SHADOW WAR BETWEEN IRAN AND ISRAEL ERUPTS INTO OPEN WARFARE

The shadow war between Israel and Iran burst into open warfare over the weekend with a brazen and reckless Iranian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) intrusion into Israeli airspace. The drama unfolded on Saturday at 4:25 a.m. when an Iranian reconnaissance drone, believed to be a knockoff of the American RQ-170 Sentinel UAV, penetrated into Israeli airspace for approximately 90 seconds before being shot down by an Israeli Apache attack helicopter of the 113th Squadron near the Israeli town of Bet Shean in the Jordan Valley.

Israeli intelligence had been monitoring the aircraft and its flight path soon after it took off from an Iranian controlled airbase called T4 located near the Syrian city of Palmyra. Immediately after intercepting the drone, the Israeli Air Force attacked the command and control vehicle responsible for controlling and monitoring the UAV, and obliterated it.

Returning IAF aircraft were met with a hail of anti-aircraft fire. According to Israeli sources, the Syrians fired between 15 and 20 antiaircraft missiles. One of them, believed to be either a long-range SA-5 or medium-range SA-17, locked on to an F-16 Sufa fighter bomber and exploded near the aircraft, peppering the jet with shrapnel.

Both pilot and navigator safely ejected and the plane crashed in a field in Israel’s Jezreel Valley. Fortunately, no civilians were hurt. The navigator will likely be released from the hospital today or tomorrow, while the pilot is still recovering from abdominal injuries but is said to be fully conscience and breathing on his own. His condition continues to improve and doctors are optimistic.

It was the first time that an Israel jet fighter had been shot down since June 1982 when an A-4 Sky Hawk was shot down over Beirut during the initial phases of Operation Peace for Galilee. In 1983, an F-4 Phantom crashed in Lebanon but that was due to a technical malfunction rather than hostile fire. In 2006, an Israeli Yassur heavy-lift transport helicopter was shot down by a MANPADS fired by Hezbollah terrorists.

Immediately following the crash, Israel launched a furious and devastating bombardment against Syrian and Iranian military positions, attacking twelve military sites throughout the country. Four of those sites were Iranian bases and encampments while the remaining sites were Syrian anti-aircraft missile batteries and military bases including a base belonging to the Syrian army’s 104th airborne division.

Brig. Gen. Tomer Bar, the deputy head of the IAF termed the attack as, “the biggest and most significant attack the air force has conducted against Syrian air defenses since Operation Peace for the Galilee.” During that conflict, the IAF destroyed 19 Syrian surface-to-air missile batteries while swatting 80 Syrian MiG-21 and MiG-23 fighters from the skies, for no losses.

 

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that at least six Assad regime fighters and their allies were killed in the wave of attacks but the death toll is expected to climb. As is their wont, neither the Syrian government nor the Iranians provided casualty figures.

Delirious Shia and supporters of the Assad regime cheered in the capitals of Tehran, Damascus and Beirut upon hearing news of the F-16’s demise. Such celebrations are beyond absurd. The fact that after thousands of sorties over hostile territory, a single jet was downed does not mean that Israel has lost air supremacy. To claim otherwise is utter nonsense. Moreover, the myopic celebrants, drunk on phantom victories glaringly ignored other notable aspects of the military encounter; chiefly, the rapid interception of the UAV, the destruction of its command and control vehicle, and the destruction and devastation wrought upon multiple Iranian and Syrian bases hit in the wave of Israeli retaliatory strikes.

There are a number of takeaways from this engagement.

  • The Islamic Republic had tried to dictate the rules of the game by launching a UAV into Israel. They failed in this regard. The IDF’s quick and devastating response put to rest any foolhardy Iranian notions that Israel will ignore future border transgressions and further Iranian entrenchment in Syria. If anything, it was Israel, by its swift and overwhelming reaction to Iranian aggression that changed the rules of the game. Iranian outposts throughout Syria and beyond will no longer be immune to attack.
  • The Syrian Army does not exactly have a stellar record in shooting down Israeli aircraft. Were Russian advisers present and advising their Syrian underlings when the missiles were launched? Even worse, were the Russians actually manning the batteries? The answers to these questions may never be known but an Israeli-Iranian clash and heightened regional tensions run counter to Russian interests. Israel and Russia have maintained continuous dialogue through diplomatic and military channels in an effort to avoid military confrontations and lower tensions. Indeed, just ten days prior to the incident, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Moscow for talks with his counterpart Vladimir Putin. The two leaders enjoy a good business-like relationship.
  • Obama’s foreign policies continue to have a lingering, deleterious effect. The Iran deal provided the Iranians with a badly needed cash infusion. The $1.7 billion in cash that Obama transferred to the Iranians on wooden pallets and the billions of dollars Iran received from sanctions relief have been channeled to fuel their overseas wars. Iran’s entrenchment in Syria and its use of UAVs to violate Israeli airspace is a direct consequence of the Iran deal.
  • The Iranian UAV was a knockoff of the American RQ-170 Sentinel spy drone. Iran captured a Sentinel in 2011 when one crashed in Iran under mysterious circumstances. There has been speculation that Iranian cyber hackers intercepted the Sentinel’s data link or otherwise misdirected it by hacking into its GPS. Whether it crashed by itself or was hacked, the Sentinel and all of its technology fell into Iranian hands relatively intact. Obama asked the Iranians to return the UAV and the Iranians naturally refused and likely reversed engineered the UAV with the help of the Russians and Chinese. But Obama had another option that involved bombing and destroying the Sentinel after its seizure by the Iranians. As former vice president Dick Cheney noted, “The right response to [Iran’s seizure] would have been to go in immediately after it had gone down and destroy it.” Cheney added that it could have been accomplished with an airstrike but instead, Obama, “asked nicely for them to return it, and they aren’t going to.”

