Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Checking out the latest news from UC Berkeley, we note that nothing has changed when it comes to anti-Israel and anti-Jewish agitation. In the first article running this week in the campus fishwrap, Daily Californian, we learn that the pro-Palestinian mob, specifically, the oddly named Jewish Voice for Peace, is upset over President Trump's executive order on campus anti-Semitism. I added a comment in the reader thread to the effect that JVP is a bunch of misfits who have linked up with those who would wipe Israel off the map and remove all Jews from the Holy Land if they could.
https://www.dailycal.org/2019/12/16/uc-berkeley-student-group-protests-executive-order-on-anti-semitism/
Next we have an op-ed by the president of the Cal Berkeley Democrats against hate speech. What the writer means is that conservative speakers should be banned from campus- as well as those menacing campus cops (who, in reality, just stand around while students disrupt conservative speaking events).
https://www.dailycal.org/2019/12/07/campus-must-stand-united-against-hate-speech/
And from Algemeiner, we learn about a pro-Palestinian display honoring Palestinian murderers like Rasmea Odeh. And Bears for Palestine have the temerity to complain about the "constant fear" they feel on campus.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/12/16/anti-zionist-students-at-uc-berkeley-condemned-for-display-showcasing-palestinian-hijacker-bombers/
You talk about a place where the inmates run the institution.
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Roger Gardner
Roger Gardner, who passed away in 2009, was the creator of this site. He was a proud American patriot and military veteran. He was also instrumental in helping get me started with my own blog, Fousesquawk. Prior to his passing, he allowed me to post articles on Radarsite. Since his passing, I have continued to post occasional articles here to keep the site going in his name. I must admit, I don't do this often enough. Today, while posting an article, I checked the readers' comments and saw that back in July, Norman of Stormin' Norman blog had posted a video of Roger which was sent in by his son. Now that I have found it, I am belatedly posting this, and I apologize for not being more attentive. Roger was a remarkable man, and he was also musically gifted as you see in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vftv39SjPQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vftv39SjPQ
UC Santa Cruz Middle East Propaganda Center's New Head
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Along with the various ethnic, gender, LGBQ, and women's studies departments on university campuses, the Middle East Studies departments tend to be the worst when it comes to propaganda and indoctrination. In recent years, many of them have been funded with Saudi money. In some cases, they have been established with Saudi money. They routinely specialize in anti-Western, anti-Israel, pro-Arab, pro-Islamic BS. They are one of the leading causes of the wave of anti-Semitism sweeping our campuses. In short, they are an embarrassment to the very concept of education and scholarship.
So it is hardly surprising that UC Santa Cruz (America's Wackiest University) would choose another dime-a-dozen anti-Israel, pro-BDS activist to head up their new Center for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Meet Jennifer Derr.
https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/60085/uc-santa-cruz-taps-prof-who-pushed-the-academic
How refreshing it would be to see a Middle East studies department chaired by someone who is pro-Israel. For that matter, even a professor or two would be helpful.
As pointed out by Campus Watch, Derr taught a class in 2014 entitled, "The History of Palestine: From Colonialism to Occupation." Gee, where have I heard that before? She should been fired for plagiarism. What's next, a class on the History of the Lost City of Atlantis?
Or how about this?
"Jennifer Derr’s work explores the configuration and experience of the colonial state in Egypt through its construction of the agricultural environments that lined the banks of the Nile River. Derr traces the intersections of the colonial state in Egypt with the material experiences of environmental infrastructure, resource allocation, disease, and the geographies of colonial capitalism."
Far be it from me to debate Middle East history with Derr (who has lived ten years in the region). Her area of expertise seems to be in disease outbreaks that occurred in Egypt in the 20th century, which she links to colonial agriculture (in this case, the Brits) and Nile dam construction. I am not arguing the history because I am not qualified, but do I sense a bit of post-colonial emphasis here on blaming all of the problems of the Middle East on the West, colonialism and capitalism? Just asking. After all, that is a large part of Middle East studies teaching in our universities.
Of course, if Derr is such an expert on the Middle East, some wise guy like me (who is not) might ask the learned professor why she doesn't support a boycott of say, Syria, Sudan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia or virtually every other country in the region besides Israel. I would even throw in neighboring countries like Iran and Turkey.
UCSC's own announcement of the establishment of this center, which is also linked in the above CW article, also raised my eyebrows a bit. Particularly this item:
"In addition to the support of faculty in various divisions, this campaign had the full support of the Jewish Studies Program.
Working in tandem? I can't wait to see how that works out. I know nothing about Dr Heckman, and I agree with her words in the second paragraph. However, I seriously wonder how any Jewish studies department, given the current climate and state of Middle East studies departments in the US, could welcome the establishment of such a center at UCSC, especially when it is headed by a supporter of BDS.
This new center is new. Both it and its director deserve a chance to show how they will proceed. Perhaps, MENA and the Jewish studies department will work harmoniously together. Perhaps, MENA will teach serious scholarship and not just be a propaganda center against the West and Israel. I would be surprised if that turns out to be the case, but I am willing to wait and see. (What else can Little Ol' Me do?) If my suspicions are proved correct, maybe the Department of Education will take a close look at UCSC given President Trump's inclination to cut funding for universities that tolerate anti-Semitism.
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Along with the various ethnic, gender, LGBQ, and women's studies departments on university campuses, the Middle East Studies departments tend to be the worst when it comes to propaganda and indoctrination. In recent years, many of them have been funded with Saudi money. In some cases, they have been established with Saudi money. They routinely specialize in anti-Western, anti-Israel, pro-Arab, pro-Islamic BS. They are one of the leading causes of the wave of anti-Semitism sweeping our campuses. In short, they are an embarrassment to the very concept of education and scholarship.
So it is hardly surprising that UC Santa Cruz (America's Wackiest University) would choose another dime-a-dozen anti-Israel, pro-BDS activist to head up their new Center for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Meet Jennifer Derr.
https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/60085/uc-santa-cruz-taps-prof-who-pushed-the-academic
How refreshing it would be to see a Middle East studies department chaired by someone who is pro-Israel. For that matter, even a professor or two would be helpful.
As pointed out by Campus Watch, Derr taught a class in 2014 entitled, "The History of Palestine: From Colonialism to Occupation." Gee, where have I heard that before? She should been fired for plagiarism. What's next, a class on the History of the Lost City of Atlantis?
Or how about this?
"Jennifer Derr’s work explores the configuration and experience of the colonial state in Egypt through its construction of the agricultural environments that lined the banks of the Nile River. Derr traces the intersections of the colonial state in Egypt with the material experiences of environmental infrastructure, resource allocation, disease, and the geographies of colonial capitalism."
Far be it from me to debate Middle East history with Derr (who has lived ten years in the region). Her area of expertise seems to be in disease outbreaks that occurred in Egypt in the 20th century, which she links to colonial agriculture (in this case, the Brits) and Nile dam construction. I am not arguing the history because I am not qualified, but do I sense a bit of post-colonial emphasis here on blaming all of the problems of the Middle East on the West, colonialism and capitalism? Just asking. After all, that is a large part of Middle East studies teaching in our universities.
Of course, if Derr is such an expert on the Middle East, some wise guy like me (who is not) might ask the learned professor why she doesn't support a boycott of say, Syria, Sudan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia or virtually every other country in the region besides Israel. I would even throw in neighboring countries like Iran and Turkey.
UCSC's own announcement of the establishment of this center, which is also linked in the above CW article, also raised my eyebrows a bit. Particularly this item:
"In addition to the support of faculty in various divisions, this campaign had the full support of the Jewish Studies Program.
“One cannot have a complete understanding of the Jewish past without studying the Middle East and North Africa; likewise, one cannot have a complete understanding of the MENA without studying the region's Jews,” said Alma Heckman, assistant professor of history and Jewish Studies, and the Neufeld-Levin Chair of Holocaust Studies at UC Santa Cruz.
