THE CIVIL WAR IS HERE

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266197/civil-war-here-daniel-greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

A civil war has begun.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.

This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.

Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.

That’s why compromise has become impossible.

Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.

Instead it has retreated to cultural urban and suburban enclaves where it has centralized tremendous amounts of power while disregarding the interests and values of most of the country. If it considers them at all, it is convinced that they will shortly disappear to be replaced by compliant immigrants and college indoctrinated leftists who will form a permanent demographic majority for its agenda.

It has responded to a lost election by constructing sanctuary cities and states thereby turning a cultural and ideological secession into a legal secession. But while secessionists want to be left alone authoritarians want everyone to follow their laws. The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey.

The left describes its actions as principled. But more accurately they are ideological. Officials at various levels of government have rejected the authority of the President of the United States, of Congress and of the Constitution because those are at odds with their radical ideology. Judges have cloaked this rejection in law. Mayors and governors are not even pretending that their actions are lawful.

The choices of this civil war are painfully clear.

We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.

But we cannot have both.

Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.

That is what we have now.

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.

The question is what comes next.

The last time around growing tensions began to explode in violent confrontations between extremists on both sides. These extremists were lauded by moderates who mainstreamed their views. The first Republican president was elected and rejected. The political tensions led to conflict and then civil war.

The left doesn’t believe in secession. It’s an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials.

What this really means is that there are two competing governments; the legal government and a treasonous anti-government of the left. If this political conflict progresses, agencies and individuals at every level of government will be asked to demonstrate their allegiance to these two competing governments. And that can swiftly and explosively transform into an actual civil war.

There is no sign that the left understands or is troubled by the implications of the conflict it has initiated. And there are few signs that Democrats properly understand the dangerous road that the radical left is drawing them toward. The left assumes that the winners of a democratic election will back down rather than stand on their authority. It is unprepared for the possibility that democracy won’t die in darkness.

Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It’s being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders.

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.

This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.

 

 

But it couldn’t wait that long because it is animated by the conviction that enforcing its ideas is urgent and inevitable. And so it turned what had been a hidden transition into an open break.

In the hidden transition, its authority figures had hijacked the law and every political office they held to pursue their ideological agenda. The left had used its vast cultural power to manufacture a consensus that was slowly transitioning the country from American values to its values and agendas. The right had proven largely impotent in the face of a program which corrupted and subverted from within.

The left was enormously successful in this regard. It was so successful that it lost all sense of proportion and decided to be open about its views and to launch a political power struggle after losing an election.

The Democrats were no longer being slowly injected with leftist ideology. Instead the left openly took over and demanded allegiance to open borders, identity politics and environmental fanaticism. The exodus of voters wiped out the Democrats across much of what the left deemed flyover country.

The left responded to democratic defeats by retreating deeper into undemocratic institutions, whether it was the bureaucracy or the corporate media, while doubling down on its political radicalism. It is now openly defying the outcome of a national election using a coalition of bureaucrats, corporations, unelected officials, celebrities and reporters that are based out of its cultural and political enclaves.

Glenn Beck Exposes Obama’s Fraudulent History and Radicalized Beliefs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f36ZbzL-9Yo

 

Published on Feb 16, 2014

Obama’s supporters love him for the same reason they loved Bill Clinton, not just in spite of the fact he lies but because he lies so well. They absolutely swoon at the way these guys lie and spin. I thought Clinton was the most transparently fake and phoney politicians in history in the style of Jimmy Swaggart but that is the same reason why the Left loved him. Now we are seeing this with Obama all over again. Obama blows smoke up the ass of the Left and they absolutely love him for it.

TDSB ban on new trips to U.S. political correctness gone mad

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/03/27/tdsb-ban-on-new-trips-to-us-political-correctness-gone-mad

TORONTO - Pardon me for saying so but I didn’t notice Canada listed as a hotbed of terrorist activity in President Donald Trump’s latest order banning residents of six countries from temporarily entering the United States for 90 days.

I saw Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

But don’t tell that to the largely union-backed loony leftist trustees forever in search of a cause at the Toronto District School Board (TDSB).

Evidently they’re aiming to make Canada their own “safe space” free from the deleterious impact of exposure to Trumpism on the 250,000-plus delicate flowers that come under their progressive wings. At last Thursday’s board meeting trustees voted to put a hold on any new school trips for staff and students. It’s all due to Trump and his executive orders involving the above-noted countries, even though the latest, like the first, is on hold, the subject of a court challenge.