The events of the weekend make clear that we are entering a dangerous new phase of Iranian malignancy. The reversals suffered by anti-Assad rebels have enabled Iran to concentrate its aggressive efforts beyond the Syrian battleground. It’s safe to say that the only regional power capable of blunting and even reversing Iran’s expansion is Israel.

L’OREAL SEVERS TIES WITH MODEL AFTER ANTI-SEMITIC TWEETS REVEALED

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269114/loreal-severs-ties-model-after-anti-semitic-tweets-ari-lieberman

French Cosmetic giant L’Oréal fired hijab-clad Muslim model, Amena Khan on Monday following revelations that Khan posted several anti-Semitic memes and rants on social media. Most of the postings were from the summer of 2014, during Operation Protective Edge, while Israel was in the midst of a difficult counter-insurgency campaign aimed at stopping indiscriminate Hamas rocket fire and destroying Hamas terror tunnels that the group hoped to use in the commission of mega attacks against Israelis.

L’Oréal had initially hired Khan to feature in an ad campaign for hair products. Khan attempted to frantically delete the damning tweets but soon learned to her chagrin that what’s posted on the internet stays on the internet like a stubborn rash that won’t go away.

In a statement, Khan said that she “deeply regret[ted] the content of the tweets,” and decided to step down because she didn’t want to serve as a distraction from the positive aspects of L’Oréal’s message of inclusivity. L’Oréal released its own message stating that it agreed with Khan’s decision to step down.

Reading between the lines, it’s easy to discern that Khan’s decision to step down was anything but voluntary. L’Oréal fired her and had no choice in the matter. The backlash against L’Oréal was instantaneous, and the company had its reputation to protect, and of course, the bottom line.

Khan’s tweets were indeed vile and rabidly anti-Semitic. She called Israel a “sinister state” and an “illegal state.” She accused Israel of committing genocide, massacres and deliberately targeting children for murder, and for good measure, added rape and torture to the mix. She then went on to compare the Israel Defense Forces with Nazi henchmen. When another twitter user pointed out the absurdity of the comparison by utilizing biting sarcasm, Khan ignored the pointed criticism and doubled down on her absurd comparison.

No one is punishing Khan for criticizing the Israeli government or its policies. No country on earth should be exempt from criticism. But often times, Israel’s shrillest critics, many of whom are deeply anti-Semitic, cross the line veering squarely into overt Jew-hatred. Khan clearly crossed that line with her inflammatory and patently absurd rhetoric.

Famed human rights activist and refusenik Natan Sharansky postulated a simple test, called the 3D Test, to determine whether criticism of Israel crosses the line. If the criticism demonizes Israel by comparing the nation, its government and its armed forces to Nazis, that constitutes antisemitism.  If the criticism delegitimizes Israel by questioning Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, that constitutes antisemitism. If the criticism subjects Israel to double standards, whereby only Israel is criticized and nations or entities committing far more egregious transgressions are insulated from criticism, that constitutes antisemitism. The United States State Department incorporates elements of this test into its definition of antisemitism.

Under the 3D paradigm, Amena Khan clearly crossed the line and in fact, violated all three at once. She compared Israel to Nazis thus engaging in demonizing calumnies. She called Israel and “Illegal state” thus questioning the legitimate right of Israel to exist. Finally, she directed scathing criticism against Israel while ignoring Hamas transgressions – indiscriminate rocket fire, cynical exploitation of human shields, terror tunnels – and even acted as an apologist for the terror group’s activities.

The double irony is that L’Oreal, maker of Lash Architect 3D Mascara, hired a bigoted individual who was guilty of practicing 3D antisemitism to feature prominently as the company’s representative in its inclusivity and diversity ad campaign. It goes without saying that a figure as odious as Khan would make for a rather poor spokeswoman, a PR disaster.

L’Oréal’s past is sullied with the stench of antisemitism. Its founder, Eugène Schueller, was deeply anti-Semitic and despite the fact that his country was conquered and occupied by Germany, was an admirer of Nazism and Hitler. But his pro-Nazi attitudes went beyond admiration. He actively collaborated with the Nazis supplying paint for the Reich’s naval fleet and forging a close relationship with a German official named Helmut Knochen. Knochen was responsible for rounding up French Jews for deportation and murder and following the war, named Schueller as one of his “voluntary collaborators.”

But it would be unfair to blame L’Oréal for the sins of its past. In fact, L’Oréal currently has a major presence in Israel, and with its headquarters in Netanya, its logistics center in Cesarea, and its plant in Migdal HaEmek, employs some one-thousand Israelis. More importantly, while L’Oréal can be accused of negligence for failing to perform the requisite background checks, it acted appropriately when the offending tweets came to light and terminated its relationship with Khan in relatively expeditious fashion.