“Since the ancient past, Jews have lived across the MENA region, from Morocco to Iran and everywhere in between,” she added. “Jewish Studies and MENA Studies are inherently complementary. Working in tandem with the UCSC Center for Jewish Studies, the new MENA Center enriches the unique programmatic offerings at UCSC that connect across Jewish and MENA studies.” Working in tandem? I can't wait to see how that works out. I know nothing about Dr Heckman, and I agree with her words in the second paragraph. However, I seriously wonder how any Jewish studies department, given the current climate and state of Middle East studies departments in the US, could welcome the establishment of such a center at UCSC, especially when it is headed by a supporter of BDS.
This new center is new. Both it and its director deserve a chance to show how they will proceed. Perhaps, MENA and the Jewish studies department will work harmoniously together. Perhaps, MENA will teach serious scholarship and not just be a propaganda center against the West and Israel. I would be surprised if that turns out to be the case, but I am willing to wait and see. (What else can Little Ol' Me do?) If my suspicions are proved correct, maybe the Department of Education will take a close look at UCSC given President Trump's inclination to cut funding for universities that tolerate anti-Semitism.
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
Arrogance on Parade
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Pamela Karlan
I watched much but not all of the impeachment hearings today, and to me, the Democrats did not help their case for impeachment. Not only did they not move the needle in terms of changing anybody's opinion, especially those in Congress who will be voting, they gave the American public a view of academic arrogance with their 4 law professors who testified about whether Trump legally deserved to be impeached. (At least, that's the case with at least 2 of them. Three were pro-impeachment, and one -called by the Republicans- was against impeachment.)
Stanford Law School Professor Pamela Karlan and Harvard Law School Professor Noah Feldman came across as highly partisan, impassioned and arrogant advocates for removing President Trump. Karlan was especially shrill-yes, shrill- with her rants against Trump, even going so far as to make a joke at the expense of the President's son, Barron. (She later apologized, but added that she wished Trump would apologize for things he has said.) She said she was insulted that a Republican member of the committee had commented that she and the other three witnesses were not fact witnesses since they had no personal knowledge of the facts of the case other than having read them. Several times, it seemed she was about to lose her composure.
In contrast, Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School, a liberal himself who voted against Trump, but who was called as a witness by the Republicans because he opposes this impeachment, showed class. Having watched him on TV for years, I consider him articulate and intellectually honest. He made his points very effectively, quite the opposite from Karlan, who when she wasn't railing against Trump, seemed to spend half of her time telling us about the law in Merry Olde England and someone named the Sheriff of Windsor. In short, she embarrassed herself. Feldman reminded me of one of those "I'll fight for you" lawyer commercials we see on TV all the time.
Who's next, Michael Avenatti?
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Pamela Karlan
I watched much but not all of the impeachment hearings today, and to me, the Democrats did not help their case for impeachment. Not only did they not move the needle in terms of changing anybody's opinion, especially those in Congress who will be voting, they gave the American public a view of academic arrogance with their 4 law professors who testified about whether Trump legally deserved to be impeached. (At least, that's the case with at least 2 of them. Three were pro-impeachment, and one -called by the Republicans- was against impeachment.)
Stanford Law School Professor Pamela Karlan and Harvard Law School Professor Noah Feldman came across as highly partisan, impassioned and arrogant advocates for removing President Trump. Karlan was especially shrill-yes, shrill- with her rants against Trump, even going so far as to make a joke at the expense of the President's son, Barron. (She later apologized, but added that she wished Trump would apologize for things he has said.) She said she was insulted that a Republican member of the committee had commented that she and the other three witnesses were not fact witnesses since they had no personal knowledge of the facts of the case other than having read them. Several times, it seemed she was about to lose her composure.
In contrast, Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School, a liberal himself who voted against Trump, but who was called as a witness by the Republicans because he opposes this impeachment, showed class. Having watched him on TV for years, I consider him articulate and intellectually honest. He made his points very effectively, quite the opposite from Karlan, who when she wasn't railing against Trump, seemed to spend half of her time telling us about the law in Merry Olde England and someone named the Sheriff of Windsor. In short, she embarrassed herself. Feldman reminded me of one of those "I'll fight for you" lawyer commercials we see on TV all the time.
Who's next, Michael Avenatti?
Thursday, November 21, 2019
What If There Was No Quid Pro Quo?
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Hat tip The Hill
Yesterday, Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland testified in his opening statement that there was a quid pro quo as to a presidential call with President Trump and a White House visit in exchange for Ukrainian President Zelenskyy committing to investigating Ukraine's alleged involvement in the 2016 US election and investigating the Bidens. He also presumed that military aid was tied to the above commitment by Zelenskyy. The testimony went back and forth with Democrats and Republicans making their own arguments about Sondland's presumptions and the one thing that Trump said directly to him over the phone. "I want nothing. No quid pro quo".
To the media, Sondland's testimony was a "bombshell" Last night on ABC Evening News, David Muir and his correspondents highlighted Sondland's presumptions while explaining away what Trump actually said to Sondland, pointing out that this conversation occurred after the White House had become aware of the whistle blower's complaint. The media concluded that Trump was covering his backside. Meanwhilke, the headline caption on the TV screen was "Bombshell testimony". It was anything but.
At this point, it is pretty clear that the House will vote to impeach Trump, and the Senate will vote not to remove him. The Democrats seem to be pinning their hopes on some smoking gun that will show up proving there was a quid pro quo. So what if this is true? So what?
My own common sense tells me that in all likelihood, there was a quid pro quo. Trump did want Ukraine to investigate that country's alleged involvement in the 2016 election and he did want them to investigate the entire Burisma scandal, which includes having an unqualified Hunter Biden on its board of directors and Joe Biden's successful demand that the prosecutor investigating Burisma be fired if Ukraine wanted one billion dollars in aid.
In the case of Trump, Republicans point out that Ukraine got the aid, the phone call from Trump, and the meeting with Trump (at the UN) while no investigation was launched.
But let us assume that there was a quid pro quo. Is this not a common part of international diplomacy? For example, is there a quid pro quo when Trump conducts his diplomacy with North Korea? If Norea Korea halts its nuclear weapon program, the US will do this or that. Of course.
But Gary, you say: Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, who is a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. Biden is his political rival.
True. But does that change things?
US foreign aid is hinged to the receiving country not being engaged in corruption, however vague that condition is. Ukraine is corrupt, as are many other countries receiving US aid. In return for our aid, they are supposed to at least demonstrate they are taking steps to fight corruption in order that they may be "certified". Often, that is a sham because it is deemed in our interest to continue aid to a particular country. When I worked with DEA in Thailand in the 1970s, that country was riddled with corruption-and still is. They get plenty of US aid. I could go on and on.
Part of the corruption angle in Ukraine is that they allegedly improperly engaged in meddling in out 2016 election. The controversy over Crowdstrike and DNC hacking, and whether it was done by Ukraine or Russia is a matter of dispute. It is not a matter of dispute that during the election, the Ukrainian ambassador to the US wrote an op-ed criticizing then candidate Trump. The Ukrainian embassy in Washington has confirmed that they were approached by a DNC operative during the campaign who tried to enlist their help in digging up dirt on Trump and Paul Manafort. Rightfully or wrongfully, Trump likely feels that he was the victim of a lot of dirty tricks during the election, and that Ukraine had a role. After all, a Ukrainian court issued a statement that there had been meddling by their country. So is Trump justified in asking Ukraine to investigate that matter? I think he is.
