/exposed_obamas_love_for_jihadis_and_hate_for_christians.html#ixzz3sJdKeCxF
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Who is Being Delusional?

Why the Palestinians are not interested in either peace or statehood.

November 20, 2015

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas speaks with journalists at his office in the West Bank city of Ramallah on October 6, 2015. (AFP/Ahmad Gharabli)

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

On Tuesday night, Channel 10 broadcast an interview with PLO chief and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in which Abbas admitted publicly for the first time that he rejected the peace plan then prime minister Ehud Olmert offered him in 2008.

Olmert’s plan called for Israel to withdraw from the entire Old City of Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, and from 93.7 percent of Judea and Samaria. Olmert also offered sovereign Israeli territory to the Palestinians to compensate for the areas Israel would retain in Judea and Samaria.

Abbas said his rejection was unequivocal. “I didn’t agree. I rejected it out of hand.”

For years, the story of Abbas’s rejection of Olmert’s 2008 offer has been underplayed. Many commentators have insisted Abbas didn’t really reject it, but just failed to respond.

But now the truth is clear. Abbas is not interested either in peace or in Palestinian statehood.

Abbas’s many apologists in the Israeli Left insist that he didn’t reject the plan on its merits. Rather, they argue, Abbas rejected Olmert’s offer because, by the time Olmert made it, he was involved in criminal investigations that forced him to resign from office eight months later.

Hogwash, says former AP reporter Mark Lavie.

Following the interview’s broadcast, Lavie countered that if Abbas were truly interested in establishing an independent Palestinian state, he wouldn’t have cared about the political fortunes of the Israeli prime minister. He would have taken the offer and run, knowing that, as Olmert said, the likelihood that he’d get a similar offer in the next 50 years was nonexistent.

The most notable reaction to Abbas’s admission was the reaction that never came. The Israeli Left had no reaction to his interview.

Abbas is the hero of the Left.

He is their partner. He is their moderate. He is their man of peace. Abbas is the Palestinian leader to whom every leftist politician worth his snuff, from opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog to the Meretz Knesset faction make regular pilgrimages to prove their devotion to peace.

Their man in Ramallah received the most radical offer ever to see the light of day. And rather than accept it, he rejected it out of hand and refused to meet with Olmert ever again, and he openly admits it.

The Left’s non-response is not surprising. Abbas’s decision to end all speculation about whether or not he is a man of peace is merely the latest blow reality has cast on their two-state formula.

The Left’s policy of land for peace failed more than 15 years ago when Abbas’s boss, Yasser Arafat, preferred war to peace and initiated the worst campaign of terrorism that Israel had ever experienced.

Yet for the last 15 years, the Israeli “peace camp” has never wavered in its view that, despite it all, Israel must rid itself of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

Rather it members has grown angrier and angrier at their own people for abandoning them and less and less willing to agree that there is anything – including Israeli statehood itself – that is more important than giving up Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria.

The Left’s reactionary position was on full display last Thursday at the annual “peace conference” hosted by the far left Haaretz newspaper.

Last year, the conference’s audience attacked Bayit Yehudi Party leader Naftali Bennett both verbally and physically when he presented his plan to apply Israeli sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria. This year it was Tourism Minister Yariv Levin’s turn to be assaulted.

Levin was subjected to constant catcalls from the audience, whose members called him “Goebbels” for arguing that the two-state formula has no chance of bringing peace and that the time has come to consider other options.

But Levin’s claims were simply common sense.

This week the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion published its most recent survey. The results were no surprise. Indeed, they were more or less consistent with historical survey results.

According to the PCPO data, 63 percent of Palestinians oppose holding peace talks with Israel.

58 percent think Mahmoud Abbas, whose term of office ended in 2009, should resign. A majority of Palestinians support a new assault or “intifada” against Israel and 42 percent of Palestinians support the use of terrorism against Israel.

Also this week, ahead of the Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Conference on Wednesday The Jerusalem Post published a new poll of Israeli public opinion.

According to the data, 46 percent of Israelis support a policy of separating from the Palestinians through the establishment of a Palestinian state. 35 percent of Israelis support applying Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria. For Israelis under 45, the numbers are reversed.

Today a majority of Likud Knesset members and all members of the Bayit Yehudi’s Knesset faction oppose Palestinian statehood and support applying Israeli law to all or parts of Judea and Samaria.

Rather than deal with the fact that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis support their two-state model, the Left has decided to ignore both.