The lesson for large companies with reputations to protect like L’Oréal is obvious; have your HR people exercise some simple due diligence before taking on a high profile hire. The lesson for Khan and those of similar ilk is equally obvious; learn to break the chains of mindless hate and ignorance, and if you’re incapable of doing so, don’t broadcast your vile, xenophobic ignorance to the world via social media because your words will undoubtedly come back to haunt you.

WHY HIJAB HOAX GIRL LIED

Editors’ note: Khawlah Noman is now yet another Muslim hoax victim. The 11-year-old Muslim girl has been caught lying about being attacked, last Friday in Scarborough, Ontario, by a man in his 20s who she alleged had used scissors to cut her hijab. After an investigation, Toronto Police confirmed that the crime had never occurred. In light of this new, but very expected, development, Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to this escalating phenomenon of fake anti-Muslim “hate crimes”. We are therefore reprinting, below, Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s article, The ‘Hate-Crime’ Victims Of Trump Who Weren’t, from the November 18, 2016 issue of The Daily Caller, which reveals how totalitarian movements portray themselves in order to gain power.

The ‘Hate-Crime’ Victims Of Trump Who Weren’t.
The deranged fantasy world of the totalitarian cry-bully.
By Jamie Glazov
Daily Caller, November 18, 2016.

To gain power, totalitarian movements always portray themselves as victims. And while they are in the process of abusing, they cry in front of the world posing as the abused. They stage “hate-crime” attacks against themselves because hate crimes are their political and cultural capital. When those hate-crimes don’t exist, they must be invented.

We are witnessing precisely this phenomenon at this very moment in regards to the myriad hoax “hate-crimes” that anti-Trump forces are manufacturing out of thin air and blaming on Trump supporters. The media are bolstering the entire hallucination process, with CNN leading the way.

Central to the whole narrative is the supposed “Islamophobic” anti-Muslim crime-wave sweeping the nation. The rumors spread and the media regurgitates the lies without any evidence to back them up. And then, after the hoaxes are debunked one by one, the media is, by that time, bored and no longer interested.

The latest “Islamophobia” counterfeit involves a Muslim student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette (ULL). The Muslima alleged that her hijab and wallet were stolen by two white Trump supporters who were shouting racial slurs. The woman’s accusation incensed leftists and Muslims across the nation and the world, prompting the ACLU of Louisiana to issue a statement denouncing both the incident and, of course, Donald Trump. The investigation into the incident involved several law enforcement agencies, including the FBI. The Washington Post, New York Times and CNN, meanwhile, ate the story up.

But what happened to this Muslima’s story under tough police questioning? Well, the ULL student eventually broke down and admitted to police that she had fabricated the entire thing. By that time, of course, the media wasn’t too interested in such an innocuous little detail.

Recently, The Huffington Post reported on an incident of “Islamophobia” under the headline “Islamophobia Just Drove This Boy And His Family Out Of America.” It was all so heartbreaking and unjust. The one little problem with the story, however, was that it never happened.

Trump supporters, meanwhile, are supposedly involved in a lot of other evil than just attacking Muslim women on campuses and driving little Muslim boys out of America:

A gay Canadian filmmaker, Chris Ball, was alleged to have been beaten up by Trump supporters on election night in Santa Monica. It was upsetting, but it turned out the incident never really happened at all.

An image also recently went viral online that purported to show KKK members in North Carolina celebrating Donald Trump’s victory. It was really awful. And it was also confirmed to be a hoax. The proof of the hoax, however, didn’t go viral.

Many other hoaxes of Trump-induced terror are being debunked as we speak.

All of these “hate-crime” fabrications made up by the anti-Trump forces are nothing new. They are a completely natural ingredient of how totalitarians operate and, hence, how the Unholy Alliance of the Left and Islam operates. Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield explains this phenomenon in the context of the Left:

“The left is a victimhood cult. It feeds off pain and fetishizes suffering as a moral commodity to be sold and resold in exchange for political power.”

Greenfield calls this leftist charade “victimocracy” and labels its foot soldier the “cry-bully” who is, in reality, the “abuser-victim.” This monster, Greenfield writes, is

“the abuser who pretends to be a victim. His arguments are his feelings. He comes armored in identity politics entitlement and is always yelling about social justice or crying social justice tears. If you don’t fight back, the cry-bully bullies you. If you fight back, the cry-bully cries and demands a safe space because you made him feel unsafe.”

Thus, because now the Unholy Alliance maniacs feel “unsafe” because they didn’t get their way in the election, it becomes very clear why it’s crucial for them to play the victim – and, most importantly, to fabricate “hate-crimes” being perpetrated against themselves. Greenfield explains:

“If cry-bullies can’t safe-bait you, they will manufacture threats by faking hate crimes against themselves or phoning in bomb threats to validate their need for a safe space in which no one is allowed to disagree with them. Surviving their own fake crimes turns cry-bullies into social justice heroes.”

Islamic supremacists play a key part in this story. And since the Left controls our culture and boundaries of discourse, it makes complete sense that the media, instead of focusing on how the Muslim community should make Americans feel safe by repudiating Islamic texts that inspire and sanction violence against unbelievers, instead amplify the narrative that it is Muslims who are afraid and that it is non-Muslim Americans who need to make Muslims feel safe. Leading scholar of Islam Robert Spencer explains this charade, unveiling why Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the CAIR need there to be hate crimes against Muslims so badly:

“The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wants and needs hate crimes against Muslims, because they’re the currency they use to buy power and influence in our victimhood-oriented society, and to deflect attention away from jihad terror and onto Muslims as putative victims.”