As to the more important matter of the Bidens, that is also a legitimate issue, and if Joe Boden gets the nomination, expect to hear much more about it in those campaign ads. Then-Vice President Biden traveled to Ukraine and demanded that the president fire the chief prosecutor-who was investigating Burisma, a company accused of corruption, which had put Hunter Biden on its board of directors though he had no qualifications for the post. Biden told the president that if the prosecutor wasn't fired within 6 hours, Ukraine would not get the aid it had been promised-some one billion dollars. Within 6 hours, the prosecutor was fired. How do we know all this? Biden bragged about it on tape while speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations. Of course, he left out the information about his son being on the board of Burisma and that Burisma was under investigation.
Quid pro quo.
So let us assume the worst: Suppose Trump did have a quid pro quo that included an investigation of the Bidens, and let's assume he did it for purely political reasons. What is worse, the action of Trump in his phone call to Zelenskyy or Biden's demand to the previous Ukrainian president?
And here is another point: If Trump cannot ask for an investigation of Biden because he is a potential opponent in a future election, doesn't that give Biden-or anyone else in a similar position, literally, a license to steal? Is Biden immune from an investigation into his action simply because he is running for Trump's job? No.
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Hat tip The Hill
Yesterday, Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland testified in his opening statement that there was a quid pro quo as to a presidential call with President Trump and a White House visit in exchange for Ukrainian President Zelenskyy committing to investigating Ukraine's alleged involvement in the 2016 US election and investigating the Bidens. He also presumed that military aid was tied to the above commitment by Zelenskyy. The testimony went back and forth with Democrats and Republicans making their own arguments about Sondland's presumptions and the one thing that Trump said directly to him over the phone. "I want nothing. No quid pro quo".
To the media, Sondland's testimony was a "bombshell" Last night on ABC Evening News, David Muir and his correspondents highlighted Sondland's presumptions while explaining away what Trump actually said to Sondland, pointing out that this conversation occurred after the White House had become aware of the whistle blower's complaint. The media concluded that Trump was covering his backside. Meanwhilke, the headline caption on the TV screen was "Bombshell testimony". It was anything but.
At this point, it is pretty clear that the House will vote to impeach Trump, and the Senate will vote not to remove him. The Democrats seem to be pinning their hopes on some smoking gun that will show up proving there was a quid pro quo. So what if this is true? So what?
My own common sense tells me that in all likelihood, there was a quid pro quo. Trump did want Ukraine to investigate that country's alleged involvement in the 2016 election and he did want them to investigate the entire Burisma scandal, which includes having an unqualified Hunter Biden on its board of directors and Joe Biden's successful demand that the prosecutor investigating Burisma be fired if Ukraine wanted one billion dollars in aid.
In the case of Trump, Republicans point out that Ukraine got the aid, the phone call from Trump, and the meeting with Trump (at the UN) while no investigation was launched.
But let us assume that there was a quid pro quo. Is this not a common part of international diplomacy? For example, is there a quid pro quo when Trump conducts his diplomacy with North Korea? If Norea Korea halts its nuclear weapon program, the US will do this or that. Of course.
But Gary, you say: Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, who is a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. Biden is his political rival.
True. But does that change things?
US foreign aid is hinged to the receiving country not being engaged in corruption, however vague that condition is. Ukraine is corrupt, as are many other countries receiving US aid. In return for our aid, they are supposed to at least demonstrate they are taking steps to fight corruption in order that they may be "certified". Often, that is a sham because it is deemed in our interest to continue aid to a particular country. When I worked with DEA in Thailand in the 1970s, that country was riddled with corruption-and still is. They get plenty of US aid. I could go on and on.
Part of the corruption angle in Ukraine is that they allegedly improperly engaged in meddling in out 2016 election. The controversy over Crowdstrike and DNC hacking, and whether it was done by Ukraine or Russia is a matter of dispute. It is not a matter of dispute that during the election, the Ukrainian ambassador to the US wrote an op-ed criticizing then candidate Trump. The Ukrainian embassy in Washington has confirmed that they were approached by a DNC operative during the campaign who tried to enlist their help in digging up dirt on Trump and Paul Manafort. Rightfully or wrongfully, Trump likely feels that he was the victim of a lot of dirty tricks during the election, and that Ukraine had a role. After all, a Ukrainian court issued a statement that there had been meddling by their country. So is Trump justified in asking Ukraine to investigate that matter? I think he is.
As to the more important matter of the Bidens, that is also a legitimate issue, and if Joe Boden gets the nomination, expect to hear much more about it in those campaign ads. Then-Vice President Biden traveled to Ukraine and demanded that the president fire the chief prosecutor-who was investigating Burisma, a company accused of corruption, which had put Hunter Biden on its board of directors though he had no qualifications for the post. Biden told the president that if the prosecutor wasn't fired within 6 hours, Ukraine would not get the aid it had been promised-some one billion dollars. Within 6 hours, the prosecutor was fired. How do we know all this? Biden bragged about it on tape while speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations. Of course, he left out the information about his son being on the board of Burisma and that Burisma was under investigation.
Quid pro quo.
So let us assume the worst: Suppose Trump did have a quid pro quo that included an investigation of the Bidens, and let's assume he did it for purely political reasons. What is worse, the action of Trump in his phone call to Zelenskyy or Biden's demand to the previous Ukrainian president?
And here is another point: If Trump cannot ask for an investigation of Biden because he is a potential opponent in a future election, doesn't that give Biden-or anyone else in a similar position, literally, a license to steal? Is Biden immune from an investigation into his action simply because he is running for Trump's job? No.
Thursday, September 26, 2019
Adam Schiff's Gross Mischaracterization of the Trump-Zelensky Call
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Today, Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, did something truly despicable. Already having seen the unredacted transcript of President Trump's July 25 conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, he then made up his own dialogue and read it into his opening statement. Below is what Schiff said today in opening the hearing with the testimony of National Intelligence Director Joseph McGuire.
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/adam-schiff-makes-phony-trump-ukraine-phone-conversation-formal-statement-intelligence-hearing/
Here is the transcript itself as turned over to Congress. Nowhere does it say things like Trump telling Zelensky, " I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent".
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html
Schiff is now claiming that his words were meant as a parody of what Trump told Zelensky. It is true that in his remarks, Schiff used terms like, "in essence" in presenting his version. But Schiff is not a stupid man. Far from it. He structured his words very carefully as to give the viewer a certain impression while adding just enough language to give him his escape hatch when his mischaracterization was pointed out-as it quickly was.
In addition, Schiff is not a man who deals in parody. Humor is not in his bag.He presents himself as a serious, reasoned, and moral voice. It is a facade. Schiff is a deeply partisan politician who deals in cleverly disguised dishonesty. This is a man who for months claimed to have the evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians-evidence that has never materialized on a narrative that has been discredited by none other than Robert Mueller himself.
Now come this latest rabbit hole about Ukraine and Schiff is leading the charge armed with false information. Did Schiff, in his opening remarks, make any mention of the underlying issue behind the Trump-Zelensky conversation-that then VP Biden threatened the then-Ukrainian president with cancellation of one billion dollars in US loan guarantees if he didn't fire the chief prosecutor investigating Burisma Holdings, who had mysteriously placed Joe's son, Hunter Biden, on its board of directors and paid him some 3 million dollars over the course of three years? Biden himself is on videotape telling an audience that he did exactly that and got the results he wanted. Should that not be investigated by both countries?
One can only pray that the vast majority of the American public will see this for what it is-the latest made up scandal in a never-ending quest to remove Trump from office.
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Today, Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, did something truly despicable. Already having seen the unredacted transcript of President Trump's July 25 conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, he then made up his own dialogue and read it into his opening statement. Below is what Schiff said today in opening the hearing with the testimony of National Intelligence Director Joseph McGuire.
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/adam-schiff-makes-phony-trump-ukraine-phone-conversation-formal-statement-intelligence-hearing/
Here is the transcript itself as turned over to Congress. Nowhere does it say things like Trump telling Zelensky, " I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent".