Trustees have magnanimously permitted 25 previously approved trips involving 900 students to proceed as planned.

(No word on whether the ban would be lifted if the 900 students manage to make it to the U.S. and back without incident.)

The leftists at the TDSB aren’t the first to make such a political statement at their students’ expense. The Greater Essex County District School Board also nixed all travel across the border in February.

Efforts to reach Greater Essex board chairman Kim McKinley were not successful Sunday.

But TDSB chairman Robin Pilkey denied it was a “political statement,” saying the travel ban, if enforced, would “target students and treat them differently” based on their country of origin.

“The situation is neither fair nor equitable,” she said. “We value inclusion, fairness and equity and based on these values, schools can make travel plans for many destinations other than the U.S.”

(I didn’t suggest to Pilkey that if the TDSB really wants to make a statement, perhaps one of the six banned countries would be an option for an upcoming trip.)

That said, I’m willing to bet no students with the proper documentation will be stopped at the border, and they will certainly not be turned back. But even if they are questioned, so what?

I hate to tell this to the easily offended educrats but I was stopped and interrogated more than once at the border trying to fly to Florida — and, for heaven’s sake, it occurred during Barack Obama’s time in office.

Was it because I’m Jewish? Or gay? Or because, as inconvenient as it is, in our current climate of terrorist threats globally, border guards are sometimes, shall we say, overzealous.

What does this TDSB ban accomplish other than sending students the message that they should feel easily offended and oppressed — that they are delicate flowers unable to cope with the slightest of inconveniences?

How is it the slightest bit fair — using the students once again as pawns — to take out the board’s political temper tantrum on Americans and the cities that survive on tourism?

It’s bad enough many TDSB students can’t read, write, add or subtract properly (according to standardized tests).

Are the educrats and the leftist trustees also teaching them to become angry, intolerant social justice warriors in search of a cause like the faux manhating feminists in their moronic pussy hats I saw at a recent Women’s Day rally?

Fairness, inclusivity, equity, my foot. This is nothing more than yet another TDSB exercise in political correctness gone mad.

CAN ISLAMISTS BE FEMINISTS?

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266185/can-islamists-be-feminists-daniel-greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Linda Sarsour, an Islamist organizer of the Women’s March, announced that Jewish women couldn’t be feminists. At least not so long as they continued to be Zionists and believe that Jews have the right to a country. But a better question might be whether an Islamist like Linda Sarsour can be a feminist.

Sarsour had tweeted defenses of Saudi Arabia’s Islamic treatment of women. Worried about Saudi Arabia not letting women drive? “10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.”

Maternity leave is a bad joke in an Islamic State where large numbers of jobs are closed to women. Even if they could drive to work or leave the house. Meanwhile in Zionist Israel, women have 14 weeks of paid maternity leave. And they can actually drive to work. They can even drive tanks and fly fighter jets.

Puts Linda Sarsour, her leftist enablers and Saudi Arabia to shame. Or least it ought to.

But the left has chosen to define feminism by Islamism. If being forced to wear a hijab is feminist, an Israeli woman defending her people with a gun must be sexist. Being tracked so that your male guardian gets a text message when you try to leave the country, as in Saudi Arabia, is feminist. But women of all races and religions running their own lives in Israelis must be sexist.

Anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism is one of those areas where Islam and the left cozily intersect. But hating Jews and supporting Islamic terrorists has all sorts of funny intersectional consequences.

One of them is that the oppression of women by those who hate Jews and America becomes feminist.

“In Saudi Arabia – ur boogeyman Islamic state, Women r in parliament,” Sarsour furiously tweeted.

There were just a few minor details. Women running for office couldn’t campaign around men. And women weren’t allowed to vote without getting permission from their husbands or fathers. Past council meetings were sex segregated. Women could only participate by video.

But that’s an Islamic state for you. It’s run under Islamic Sharia law, which Linda Sarsour also defends.

“Shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics,” Sarsour tweeted.

Some of the reasonable basics of Sharia law include beating women.

“Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other,” the Koran says. “And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.”

Does Linda Sarsour believe that Koran 4:34 and its approval of domestic violence makes a lot of sense? Can Sarsour be a feminist while supporting the beating of women?

And if so, what if anything does feminism even mean? At the lowest possible bar, feminism supposedly means that women are equal.

But that’s not what Islam believes.

According to Mohammed, the founder of Islam, women were deficient in intelligence (Sahih Bukhari 6:301) and made up most of those suffering in hell (Sahih Bukhari 54:464). These aren’t just bygone sexist opinions. Instead they are encoded in Sarsour’s Sharia law. Here is a typical example.