This is why the Muslima at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette fabricated the “hate-crime” against herself. And it is also why her lie is only the latest example in a long list of so many other Muslim counterfeit stories.

Just to list a few of the typical and notorious incidents:

In February 2016, a Michigan Muslima, Said Chatti, was arraigned in Dearborn’s 18th District Court for making a false police report about an “Islamophobic” plot to bomb Dearborn Fordson High School, a majority-Muslim high school. She contacted the Dearborn Police Department and claimed that an “anonymous” friend of hers overheard a group of individuals plotting to blow up the school to retaliate against the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris. When the police presented her with the evidence of the holes in her story, she admitted it was a false report.

In December 2015, a 37-year-old Muslim man, Gary Nathaniel Moore of Houston, was charged with first-degree arson for setting a Houston mosque on fire on Christmas day – a mosque where he himself was a regular, having attended it for five years, coming five times per day to pray seven days per week. Using surveillance video from multiple businesses nearby, investigators were able to identify Moore and a search warrant of his home recovered a backpack and clothing similar to that which was seen in surveillance footage, as well as half of a two-pack of charcoal lighter-fluid bottles that seemed to match another lighter fluid bottle found inside the mosque.

In March 2012, we beheld the murder of Muslima Shaima Alawadi. At first reported as a “hate-crime,” it then turned out to be an honor murder. The media and Unholy Alliance were extremely vocal and indignant while the murder was a hate-crime, even staging a campaign, “One Million Hijabs for Shaima Alawadi.” But once the murder turned out to be an Islamic crime, Shaima turned out not to matter to even one of the activists who had, at one point, made so much noise and howled so many cries of indignation.

The list goes on and on: a Muslim woman in England was proven to have lied to police about claiming to have been punched in the face for wearing a hijab; a Muslim woman in Dearborn dropped a lawsuit against police after video proved she was lying when claiming they forced her to remove her hijab; a supposed “hit-and-run” on a Muslim woman in Brussels blamed on “far right” anti-Islam demonstrators turned out to be perpetrated by a Muslim named “Mohamed.”

Many more of these Muslim victimization fantasies and lies have been documented by Robert Spencer in his special report, “The Top Anti-Muslim Hate Crime Hoaxes of 2014,” and in his recent video, Yet Another “Islamophobic Hate Crime” Hoax.

And so, we come to see that faking hate-crimes is a long and standard tradition of the cry-bully, and the Unholy Alliance is the premier cry-bully of our modern age. With Trump’s victory now a reality, the Left/Islam forces are foaming at the mouth and gnashing their teeth.

And while they set fires and break windows, brutally beat young girls for liking Trump, break the faces of those they think look like Trump and injure police officers, they cry and whine because they are the realvictims of real hate-crimes. But, as the evidence reveals, these are the hate-crimes perpetrated by the Trump supporters who might have been — and inflicted on the victims who weren’t.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269041/why-hijab-hoax-girl-lied-jamie-glazov

 

WHY PROFESSING CHRIST IS BECOMING A ‘HATE CRIME’ IN THE WEST

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

What is the source of dhimmitude—which in many ways paralyzes responses to Islam—in the West?

First a definition: “dhimmitude,” which was coined by the late Christian president of Lebanon, Bashir Gemayel, and popularized by writer Bat Ye’or, is a neologism based on the Arabic word, dhimmi—that is, a non-Muslim (generally a Christian or Jew) who falls under Islamic rule and, as a price for maintaining their religion, accepts an inferior social standing.  Simply put, the dhimmi must know his or her place and never rock the boat, including by seeking equal rights with Muslims.

While this is the classic and original manifestation of dhimmitude, a new and unprecedented form has arisen in the West: in the Muslim world, where might naturally makes right, Muslim majorities impose an inferior status onto non-Muslim minorities; but in the West, it is the West itself—or at least homegrown elements—that impose an inferior status on a non-Muslim majority.

The question becomes, Why?  Why would a stronger civilization impose the unjust and supremacist stipulations of a weaker, hostile civilization, onto itself, and thereby paralyze itself against that same hostile civilization?

The answer is evident in the words of an ancient strategy: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  The Western elements that are forever protecting and empowering Islam—and which operate under various names, “Liberals,” “Leftists,” “Marxists,” etc.—ultimately care little about Islam; rather, Islam is for them a tool to combat their real and much closer enemy: Christianity, and the mores and civilization borne of it and culminating in the West.

This is evident everywhere and in a myriad of forms.  Most recently, the British government “refused to say whether telling people about the Christian faith could be a hate crime.”  Lord Pearson of Rannoch, a UKIP peer, asked the House of Lords if they would “confirm unequivocally that a Christian who says that Jesus is the only son of the one true God cannot be arrested for hate crime or any other offence, however much it may offend a Muslim or anyone of any other religion?”  Government spokesperson Baroness Vere of Norbiton responded equivocally, adding that the legal definition of “hate crime” has been the same for the past 10 years.

But as Pearson explained in a later interview, the current definition of “hate crime” is subjective and revolves around whether the “victim” feels offended—thus leaving the door wide open to charging those who proclaim Christ and the Trinity of committing a hate crime, especially vis-à-vis Muslims, who adamantly object to the claim, as Pearson himself acknowledged: “Certainly the stricter Muslims do feel offended by Christianity and our belief in Jesus being the only Son of the one true God.”