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html
Schiff is now claiming that his words were meant as a parody of what Trump told Zelensky. It is true that in his remarks, Schiff used terms like, "in essence" in presenting his version. But Schiff is not a stupid man. Far from it. He structured his words very carefully as to give the viewer a certain impression while adding just enough language to give him his escape hatch when his mischaracterization was pointed out-as it quickly was.
In addition, Schiff is not a man who deals in parody. Humor is not in his bag.He presents himself as a serious, reasoned, and moral voice. It is a facade. Schiff is a deeply partisan politician who deals in cleverly disguised dishonesty. This is a man who for months claimed to have the evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians-evidence that has never materialized on a narrative that has been discredited by none other than Robert Mueller himself.
Now come this latest rabbit hole about Ukraine and Schiff is leading the charge armed with false information. Did Schiff, in his opening remarks, make any mention of the underlying issue behind the Trump-Zelensky conversation-that then VP Biden threatened the then-Ukrainian president with cancellation of one billion dollars in US loan guarantees if he didn't fire the chief prosecutor investigating Burisma Holdings, who had mysteriously placed Joe's son, Hunter Biden, on its board of directors and paid him some 3 million dollars over the course of three years? Biden himself is on videotape telling an audience that he did exactly that and got the results he wanted. Should that not be investigated by both countries?
One can only pray that the vast majority of the American public will see this for what it is-the latest made up scandal in a never-ending quest to remove Trump from office.
Friday, September 13, 2019
Sweden: Nigerian Rapper Calld for Killing of Whites
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
"....shoot them"
Hat tip Samnytt and Gates of Vienna
A Nigerian-born rapper residing in Lund, Sweden has just come out with a statement about killing white people. This showed up on his Instagram account which is open only for black people. The below report from Samnytt is translated from the Swedish by Fousesquawk. Editing and sub-titling by Vlad Tepes.
https://samnytt.se/rapartist-fran-lund-uppmanar-till-mord-pa-vita-skjut-dem/
Rap artist from Lund calls for death for whites" "Shoot them".
A YouTube profile and rap artist well known among young people has started a closed account on social media in which he invites only black people. In several video postings, he calls for murder of white people in Sweden. Samhallsnytt has (gotten into) the account and can now reveal how an immigrant Nigerian propagates racism to hundreds of young people. "If some white guy or white girl tries to talk shit about you-shoot them."
The well-known YouTube profile is "JCBUZ", who has 280,000 subscribers on his two YouTube accounts, in which he reviews current hip hop records in Sweden and shares his own gangster-inspired rap music. JCBUZ, who is really named Jesse Ekene Nweke Conable, is 22 years old and registered (residence) in Lund. According to the tax police, he immigrated from Nigeria in 2008 and now has Swedish citizenship.
On a newly registered and locked Instagram account under the name "barasvarta" (black only) several video clips with JCBUZ have been uploaded. In the presentation text for the account, which has 465 followers up to now, followers can read: "Black Power in Sweden" and "Only for Blacks".
Samhallsnytt has gained access into the account, where it is clear that only blacks should get access to the content. Below is a photo update from his account where he states that he does not allow any white people to join the group.
On Tuesday several video clips were uploaded on the account where the rap artist propagated murder against white people in Sweden.
Text above video:
"Created our group so we get it together"
JCBUZ states in a post that he has created "our group" so that blacks will get together in the fight. He means that blacks "must take over".
Below is JCBUZ speech and the video clip:
"My brothers and sisters, my black brothers and sisters, I have an important message for you. I only want to say to you, my black brothers and sisters out there.- You are special and nobody is like you. Continue the war.
We will take over- we will be number one- one beautiful day we will become number one. We will take over over those whites here. Just like these whites took us as slaves, we will take them as slaves and treat them even worse.
But right now we're just fighting (among ourselves), we're going to be smarter, we're going to be faster, we're going to be the best at everything. We'll take their bitches and we'll take their money. To be perfectly honest, we will be the best race ever. This is only the beginning; it is starting small but believe me, we will grow and grow bigger. We will be the strongest group in Sweden - no one will dare mess with us. Just wait, a beautiful day.
The whites try to mess with us- then you know what will come (gun sign with fingers). We will show them how we do it. We are warriors, do you understand? We are African warriors- They are not on our level. This here is just the beginning. Black power. Black power.
If any white guy or white girl is trying to talk shit about you - shoot them! If they talk shit about your family - shoot them!"
Text below the video:
"Created our group so we will stick together"
JCBUZ says in a post that he has created "our group" for blacks to stick together in the fight. He believes that blacks "must take over".
Text of comment thread ( red box 1): "Up to now whites have seen us as their slaves. Even if they don't say it straight out, it is what they think. I swear everything- that is why I created our group-so we can get ourselves together."
Red box 2
"Therefore, we must take over."
Text below photo of JCBuz making shooting sign.
CBUZ makes pistol sign on social media. Facsimile Facebook.
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
"....shoot them"
Hat tip Samnytt and Gates of Vienna
A Nigerian-born rapper residing in Lund, Sweden has just come out with a statement about killing white people. This showed up on his Instagram account which is open only for black people. The below report from Samnytt is translated from the Swedish by Fousesquawk. Editing and sub-titling by Vlad Tepes.
https://samnytt.se/rapartist-fran-lund-uppmanar-till-mord-pa-vita-skjut-dem/
Rap artist from Lund calls for death for whites" "Shoot them".
A YouTube profile and rap artist well known among young people has started a closed account on social media in which he invites only black people. In several video postings, he calls for murder of white people in Sweden. Samhallsnytt has (gotten into) the account and can now reveal how an immigrant Nigerian propagates racism to hundreds of young people. "If some white guy or white girl tries to talk shit about you-shoot them."
The well-known YouTube profile is "JCBUZ", who has 280,000 subscribers on his two YouTube accounts, in which he reviews current hip hop records in Sweden and shares his own gangster-inspired rap music. JCBUZ, who is really named Jesse Ekene Nweke Conable, is 22 years old and registered (residence) in Lund. According to the tax police, he immigrated from Nigeria in 2008 and now has Swedish citizenship.
On a newly registered and locked Instagram account under the name "barasvarta" (black only) several video clips with JCBUZ have been uploaded. In the presentation text for the account, which has 465 followers up to now, followers can read: "Black Power in Sweden" and "Only for Blacks".
Samhallsnytt has gained access into the account, where it is clear that only blacks should get access to the content. Below is a photo update from his account where he states that he does not allow any white people to join the group.
On Tuesday several video clips were uploaded on the account where the rap artist propagated murder against white people in Sweden.
Text above video:
"Created our group so we get it together"
JCBUZ states in a post that he has created "our group" so that blacks will get together in the fight. He means that blacks "must take over".
Below is JCBUZ speech and the video clip:
"My brothers and sisters, my black brothers and sisters, I have an important message for you. I only want to say to you, my black brothers and sisters out there.- You are special and nobody is like you. Continue the war.
We will take over- we will be number one- one beautiful day we will become number one. We will take over over those whites here. Just like these whites took us as slaves, we will take them as slaves and treat them even worse.
But right now we're just fighting (among ourselves), we're going to be smarter, we're going to be faster, we're going to be the best at everything. We'll take their bitches and we'll take their money. To be perfectly honest, we will be the best race ever. This is only the beginning; it is starting small but believe me, we will grow and grow bigger. We will be the strongest group in Sweden - no one will dare mess with us. Just wait, a beautiful day.
The whites try to mess with us- then you know what will come (gun sign with fingers). We will show them how we do it. We are warriors, do you understand? We are African warriors- They are not on our level. This here is just the beginning. Black power. Black power.
If any white guy or white girl is trying to talk shit about you - shoot them! If they talk shit about your family - shoot them!"