The Haaretz conference last week hosted a panel discussing whether the two state paradigm remains viable. In his remarks, Prof. Shlomo Ben-Ami, who served as foreign minister in 2000 during the failed Camp David peace summit, explained that given the Israeli and Palestinian publics’ rejection of the two-state formula, (but especially the Israeli rejection of it), the UN Security Council determine Israel’s final borders. In other words, from Ben-Ami’s perspective, withdrawing from Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria is more important than maintaining Israel’s independence and governing in accordance with the will of the people.

When the panel’s moderator expressed concern that the mass expulsion of Israelis from their communities in Judea and Samaria which the two-state formula requires would cause a civil war within Israeli society, Ben-Ami just shrugged his shoulders.

“I don’t delude myself. I never deluded myself that this would be a boy scout trip,” he said. “You can’t do this through consensus….Consensus is the great enemy of leadership.”

Ben-Ami continued, “War unites, peace divides…A leader who wants to make peace will always have a split nation behind him.”

MK Meirav Michaeli, who serves as the Zionist Union’s Knesset faction head, said for her part that the greatest obstacle to peace is Israel. Ever since Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, Israel hasn’t had a leader willing to do what it takes to make peace.

In Michaeli’s view, when the Left next forms a government, it will need to adopt – as is opening position in negotiations – the position that Israel shares responsibility for the fate of the so-called “Palestinian refugees.”

Michaeli explained, “Israel needs to be part of a coalition that will find a solution,” for the descendants of the Arabs that left Israel during the 1948- 1949 pan-Arab invasion of the nascent state of Israel.

Michaeli also insisted that Israel needs to stop demanding that the Palestinians recognize the Jewish state’s right to exist. Israel should suffice instead with a Palestinian acknowledgment that it does indeed exist.

It goes without saying that there has never been, and there never will be a majority of support in Israel either for Ben-Ami’s position or for Michaeli’s position. This is the reason that they prefer to ignore the Israeli people and wait for “the world” to save “the peace” for them.

This brings us to the 46 percent of Israelis who would like to separate from the Palestinians and let them have a state.

The only reason that a plurality of Israelis still supports a policy that has failed continuously for the past 15 years is because the Israeli Left has blocked all discussion of alternative policies.

Over the past 20 years, the Left has implemented three policy initiatives: the peace process with the PLO from 1993 to 2000, the unilateral withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000 and the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. These policies never enjoyed the sustained support of the majority of the public.

To the extent they ever mobilized the temporary support of bare majorities of public, they did so only because the media campaigned continuously on behalf of these initiatives. Not only did key all the mass circulation newspapers and all major broadcast media outlets support these plans, they blocked all debate about them. Opponents were demonized as extremists.

And this brings us to the 35 percent of Israelis who support applying Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria.

It is this virtual blackout on coverage of opposing views that makes the results of the Post’s opinion poll remarkable. In the absence of almost any public discussion of the possibility of applying Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria aside from the self-generated publicity of advocates of the position, more than a third of Israelis overall, and a plurality of young Israelis supports it.

Over the past week, Netanyahu has been asked his opinion of the prospects for unilateral Israeli actions toward the Palestinians three times, once in Washington and twice in Jerusalem. Netanyahu’s responses have been enigmatic. But collectively they lend the clear impression that the premier does not support unilateral Israeli withdrawals from Judea and Samaria and at least in principle, does not oppose the sovereignty model.

In his remarks at the Post’s conference Wednesday, Netanyahu said cagily, “There are all sorts of unilateral moves in all sorts of directions. Wait and see. And they are not necessarily in the direction you think.”

Speaking to the Likud’s Knesset faction on Monday Netanyahu clarified his remarks on the subject last week in Washington saying, “I didn’t say unilateral withdrawals. I said unilateral steps. You can imagine what I mean – states are disintegrating and we will protect our interests.”

Sitting next to Ben-Ami at the Haaretz conference was the lone non-leftist on the panel. Halachic expert Malka Puterkovsky said that, in her view, Israel should apply its sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria. Doing so, she argued, will not risk Israel’s future as a Jewish state.

Both the audience and her fellow panelists reacted to her statements with a the same extreme hostility with which they responded to Bennet and Levin.

When Ben-Ami – the man who thinks it is more important for Israel to expel some 100,000 Israelis from their homes than avert a civil war, and prefers borders forced on Israel by the UN to Israeli democracy and independence – was asked his opinion of Puterovsky’s position, he called the notion of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria “delusional.”

We need to take Netanyahu’s coy responses to questions about unilateralism as an invitation to begin a serious public discussion of the option.

The public wants this discussion and we need this discussion.

As for how the peace camp will respond, well, there are worse things than having reactionaries call you “delusional.”