Pearson also pointed to a double standard in how “hate crimes” are applied: “You can say what you like about the Virgin Birth, the miracles and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but as soon as you say ‘come on, is Islam really the religion of peace that it claims to be,’ all hell breaks loose.”

Indeed, and there is a reason for that: unlike Islam—which many Western elite feel no (direct) connection to and thus no threat therefrom—Christianity is the faith of their forefathers; it is ever present in their societies, judging them—and they hate it for it.  But rather than seek to suppress it openly, they operate indirectly, including by propping up always angry and easily “offended” Muslims against it, while they play the role of “impartial secularist”—people who will make themselves (meaning others, notably Christians) walk on eggshells lest the “feelings” of the “other” are ever hurt.

From here one understands why liberals and progressives who forever whine against any vestige of traditional (“oppressive”) Christianity habitually make common cause with Islam—despite the latter’s truly oppressive qualities.  Feminists denounce the Christian “patriarchy”—but say little against the Muslim treatment of women as chattel; homosexuals denounce Christian bakeries—but say little against the Muslim execution of homosexuals; multiculturalists denounce Christians who refuse to suppress their faith, including by banning Christmas phrases and images, to accommodate the religious sensibilities of Muslim minorities—but say little against the entrenched and open Muslim persecution of Christians.

From here one understands the ultimate reason why domineering Western elements are imposing the unjust and stifling effects of dhimmitude on and thus making the West weak and vulnerable:  “The enemy [Islam] of my enemy [Christianity] is my friend.”  As this most recent example from the UK shows, Muslims are now even being used to make the central claim of Christianity—which the elite especially despise hearing as it convicts their godless lifestyle—a “hate crime.”

 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268992/why-professing-christ-becoming-hate-crime-west-raymond-ibrahim

ELLISON EMBRACES ANTIFA VIOLENCE AGAINST TRUMP

The Democratic National Committee’s deputy chairman essentially endorsed the violent anarchists and communists of the subversive Antifa movement during a stop at a bookstore this week.

It is not every day that a top official of one of America’s two major political parties throws his lot in with an umbrella group that openly sides with our enemies in North Korea and seeks the violent overthrow of the United States government. It is a sign of just how radical Democrats became in the Obama era. Nowadays those who urge the extinguishing of American democracy and the murder of police officers are considered legitimate activists.

Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is part of this. Ellison is an admirer of convicted cop killer and leftist folk hero Mumia Abu Jamal as well as a former co-chairman of the Communist-linked Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Ellison, an in-your-face Muslim sympathetic to jihad, implicitly expressed support for the use of violence against President Trump in a tweet as he posed for a selfie with the cover of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, by Mark Bray.

“At @MoonPalaceBooks and I just found the book that strike [sic] fear in the heart of @realDonaldTrump[,]” the DNC official tweeted Wednesday afternoon from Moon Palace Books in Minneapolis, Minn. At press time the next day the tweet had received 9,261 likes and 2,539 retweets.

Ellison’s embrace of Antifa runs counter to statements House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made in August last year during a spate of Antifa violence in her home state.

“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts,” Pelosi said. “The violent actions of people calling themselves Antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.”

“In California, as across all of our great nation, we have deep reverence for the Constitutional right to peaceful dissent and free speech,” she said at the time. “Non-violence is fundamental to that right. Let us use this sad event to reaffirm that we must never fight hate with hate, and to remember the values of peace, openness and justice that represent the best of America.”

But most on the activist Left don’t take Pelosi seriously. They think she said what was politically expedient in the circumstances. They support Antifa with all their hearts and see Ellison as a courageous truth-teller.

Remember that this is the party that officially endorsed the violent, America-hating Black Lives Matter movement whose radical left-wing members accuse police nationwide of systemic anti-black racism and brutality against black suspects.

In 2015 hundreds of delegates at the Democratic National Committee meeting in Minneapolis approved a resolution that accuses American police of “extrajudicial killings of unarmed African American men, women and children.” In other words, since 2015 it has been official Democratic Party policy that there are roving death squads manned by police officers who specifically stalk and execute without trial black men, women, and children across America.

And so, unsurprisingly, there has been no outcry on the Left for Ellison to disavow Antifa, the self-styled anti-fascists who embrace fascist tactics and have gained new prominence in the post-Obama era. Like their forerunners, the Third Reich’s Sturmabteilung (SA), they use violence to intimidate political opponents and break up their meetings and rallies.

Author Mark Bray is a lecturer at Dartmouth College who describes himself as “a political organizer and historian of human rights, terrorism, and political radicalism in Modern Europe.” In addition to Antifa, he is author of the 2013 book, Translating Anarchy: The Anarchism of Occupy Wall Street, and was a spokesman for the pro-cop-killing Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011. Last year on C-SPAN he justified Antifa’s violence by labeling it “preemptive self-defense.”

Amazingly enough in this era of political correctness, Bray’s school did not stand behind him. Dartmouth President Philip J. Hanlon condemned Bray for “supporting violent protest” which was “contrary to Dartmouth values.”