Text below the video:
"Created our group so we will stick together"
JCBUZ says in a post that he has created "our group" for blacks to stick together in the fight. He believes that blacks "must take over".
Text of comment thread ( red box 1): "Up to now whites have seen us as their slaves. Even if they don't say it straight out, it is what they think. I swear everything- that is why I created our group-so we can get ourselves together."
Red box 2
"Therefore, we must take over."
Text below photo of JCBuz making shooting sign.
CBUZ makes pistol sign on social media. Facsimile Facebook.
In the comments, a "Chidde" writes out his/her hate toward whites as they are unsocial and the type who all talk behind your backs and are racist. Further says Chidde that whites "always get better grades and jobs".
”Fuck White People”
In several posts, the artist expresses his hate against whites. In one post with a noose is "Fuck White People", and then, "We blacks are the best"
"What do you think about white people?"
Several posts call for hate toward people with white skin color. One person writes, "They think they are better than us, but it was we who build everything up here."
"If a white boy messes (with me) I would shoot him."
In one post, a picture is shown with text that one cannot be racist if he isn't white. Followers are then asked if they agree.
One person named "Abdi" states that he will squeeze the trigger if a white boy talks bad with him.
Shows video clip when a white boy is hit
The account also shows a video clip where a white boy is wrestled down by a black boy in a gym. During the video post, is "black power" and then follows several jubilant comments where he is happy that the white boy is knocked down.
No response from gangster rapper
Samhallsnytt has sought out JCBUZ Conable without results, both by telephone and email for a comment.
Update: Conable has commented on Samhallsnytt's article via his Instagram account with the following comment:
(Laughing emojis)
It is not clear if someone has reported the artist for hate towards an ethnic group.
Update 2: Conable has taken note of our article and now writes that he wants to "eliminate the snitch" ('informer-" Editorial note) in an update in his closed Instagram group.
Image at bottom in black:
"We have a snitch among us. He or she must be eliminated."
By Simon Kristoffersson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fousesquawk comment: This is sick. Do I think it represents the thinking of all or even most black immigrants in Europe? No, I don't. But it should sound an alarm to Europe and their careless-reckless even - admission of migrants from the Middle East and Africa-largely Muslim nations, with scant or no attention paid to their backgrounds. So here you have in Sweden, an ungrateful Nigerian thug who advocates killing whites in the predominantly white nation that admitted him.
Sweden, you have a problem.
”Fuck White People”
In several posts, the artist expresses his hate against whites. In one post with a noose is "Fuck White People", and then, "We blacks are the best"
"What do you think about white people?"
Several posts call for hate toward people with white skin color. One person writes, "They think they are better than us, but it was we who build everything up here."
"If a white boy messes (with me) I would shoot him."
In one post, a picture is shown with text that one cannot be racist if he isn't white. Followers are then asked if they agree.
One person named "Abdi" states that he will squeeze the trigger if a white boy talks bad with him.
Shows video clip when a white boy is hit
The account also shows a video clip where a white boy is wrestled down by a black boy in a gym. During the video post, is "black power" and then follows several jubilant comments where he is happy that the white boy is knocked down.
No response from gangster rapper
Samhallsnytt has sought out JCBUZ Conable without results, both by telephone and email for a comment.
Update: Conable has commented on Samhallsnytt's article via his Instagram account with the following comment:
(Laughing emojis)
It is not clear if someone has reported the artist for hate towards an ethnic group.
Update 2: Conable has taken note of our article and now writes that he wants to "eliminate the snitch" ('informer-" Editorial note) in an update in his closed Instagram group.
Image at bottom in black:
"We have a snitch among us. He or she must be eliminated."
By Simon Kristoffersson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fousesquawk comment: This is sick. Do I think it represents the thinking of all or even most black immigrants in Europe? No, I don't. But it should sound an alarm to Europe and their careless-reckless even - admission of migrants from the Middle East and Africa-largely Muslim nations, with scant or no attention paid to their backgrounds. So here you have in Sweden, an ungrateful Nigerian thug who advocates killing whites in the predominantly white nation that admitted him.
Sweden, you have a problem.
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
Congressman Adam Schiff Links Arms with MPAC
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Hat tip Counter Jihad Coalition
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) is a creation and arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. It has consistently criticized and condemned virtually every law enforcement action against Islamic terrorism in the United States. They have accused the FBI of entrapping Muslims who have been charged with plotting to join ISIS and/or carry out terrorist attacks in the US. Along with other organizations like CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim American Society, American Muslims for Palestine, and others, they are an insidious movement that pretends to be moderate, but in reality share the Muslim Brotherhood vision of an eventual world caliphate under sharia law.
So now, Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff, who represents part of the greater Los Angeles area, has joined with MPAC to go after all those white supremacists-while ignoring the multitude of Islamic terrorist attacks in the US and around the world. Schiff, who has most recently failed to produce an impeachable case against President Trump, has now aligned himself with a despicable organization like MPAC.
https://www.mpac.org/blog/updates/how-we-are-tackling-this-new-wave-of-white-nationalist-violence.php
"MPAC joined a federall task force on the Prevention of Targeted Violence against houses of worship."
Federal task force? When I think of a federal task force, I think of something like DEA, FBI, ATF, state and local police teaming up to fight a particular crime problem. I have been part of "federal task forces" when I was a DEA agent. I don't know what MPAC is talking about here. Them teaming up with characters like Adam Schiff, who has his own politcal agenda, is a joke. They are simply making a political statement.
As Congressman Schiff said in his own words, “I think MPAC is doing some really important work. In fact, the white paper that MPAC put together analyzing this problem, talking about its roots, talking about the transnational character of this threat is something that every Member of Congress should read.”
"Last week, Congressman Schiff took the legislative initiative to counter this threat against our community and country. He introduced a bill that would create a federal domestic terrorism crime and could be applied to attacks like mass shootings in El Paso, Texas; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Charleston, South Carolina."
(And Dayton, San Bernardino, Orlando, Ft Hood, Boston, 9-11, etc?)
Truth is, terrorist attacks in the US are, indeed, handled by federal authorities, who now also prosecute for hate crimes. There are certain factors involved which would take the case out of the hands of state courts, who can still prosecute mass killings depending on the motivation. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was tried and executed by the federal courts. The Charleston killer, Dylan Roof, who killed out of his hate for black people, was also tried on federal charges related to hate crimes. He is awaiting execution.
Whether Schiff succeeds in tightening up federal legislation on hate crime murders is not the point here. State and federal authotires can and should work together to insure maximum punishment for these kinds of attacks. No one is trying to protect white nationalists who commit violent acts here. It is a problem and it is growing. And nobody is advocating for hate crimes against Muslims.
At the same time, groups like MPAC are merely trying to shift the spotlight from the threats of Islamic terror attacks for their own purposes. They cannot be trusted, and Schiff should know better.
But he doesn't.
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Hat tip Counter Jihad Coalition
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) is a creation and arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. It has consistently criticized and condemned virtually every law enforcement action against Islamic terrorism in the United States. They have accused the FBI of entrapping Muslims who have been charged with plotting to join ISIS and/or carry out terrorist attacks in the US. Along with other organizations like CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim American Society, American Muslims for Palestine, and others, they are an insidious movement that pretends to be moderate, but in reality share the Muslim Brotherhood vision of an eventual world caliphate under sharia law.
So now, Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff, who represents part of the greater Los Angeles area, has joined with MPAC to go after all those white supremacists-while ignoring the multitude of Islamic terrorist attacks in the US and around the world. Schiff, who has most recently failed to produce an impeachable case against President Trump, has now aligned himself with a despicable organization like MPAC.
https://www.mpac.org/blog/updates/how-we-are-tackling-this-new-wave-of-white-nationalist-violence.php
"MPAC joined a federal
Federal task force? When I think of a federal task force, I think of something like DEA, FBI, ATF, state and local police teaming up to fight a particular crime problem. I have been part of "federal task forces" when I was a DEA agent. I don't know what MPAC is talking about here. Them teaming up with characters like Adam Schiff, who has his own politcal agenda, is a joke. They are simply making a political statement.