“’Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?’ They replied in the affirmative. He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence.’” Sahih Bukhari (6:301)

Islam considers women deficient in intelligence. So it takes two female witnesses to equal one man.

That deep contempt for women came from Mohammed, a serial rapist and pedophile, whom Linda Sarsour described as “a human rights activist, a feminist in his own right”.

How can a man who kept sex slaves, inspiring the ISIS imitation of his practice, be a feminist?

Linda Sarsour is either lying to her liberal allies or to herself. Islam doesn’t believe that women are equal. It believes that women are property. Islamic Sharia law does offer plenty of rights to women.

There is the right of Muslim men to rape female prisoners (Koran 4:24) and the right of Muslim men to force their wives into sex. As Koran 2:223 puts it, “Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like”. You don’t need to unpack any knapsacks to spot the objectification and the rape culture.

These are more than mere words. Islamic Sharia law isn’t something abstract. It affects the lives of millions of women around the world.

In Pakistan, Sharia law meant that rape victims needed four “pious” male witnesses to prove they were raped. In Iran, it meant that teenage girls on death row were raped since Islamic beliefs held that only women who are virgins go to heaven.

In Saudi Arabia, it means that women are wards of male guardians from the day that they are born until the day that they die. They aren’t even allowed to leave the house without the authority of a male guardian. “No woman should travel except with a mahram.” (Abu Huraira 2:20:194)

Margaret Atwood’s A Handmaid’s Tale is just ordinary life under Islam.

How are any of Linda Sarsour’s Islamist beliefs compatible with the principles of the Women’s March?

The Unity Principles of the Women’s March state, “It is our moral imperative to dismantle the gender and racial inequities.” Islamic sharia law is based on gender and racial inequities. Islamic laws hold women inferior as witnesses, in marriage and divorce, and even in the value of their lives.

“We believe in Reproductive Freedom,” the Principles declare. Islamic law outlaws abortion and frowns on most methods of contraception.  The Principles endorse gay rights. Islamic law endorses throwing gay people from the nearest roof. The Principles call for “freedom to worship without fear of intimidation or harassment”. Islamic law denies this essential right to non-Muslims.

Mohammed declared, “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.” (Sahih Muslim 019:4366) Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State defended by Sarsour, forbids Christians from practicing their religion and has been known to raid non-Islamic religious gatherings.  (But wait till you see their maternity leave.) That is the fulfillment of Mohammed’s command.

Linda Sarsour’s Islamist ideology is hardly compatible with even the lowest bar for feminism. And to the extent that Zionism intersects with feminism, it’s that Israel is the only country in the region where women have equal rights. Are domestic abuse and sex slavery more feminist than Israel?

Sarsour insists that Zionists can’t be feminists, but the rejection of Islamic territorial claims to Israel, much as it infuriates her tribal sensibilities, has nothing to do with feminism. Sarsour accuses Zionists of refusing to stand up for the rights of “Palestinian” women. Zionists are far more likely to care about Muslim settlers living in Israel than she is about the Israeli women terrorized by her Islamist allies.

Arafat had boasted that the “womb” of the Arab woman was his strongest weapon. That’s what the PLO’s idea of caring about “Palestinian” women really means. Domestic violence is endemic under PLO and Hamas rule in the two “Palestinian” states. But that’s not what Linda Sarsour means when she demands that we care about “Palestinian” women. Caring is defined purely in the tribal and the negative.

If you care about “Palestinian” women, you will support the tribal Muslim campaign against Israel. To care about them, you must make war on the Jewish State. That isn’t feminism. It’s tribalism.

That’s not caring. It’s hatred.

Women are half the population of every group. If rejecting the claim of Muslim settlers of any gender invalidates the feminism of Jews, then the Muslim rejection of the Jewish right to Israel invalidates Muslim feminism. Follow Sarsour’s logic and taking sides in any conflict where women are involved nullifies someone’s feminism. That is unless Jewish women have less worth than Muslim women.

And that is what we are truly up against.

Why do Jewish women matter less than Muslim women? Why is no one reading Linda Sarsour out of the feminist movement for not caring about Israeli women? Because Jews matter less than Muslims.

That is the ugly truth. It’s not about sexism. It’s about racism and anti-Semitism.

The left has discovered a newfound interest in using anti-Semitism as a talking point. Perhaps it will agree to unpack its own knapsack and discuss why it supports the racist Islamic war against the Jews.