Ellison’s anti-Americanism and radicalism are nothing new, but they take on added importance now that he is second-in-command at the DNC. Activists and media types look to him. Ellison was a longtime fringe-dweller before he became a Democrat office-holder. He was a member of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. He described Farrakhan as “a role model for black youth,” “not an anti-Semite,” and “a sincere, tireless, and uncompromising advocate of the black community and other oppressed people around the world.”

Ellison has links to Hamas. He is also a regular at events sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), two Muslim Brotherhood front groups the Department of Justice has identified as co-conspirators in terrorism financing schemes benefiting Hamas. It is also worth noting that in 2008, Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS), another Muslim Brotherhood Front group, to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

When Ellison won his first congressional election on Nov. 7, 2006, at his victory party several of his supporters shouted “Allahu Akbar!” which is the traditional battle cry of jihadists.

Ellison’s support for Antifa ought to terrify patriotic Americans, and chances are, it will drive voters into the arms of the Republican Party.

ARE IRANIANS REALLY PROTESTING AGAINST ISLAM?

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

What began on December 28 as local protests against high food prices in the northern city of Mashhad, Iran, has spiraled into mass protests consisting of some hundreds of thousands of Iranians in some two dozen cities, including if not especially Tehran, the seat of government.  So far over 20 people have been killed and many hundreds arrested in what has been widely described as “the most serious internal crisis the country has faced this decade.”

The protests have morphed from mundane topics concerning the economy to more existential topics concerning Islamic leadership. Reportedly hundreds of thousands of protesters have been heard shouting “We don’t want an Islamic Republic,” and calling blessings on Reza Shah, the staunch secularist and political reformer who did much to Westernize Iran, until his son and successor, Muhammad Reza Shah was deposed during the Islamic Revolution of 1979.   According to Mideast media, women—such as Maryam Rajavi—are spearheading the current protests (and symbolically rejecting Islamic impositions by publicly removing their hijabs).

Even the Iranian regime sees the current unrest as a revolt against Islam.  In his initial remarks after demonstrations first erupted, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei said, “All those who are against the Islamic Republic … have all joined forces in order to create problems for the Islamic Republic and the Islamic Revolution” (note the recurrent and telling adjective “Islamic”).

Even so, “mainstream media” see growing poverty and frustration at the lack of social freedoms as the only reasons behind the current unrest.  Overlooked in their analysis is that, because Islam is not meant to be a “spiritual thing” one does privately, but is rather a complete system of governance, permeating the whole of private and social life, the ongoing protests in Iran, while ostensibly revolving around economic, social, and political issues, are ultimately protests against Islamic teachings concerning economic, social, and political issues, which the Islamic Republic of Iran has been imposing on the populace since coming to power in 1979.

This is evident even in the new rallying cry of the protestors—“Death to the Dictator”—in reference to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself.  By its very nature, Islamic law—both Sunni and Shia—calls for dictatorial rule.  So long as the caliph, sultan, or emir governs society according to Sharia, Muslims must obey him—even if he is a despicable and cruel personage.  After examining a number of Islamic rulings from authoritative exegetes, as well as a number of statements attributed to Muslim prophet Muhammad and in the Koran concerning the importance for Muslims to follow Islamic law—which is the only relevant question of when Muslims should and should not seek to overthrow their ruler—Ayman al-Zawahiri writes,

To summarize: It is forbidden to overthrow a tyrant, but it is a duty to overthrow an infidel. If the ruler is despotic, it is unlawful for a Muslim to rally other Muslims in order to condemn him, for if they do so then they become the aggressors and it becomes incumbent for the sultan to fight them (Al Qaeda Reader, p. 122).

As it happens, the social oppression currently being protested against in Iran—from second-class status for women, to bans on all forms of expression critical of Islam, its prophet, and his representative on earth—is mandated by Islamic law, making the protestors “the aggressors.”

But even the economic aspects of the protests are largely by-products of Islamist aspirations.  As Donald Trump tweeted last Friday, the Iranian “people are finally getting wise as to how their money and wealth is being stolen and squandered on terrorism. Looks like they will not take it any longer.” Indeed, the economic suffering of the people has come at a time when the regime has grown rich—not least by Obama giving them over $100 billion as part of a nuclear deal.  The reason for this disparity is that the regime has been and continues to spend much of its wealth in trying to realize its stated Islamic ideals; it prefers supporting Hezbollah (currently Forbes wealthiest terrorist organization) and Hamas (third wealthiest) against the nearest “infidel” enemy, Israel, in the name of and for the greater glory of Islam, rather than feed its people.

Incidentally, because the right to protest is a given in the West, and thus occurs often, including over trivial and/or absurd matters—as when university students planned a “sh*t-in,” occupying restrooms as a way of demanding more “gender-neutral facilities”—the grave consequences of the current protests in Iran are indicative of just how fed up Iranians are—and the fatal risks they are willing to take—which, unsurprisingly, also trace back to Islam:

Protesters could also potentially face the death penalty when their cases come to trial, according to the head of Tehran’s Revolutionary Court, the AP reported. Iran’s semiofficial Tasnim news agency quoted Mousa Ghazanfarabadi as saying: “Obviously one of their charges can be Moharebeh,” or waging war against God [Allah], which is a death penalty offense in Iran.