As Congressman Schiff said in his own words, “I think MPAC is doing some really important work. In fact, the white paper that MPAC put together analyzing this problem, talking about its roots, talking about the transnational character of this threat is something that every Member of Congress should read.”
"Last week, Congressman Schiff took the legislative initiative to counter this threat against our community and country. He introduced a bill that would create a federal domestic terrorism crime and could be applied to attacks like mass shootings in El Paso, Texas; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Charleston, South Carolina."
(And Dayton, San Bernardino, Orlando, Ft Hood, Boston, 9-11, etc?)
Truth is, terrorist attacks in the US are, indeed, handled by federal authorities, who now also prosecute for hate crimes. There are certain factors involved which would take the case out of the hands of state courts, who can still prosecute mass killings depending on the motivation. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was tried and executed by the federal courts. The Charleston killer, Dylan Roof, who killed out of his hate for black people, was also tried on federal charges related to hate crimes. He is awaiting execution.
Whether Schiff succeeds in tightening up federal legislation on hate crime murders is not the point here. State and federal authotires can and should work together to insure maximum punishment for these kinds of attacks. No one is trying to protect white nationalists who commit violent acts here. It is a problem and it is growing. And nobody is advocating for hate crimes against Muslims.
At the same time, groups like MPAC are merely trying to shift the spotlight from the threats of Islamic terror attacks for their own purposes. They cannot be trusted, and Schiff should know better.
But he doesn't.
Saturday, August 10, 2019
Palestinian "Intersectionality" With African-Americans
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
My friend David Swindle has written an interesting article for Middle East Forum about a presentation he attended at UCLA. The speaker was (hold on to your hat) another one of those dime a dozen professors whose goal in life is to help destroy Israel. His name was Michael Fischbach, a history professor at Randolph-Macon College. For you UC Santa Cruz Community Studies and History of Consciousness majors, that is located in Ashland, Virginia.
Fischbach's theme was about the "intersectionality" between the Palestinian experience and the African-American experience. And what is intersectionality, you ask? You don't wanna know, but David explains it in the below article. It's really too painful for me to write it all out here.
https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/59121/hijacking-black-history-to-bash-israel
Much as I hate to take Fischnach seriously, let me get serious here. Intersectionality, as David points out, is nothing more than a cynical attempt by one group to enlist the support of another group by claiming common victim status. In another words, Palestinians and American blacks are brothers here because they are both victims of a racist system. All it accomplishes is turning out more anti-Semites.
It should be pointed out that Jews were among the strongest supporters of the Civil Rights movement. Yet, it must also be mentioned that there is a degree of anti-Semitism among the African-American community-just as within the white community. This "intersectionality" movement, which is so widespread on college campuses, is not only divisive, but can only increase anti-Semitism. The common perception of Jews-which is inaccurate- is that they are simply the most "privileged" members of the "white privileged class". It is hardly surpring that the most demonized groups on campuses, no matter what the social justice warriors tell you, are whites and Jews.
It should also be noted that UCLA's Center for Near Eastern Studies, who hosted this event, is nothing but a hotbed of pro-Arab, anti-Israel, anti-West dogma.
This, Dear Readers, is what our kids are being taught in our universities.
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
My friend David Swindle has written an interesting article for Middle East Forum about a presentation he attended at UCLA. The speaker was (hold on to your hat) another one of those dime a dozen professors whose goal in life is to help destroy Israel. His name was Michael Fischbach, a history professor at Randolph-Macon College. For you UC Santa Cruz Community Studies and History of Consciousness majors, that is located in Ashland, Virginia.
Fischbach's theme was about the "intersectionality" between the Palestinian experience and the African-American experience. And what is intersectionality, you ask? You don't wanna know, but David explains it in the below article. It's really too painful for me to write it all out here.
https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/59121/hijacking-black-history-to-bash-israel
Much as I hate to take Fischnach seriously, let me get serious here. Intersectionality, as David points out, is nothing more than a cynical attempt by one group to enlist the support of another group by claiming common victim status. In another words, Palestinians and American blacks are brothers here because they are both victims of a racist system. All it accomplishes is turning out more anti-Semites.
It should be pointed out that Jews were among the strongest supporters of the Civil Rights movement. Yet, it must also be mentioned that there is a degree of anti-Semitism among the African-American community-just as within the white community. This "intersectionality" movement, which is so widespread on college campuses, is not only divisive, but can only increase anti-Semitism. The common perception of Jews-which is inaccurate- is that they are simply the most "privileged" members of the "white privileged class". It is hardly surpring that the most demonized groups on campuses, no matter what the social justice warriors tell you, are whites and Jews.
It should also be noted that UCLA's Center for Near Eastern Studies, who hosted this event, is nothing but a hotbed of pro-Arab, anti-Israel, anti-West dogma.
This, Dear Readers, is what our kids are being taught in our universities.
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
Mueller Lays an Egg
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
I watched almost all of the two House hearings today with Robert Mueller testifying. If you watch the talking heads of Fox, CNN and MSNBC, you might think they were all watching different hearings. Fox is calling it a huge Democrat thud while CNN and MSNBC are reduced to talking points and the fact that Mueller did not exonerate Trump-as if that has any legal meaning, which it doesn't.
Everybody is pretty unanimous that Mueller's appearance and performance was pathetic. I don't say this to condemn him; he has had a distinguished life and career. Most everyone agrees, however, that he did not acquit himself well today. He did not appear prepared or even well-acqauinted with his own report.
Mueller had always stated that he would not go beyond what was in his report, and he tried to stick to that, declining to answer many questions from both sides. "I can't get into that," was his standard response. (Often, he was justified in not answering certain questions, at other times, he refused to answer questions about points in his report.) He appeared, old, tired, and and times, confused and not up to speed on his own report. In short, the Democrats did not advance their case against Trump.
During the morning session with the House Judiciary Committee, Mueller appeared to confirm to Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) that he did not bring charges against Trump for obstruction because of the DOJ opinion that a sitting president could not be charged with a crime. Then, in his opening statement to the Intelligence committee, he made a point to correct that and state that the decision not to charge was made independantly of that consideration.
Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) made what appeared to be some good points concerning one Joseph Mifsud and his role in pumping Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos for information and then lying to the FBI. In March 2016, Mifsud, a Maltese academic, met Papadopoulos in London and told him that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was Papadopoulos' reported statements about that to an Australian diplomat a month later that launched an FBI probe that eventually resulted in Papadopoulos pleading guilty to lying to FBI agents. Jordan asked why Misfud was never charged with lying to the FBI while Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were. Mueller would not answer.
The talking heads at CNN and MSNBC are making a big deal over the fact that Mueller did not exonerate Trump. The Republicans effectively brought out in the Judiciary hearing that it is not a prosecutor's job to exonerate. A failure to exonerate has no legal meaning because a prosecutor either charges or not. If no charges are brought, it is improper for a prosecutor to add that he or she was unable to exonerate. If you don't bring charges you say nothing. It is not Trump's or anybody else's burden to be exonerated of charges. In other words, innocent until proven guilty.
The mainstream media is also praising Mueller for strongly reaffirming that there was Russian meddling in our election, that it was not a hoax, and his investigation was not a witch hunt. I will agree with them and Mueller that the Russians did meddle; that was not a hoax. What was a hoax was the charge that Trump colluded with them. As for the witch hunt charge, that was not effectively refuted by Mueller today.
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
I watched almost all of the two House hearings today with Robert Mueller testifying. If you watch the talking heads of Fox, CNN and MSNBC, you might think they were all watching different hearings. Fox is calling it a huge Democrat thud while CNN and MSNBC are reduced to talking points and the fact that Mueller did not exonerate Trump-as if that has any legal meaning, which it doesn't.
Everybody is pretty unanimous that Mueller's appearance and performance was pathetic. I don't say this to condemn him; he has had a distinguished life and career. Most everyone agrees, however, that he did not acquit himself well today. He did not appear prepared or even well-acqauinted with his own report.
Mueller had always stated that he would not go beyond what was in his report, and he tried to stick to that, declining to answer many questions from both sides. "I can't get into that," was his standard response. (Often, he was justified in not answering certain questions, at other times, he refused to answer questions about points in his report.) He appeared, old, tired, and and times, confused and not up to speed on his own report. In short, the Democrats did not advance their case against Trump.
During the morning session with the House Judiciary Committee, Mueller appeared to confirm to Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) that he did not bring charges against Trump for obstruction because of the DOJ opinion that a sitting president could not be charged with a crime. Then, in his opening statement to the Intelligence committee, he made a point to correct that and state that the decision not to charge was made independantly of that consideration.
Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) made what appeared to be some good points concerning one Joseph Mifsud and his role in pumping Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos for information and then lying to the FBI. In March 2016, Mifsud, a Maltese academic, met Papadopoulos in London and told him that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was Papadopoulos' reported statements about that to an Australian diplomat a month later that launched an FBI probe that eventually resulted in Papadopoulos pleading guilty to lying to FBI agents. Jordan asked why Misfud was never charged with lying to the FBI while Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were. Mueller would not answer.
The talking heads at CNN and MSNBC are making a big deal over the fact that Mueller did not exonerate Trump. The Republicans effectively brought out in the Judiciary hearing that it is not a prosecutor's job to exonerate. A failure to exonerate has no legal meaning because a prosecutor either charges or not. If no charges are brought, it is improper for a prosecutor to add that he or she was unable to exonerate. If you don't bring charges you say nothing. It is not Trump's or anybody else's burden to be exonerated of charges. In other words, innocent until proven guilty.
The mainstream media is also praising Mueller for strongly reaffirming that there was Russian meddling in our election, that it was not a hoax, and his investigation was not a witch hunt. I will agree with them and Mueller that the Russians did meddle; that was not a hoax. What was a hoax was the charge that Trump colluded with them. As for the witch hunt charge, that was not effectively refuted by Mueller today.
Sunday, July 21, 2019
University of Michigan Professor Goes After.....John McCain?
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Whatever disappointments I may have had with the late John McCain as a senator, I have always admired him as a great American, based mostly on his military record. Though I may have taken President Trump's side in policy disagreements he had with McCain, I have never cared for Trump's negative commonts about the late senator. John McCain is gone now, and I think on the whole, he served his country extraordinarily well. We should all let him rest in peace.
Unfortunately, University of Michigan comedian Juan Cole, who also carries the title of professor, seems to want to kick more dirt on McCain's grave. Rather than praise McCain for the classy way he ran his presidential campaign against Barack Obama, Cole goes to extreme lengths to try and detract from a positive moment McCain had during the campaign when he chastised a woman supporter who had called Obama an Arab. Apparently, Cole's stated purpose in attacking the late senator is due to praise McCain has received this week in contrast to the chants at a Trump rally in Greenville, NC when the crowd chanted, "Send her back", a reference to Somali-born Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN), a woman who has spent the past several months since becoming a congresswoman making highly offensive comments about American Jews and America in general.
Here is a link to one of Cole's recent blurbs on his blog, which he entitles, Informed Comment:
https://www.juancole.com/2019/07/mccains-response-exemplary.html
To make his tortured point, Cole refers us back to an article he wrote in 2008:
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Whatever disappointments I may have had with the late John McCain as a senator, I have always admired him as a great American, based mostly on his military record. Though I may have taken President Trump's side in policy disagreements he had with McCain, I have never cared for Trump's negative commonts about the late senator. John McCain is gone now, and I think on the whole, he served his country extraordinarily well. We should all let him rest in peace.
Unfortunately, University of Michigan comedian Juan Cole, who also carries the title of professor, seems to want to kick more dirt on McCain's grave. Rather than praise McCain for the classy way he ran his presidential campaign against Barack Obama, Cole goes to extreme lengths to try and detract from a positive moment McCain had during the campaign when he chastised a woman supporter who had called Obama an Arab. Apparently, Cole's stated purpose in attacking the late senator is due to praise McCain has received this week in contrast to the chants at a Trump rally in Greenville, NC when the crowd chanted, "Send her back", a reference to Somali-born Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN), a woman who has spent the past several months since becoming a congresswoman making highly offensive comments about American Jews and America in general.
Here is a link to one of Cole's recent blurbs on his blog, which he entitles, Informed Comment:
https://www.juancole.com/2019/07/mccains-response-exemplary.html
To make his tortured point, Cole refers us back to an article he wrote in 2008:
"Later, another supporter told McCain, “I don’t trust Obama…He’s an Arab.”McCain stood shaking his head as she spoke, then quickly took the microphone from her.“No, ma’am,” he said. “He’s a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with.” ‘McCain should have said, “there would be nothing wrong with being an Arab, but Obama is not.” The way he put it strongly implied that he had a low opinion of Arabs."
Aside from grasping at straws, this is hardly fair. McCain found himself in an improvised moment when he had to correct what the woman was saying. Unlike Cole, he didn't have the luxury of formulating words that Cole would have suggested hours, days or weeks after the fact. And as for Cole's comment about "shedding his last vestiges of decency", as he terms it, McCain demonstrated much decency (and courage) over his life, more than Cole could ever dream about. What is Cole complaining about-that the McCain campaign did say negative things about candidate Obama and his association with Bill Ayers, an unrepentent (to this day) Weather Underground terrorist become college professor? That is what campaigns do. Cole explains it that Obama was just a boy when Ayers was bombing and hiding from the police. True enough, but Obama wasn't a boy when he "was in the same room" with Ayres (Cole's words-not mine). Obama was associating with a radical who had merely ceased breaking the law. Unfortunately, Obama's associations with people like Bill Ayres, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and others was never fully investigated by the mainstream media. They simply chose not to.
In addition, Cole proceeds to give us a lecture on what an Arab is and the fact that most Muslims in the world are not Arabs, not all Arabs are Muslims, etc. etc. etc. We don't need it, and furthermore, the crowd in Greenville said nothing about Arabs or Muslims. They voiced their disapproval of Omar for her litany of anti-Semitic, anti-American statements. Since Omar is an American citizen and cannot be deported, I personally would not have chanted, "Send her back". I have no problem, however, with Trump's invitation to her that she should return to her own crime-infested and dysfunctional community if she thinks we are so bad. (Whether that would be Somalia or the Little Moghadishu section of Minneapolis is not entirely clear from Trump's words, but no matter.) I personally would have no problem in telling her to her face that she should return to Somalia if she thinks so little of America.
Juan Cole is a leftist who is another one of those dime-a-dozen professors who hate Israel. He also has axes to grind against our own country, Republicans and conservatives while extolling the past and present glory of the Arab civilization (which is highly debatable). Such is his right, but it does not reflect well on him that he feels the need to drag the memory of Senator McCain through the mud.
In addition, Cole proceeds to give us a lecture on what an Arab is and the fact that most Muslims in the world are not Arabs, not all Arabs are Muslims, etc. etc. etc. We don't need it, and furthermore, the crowd in Greenville said nothing about Arabs or Muslims. They voiced their disapproval of Omar for her litany of anti-Semitic, anti-American statements. Since Omar is an American citizen and cannot be deported, I personally would not have chanted, "Send her back". I have no problem, however, with Trump's invitation to her that she should return to her own crime-infested and dysfunctional community if she thinks we are so bad. (Whether that would be Somalia or the Little Moghadishu section of Minneapolis is not entirely clear from Trump's words, but no matter.) I personally would have no problem in telling her to her face that she should return to Somalia if she thinks so little of America.