Moharebeh is precisely what al-Zawahiri was referring to in the above excerpt: the only legitimate reason to overthrow an Islamic ruler is his failure to govern according to Islam—which Khamenei and his regime can hardly be accused of. Seeking to depose him because he is personally corrupt, despotic, cruel, or spending more money on jihad than food is forbidden, and makes the protestors aggressors against Allah, a crime worthy of punishment, including death.

 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268919/are-iranians-really-protesting-against-islam-raymond-ibrahim

Amun Abdullahi is a Somali woman and journalist who reported on a militant Islamist group in Sweden. The Swedish press turned on her.

A young Somali journalist in Sweden named Amun Abdullahi got herself
in trouble with the politically correct elite by reporting the truth
about the radicalization of young Somalis in Rinkeby (a culturally
enriched suburb of Stockholm), where they were recruited for jihad by
the Islamic terrorist group Al-Shabab.

The treatment meted out to Ms. Abdullahi made her decide to move back
to Somalia. She acknowledges that Mogadishu is a dangerous place, but
she considers Sweden more dangerous, because “here you cannot tell the
truth.

Read more at https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=39f_1368954327#V2FwzrTcdkHkYxR2.99

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as4m-dDubjg

IF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC IS FALLING, IT’S BECAUSE OF TRUMP

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268883/if-islamic-republic-falling-its-because-trump-robert-spencer

In 2009, Iran was swept by demonstrations, just as it is now. But at that time, the protesters were shouting “Allahu akbar,” and there was no indication that they wanted anything but reform of the Islamic regime, not the end of the regime itself. This time, however, the protesters have been chanting: “We don’t want an Islamic Republic!” “Clerics shame on you, let go of our country!” Some have even chanted: “Reza Shah, bless your soul!”

What has changed? Donald Trump.

Reza Shah was the Shah of Iran from 1925 to 1941 and the father of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the Shah who was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Reza Shah admired Turkey’s Kemal Ataturk and set Iran on a similar path of Westernization and secularization. In chanting this, the protesters are emphasizing that they do not just want economic reforms, as has been the line of the establishment media in the West. Nor do they want an Islamic Republic that is less corrupt. They don’t want an Islamic Republic at all.

Now why would Trump have anything to do with this? Because he has been singular among the leaders of the world, and the Presidents of the United States since 1989, in demonstrating his readiness to stand up to violent intimidation. President Trump has already made it clear in so many ways, most notably by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all spoke about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, but backed off from recognizing the fact as official U.S. policy, for fear that Muslims would riot and kill innocent people, and that such a recognition would jeopardize the chimerical and fruitless “peace process.”

So should terrorists decide where our embassy should be? Trump was not willing to concede this point. And when one man shows that bullies can be confronted and stood down by people with courage, others are inspired to make the same kind of stand. This new Iranian uprising came just weeks after Trump’s Jerusalem announcement, after the threatened rage and riots of Muslims worldwide in response to that announcement proved to be largely a fizzle.

Is it a coincidence that the Iranian people have stood up to the forces of jihad intimidation just after the President did so? Maybe. But if so, it’s a marvelous one, and in either case it’s illustrative of the power of courage in an age of cowardice.

For here again, even if the Iranian freedom movement has nothing to do with Trump, it is certain that these demonstrations would already be over, and may never have begun, if Hillary Clinton were President of the United States right now. Confronted with those 2009 demonstrations that did not go as far or demand as much, Barack Obama betrayed the demonstrators to every grisly fate that the mullahs could devise for them in their torture chambers. Bent on concluding the disastrous nuclear deal that lined their oppressors’ pockets with billions and set the world on a path to a catastrophic nuclear attack, Obama ensured that the U.S. government didn’t lift a finger or offer a word of support for the protesters, even as they were being gunned down in the streets.

But now the man who is setting the tone is a different man. Trump has come out strongly in favor of the protesters, tweeting: “Many reports of peaceful protests by Iranian citizens fed up with regime’s corruption & its squandering of the nation’s wealth to fund terrorism abroad. Iranian govt should respect their people’s rights, including right to express themselves. The world is watching!”

In a similar vein, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said: “Iran’s leaders have turned a wealthy country with a rich history and culture into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos. As President Trump has said, the longest-suffering victims of Iran’s leaders are Iran’s own people.” Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders added: “There are many reports of peaceful protests by Iranian citizens fed up with the regime’s corruption and its squandering of the nation’s wealth to fund terrorism abroad. The Iranian government should respect their people’s rights, including their right to express themselves.”

For the people of Iran, with help from Donald Trump, this could just possibly be the dawning of a new era of freedom. Even if the regime remains in power this time, it has been shaken to its core. It cannot afford to be as openly repressive and bloodthirsty as the Chinese at Tienanmen Square. Not, we can hope, with Donald Trump in the White House.

 

 

LINDA SARSOUR: A “GOOD MUSLIM” CAN’T COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268758/linda-sarsour-good-muslim-cant-commit-sexual-robert-spencer

The facts at hand presumably speak for themselves, but a trifle more vulgarly, I suspect, than facts even usually do. Asmi Fathelbab, a former employee of the Arab American Association in New York when feminist heroine Linda Sarsour was its executive director, has accused Sarsour of dismissing her claims of sexual assault and harassment, and following through on threats to destroy Fathelbab’s attempts to get a job if she didn’t retract the charges.

Sarsour, says Fathelbab, “oversaw an environment unsafe and abusive to women. Women who put [Sarsour] on a pedestal for women’s rights and empowerment deserve to know how she really treats us.” Fathelbab charges Majed Seif, a Muslim who lived in the building that also housed the Arab American Association’s offices, “would sneak up on me during times when no one was around, he would touch me, you could hear me scream at the top of my lungs. He would pin me against the wall and rub his crotch on me. It was disgusting. I ran the youth program in the building and with that comes bending down and talking to small children. You have no idea what it was like to stand up and feel that behind you. I couldn’t scream because I didn’t want to scare the child in front of me. It left me shaking.”

But Sarsour had no interest in, or patience for, Fathelbab’s allegations. “She called me a liar because ‘Something like this didn’t happen to women who looked like me. How dare I interrupt her TV news interview in the other room with my ‘lies.’…She told me he had the right to sue me for false claims…. She told me I’d never work in NYC ever again for as long as she lived. She’s kept her word. She had me fired from other jobs when she found out where I worked. She has kept me from obtaining any sort of steady employment for almost a decade.”

Fathelbab got no more sympathetic a hearing from the president of the Arab American Association’s board of directors, Ahmed Jaber. “Jaber told me my stalker was a ‘God-fearing man’ who was ‘always at the Mosque,’ so he wouldn’t do something like that. He wanted to make it loud and clear this guy was a good Muslim and I was a bad Muslim for ‘complaining.’”

Another individual who was familiar with Sarsour, Fathelbab, Seif and the entire situation said: “It’s always going to be the woman’s fault over there. And Sarsour was there to protect the men. She’s not for other women. The only women she’s for is for herself.” Another added: “Sarsour is only a feminist outwardly. Her interactions toward women in that building were atrocious. She would protect the patriarchy and in return they would promote her.”

Asmi Fathelbab’s accusations at the Arab American Association played out in full accord with Sharia. In cases of sexual misbehavior (zina), only men can testify. Women can’t testify at all, even in cases in which they were involved, and four male witnesses are required (Reliance of the Traveller, o24.9). These witnesses must have seen the act itself. Consequently, it is very difficult to convict men of zina. As long as they deny the charge and there aren’t four witnesses, they will get off scot-free, because the woman’s testimony is inadmissible. Even worse, if a woman accuses a man, she may end up incriminating herself.

And so it was with Asmi Fathelbab. Now that she has come forward, expect Sarsour to react yet again in accord with the tried-and-true Islamic supremacist practice of claiming that Fathelbab is motivated by “hatred,” and that the whole thing is another “Islamophobic,” “racist” conspiracy designed to bring down a proud, hijab-wearing “Palestinian” Muslima.

And feminists will almost certainly fall for it again, hook, line and sinker. That Linda Sarsour is lionized as a feminist heroine, instead of identified as the promoter and enabler of Sharia oppression of women that she is, is an indication of how entranced by fantasy our public discourse has become.

ANTI-SEMITISM SCANDAL HITS MCMASTER UNIVERSITY

Anti-Israel students at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada have published multiple social media posts praising Adolf Hitler, demonizing Jews and glorifying terrorist organizations.

A firestorm has broken out in the McMaster community following a December 2017 McMaster Report by anonymous campus anti-Semitism watchdog Canary Mission, which identified 39 current and former students who posted over 280 bigoted comments on social media.

The Canary Mission exposé includes a video (Jew Hate At McMaster) and in-depth profiles of the individuals:

The individuals were all affiliated with McMaster Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (Mac SPHR), the local campus anti-Zionist organization, which is a Canadian wing of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).

The list of outrageous comments include:

  • “Death to America and white people” — Nadera Masad

  • “How long does it take a zionist woman to take out the trash?…………Nine months.” — Nadera Masad

  • “I honestly wish I was born at the time of the second world war just to see the genius, Hitler, at work.” — Rawan Qaddoura

  • “falastine ibladna wel ya7ood eklabna [palestine is our land and the jews are our dogs].” — Walid Abdulaziz

  • “Where is hitler when u need one?’ I literally ask this every day.” — Esra Bengizi

  • “I’m actually going to the rule the world and get rid of anyone who doesn’t have basic common sense or if you’re yahoodi [Jewish]” — Esra Bengizi

Yesterday the Algemeiner ran an article on the report. The response was rapid, with McMaster students, Mac SPHR and individuals profiled in the report all addressing the concerning revelations.

Spotted at Mac, a McMaster community chat forum on Facebook with over 29,000 members, discussed the issue.

The anti-Zionist Mac SPHR released a statement on their Facebook page that condemned the anti-Semitic comments posted by the numerous members and officers within their organization.

However the response was not all positive.

“The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist. Add that to my profile.”

This was the shockingly unrepentant tweet sent out by Nadera Masad within a day of being exposed for promoting violence against Jews and praising Hitler. Since over 6.4 million Jews currently reside in Israel, her statement is nothing short of a call for a genocide — in greater number than even her hero Hitler.

A few hours later she tweeted, “I keep saying, we need to cleanse the world of creatures such as these dirty white Americans,” with the note, “Add this to my canary profile.”

The Canary Mission McMaster exposé is the latest in a series of scandals to have hit SJP and its leader Hatem Bazian. They have been exposed so often for bigotry and racism that SJP is no longer seen as a serious player by university administrations or even former members.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268727/anti-semitism-scandal-hits-mcmaster-university-canary-mission