Juan Cole is a leftist who is another one of those dime-a-dozen professors who hate Israel. He also has axes to grind against our own country, Republicans and conservatives while extolling the past and present glory of the Arab civilization (which is highly debatable). Such is his right, but it does not reflect well on him that he feels the need to drag the memory of Senator McCain through the mud.
Monday, June 17, 2019
Two Names on a Wall:Putting a Photo to a Name (Michael G Vinassa)
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Michael Gene Vinassa (1946-1966) Distinguished Service Cross
Photo 1959 at age 13
For the past several years now, I have celebrated Memorial Day by writing about and re-posting information about two of my high school buddies who died in the Vietnam war, Michael Vinassa and Dorian Houser. Now I have an update on one of them, (Michael).
A couple of weeks ago, I was contacted by Janna Hoehn and Dana Kwist, two representatives of Wall of Faces, a project dedicated to locating and posting photos of each of the 58,000+ troops killed in Vietnam. This project is part of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Faces Never Forgotten Program. The VVMF Education Center, located between the Vietnam Memorial and Lincoln Monument in Washington DC, exhibits the photos.
For the overwhelming majority of these, photos are readily available, but for some, it has been harder. Such was especially the case with Mike. The good folks at Wall of Faces had read my online postings about Mike. and thus, reached out to me. Needless to say, while I didn't have any photos of Mike myself, I volunteered to help with my own contacts and former friends.
Just to give you an idea of how challenging the task was, Wall of Faces had gone through high school yearbooks, army post photos, newspaper articles, obits, all without success. I myself contacted Forest Lawn in Hollywood Hills, where Mike is buried next to his mother. I spoke to two people there who were most helpful and cooperative, but Forest Lawn had no photos in their records. I reached out to those friends of ours who I still had contact with. I searched the websites of the three Army posts where Mike had trained before going to Vietnam. I enlisted the help of two retired DEA agents who are now private investigators, John Marcello and John Hudock of the Phoenix Investigative Group, one of whom (Marcello) is a Vietnam vet himself. They contributed their time pro bono and came up with some fascinating details about Mike's family. All the while, a team of about 5-6 Wall of Faces researchers were digging up details and leads and writing letters. We tried to track down Mike's fiancee and best friend, up to now without success.
Then, just last night, we hit paydirt.
One of our mutual high school friends, Kenny Easum, now living in Wisconsin, dug up a 60-year-old photo of Mike from his junior high school yearbook from 1959. There was Mike in the 7th grade, 13 years old. I passed the photo along, and needless to say, we were all ecstatic.
Here is a message I received this morning from Sue Rice of VVMF.
Here is how Mike earned the Distinguished Service Cross, our nation's highest award for battlefield bravery after the Congressional Medal of Honor.
It has been an honor to assist Wall of Faces in this effort to make a final tribute to Mike's memory. My thanks go out to all who assisted in this effort. Most of all, I want to thank the Wall of Faces team for all they do.
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Michael Gene Vinassa (1946-1966) Distinguished Service Cross
Photo 1959 at age 13
For the past several years now, I have celebrated Memorial Day by writing about and re-posting information about two of my high school buddies who died in the Vietnam war, Michael Vinassa and Dorian Houser. Now I have an update on one of them, (Michael).
A couple of weeks ago, I was contacted by Janna Hoehn and Dana Kwist, two representatives of Wall of Faces, a project dedicated to locating and posting photos of each of the 58,000+ troops killed in Vietnam. This project is part of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Faces Never Forgotten Program. The VVMF Education Center, located between the Vietnam Memorial and Lincoln Monument in Washington DC, exhibits the photos.
For the overwhelming majority of these, photos are readily available, but for some, it has been harder. Such was especially the case with Mike. The good folks at Wall of Faces had read my online postings about Mike. and thus, reached out to me. Needless to say, while I didn't have any photos of Mike myself, I volunteered to help with my own contacts and former friends.
Just to give you an idea of how challenging the task was, Wall of Faces had gone through high school yearbooks, army post photos, newspaper articles, obits, all without success. I myself contacted Forest Lawn in Hollywood Hills, where Mike is buried next to his mother. I spoke to two people there who were most helpful and cooperative, but Forest Lawn had no photos in their records. I reached out to those friends of ours who I still had contact with. I searched the websites of the three Army posts where Mike had trained before going to Vietnam. I enlisted the help of two retired DEA agents who are now private investigators, John Marcello and John Hudock of the Phoenix Investigative Group, one of whom (Marcello) is a Vietnam vet himself. They contributed their time pro bono and came up with some fascinating details about Mike's family. All the while, a team of about 5-6 Wall of Faces researchers were digging up details and leads and writing letters. We tried to track down Mike's fiancee and best friend, up to now without success.
Then, just last night, we hit paydirt.
One of our mutual high school friends, Kenny Easum, now living in Wisconsin, dug up a 60-year-old photo of Mike from his junior high school yearbook from 1959. There was Mike in the 7th grade, 13 years old. I passed the photo along, and needless to say, we were all ecstatic.
Here is a message I received this morning from Sue Rice of VVMF.
"To everyone involved with the finding of Michael Vinassa's photo,. I want to express my sincere appreciation. Michael has been an exceptional hard find. I will be taking his photo to our next annual 1-8 Jumping Mustang reunion in Anaheim. Our 34th annual reunion will be held from Sep 5-8, at the Sheraton Park Hotel, opening ceremony with flag raising at 9 am sharp.
1855 South Harbor Blvd,
Anaheim CA 92802
If anyone lives in the area, I would loved to meet you and introduce you to the Host, Mike Price.
Please pass this info on to anyone you choose.
I will await the posting of Michael's photo on the VVMF wall of faces."
Best Regards,
Honor and Courage
Sue Rice
VVMF
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Needless to say, I would be honored to attend the above reunion. Unfortunately, it will coincide with my own army reunion coming up in Wyoming. If there is any way I can stop by on the way to the airport, I will try my hardest.
Here is how Mike earned the Distinguished Service Cross, our nation's highest award for battlefield bravery after the Congressional Medal of Honor.
It has been an honor to assist Wall of Faces in this effort to make a final tribute to Mike's memory. My thanks go out to all who assisted in this effort. Most of all, I want to thank the Wall of Faces team for all they do.
-Together We Served.com
Saturday, June 8, 2019
Anti-Semitism Today and the Great Debate
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
This article first appeared in New English Review.
As a Gentile teacher who first became alarmed at campus anti-Semitism about 13 years ago on the University of California at Irvine, I have witnessed what I feel is a transition in that issue. Let me explain.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become a hot button issue on American college campuses. The only logical explanation, in my view, is that the Palestinian movement, both in the Middle East and North America, has been very effective in convincing many uninformed and gullible students that Israel is guilty of massive human rights violations against the Palestinian people including apartheid and even genocide. This pro-Palestinian movement is well-organized and well-funded. In my view, more than any other factor, it has led to a resurgence of anti-Semitism in the US and Canada.
In Europe, where the situation is so grievous that Jews are leaving by the tens of thousands, Israel is more an issue to the native Europeans. In contrast, the wave of recent Muslim immigrants, migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees, need no Palestinian issue to stoke their centuries-old hatred of Jews. Not all Muslims, of course, but it is undeniable that hatred of Jews (and Christians) is deeply embedded in Islamic history and teaching.
Over that past decade, as I have written about anti-Semitism, I have said that the focal point for the resurgence in anti-Semitism in America is on our university campuses for the reason I mentioned above. Now, however, I see it metastasizing into the population at large removed from academia. The universities refused (and still refuse) to confront it, and now it has spread.
If there is anything positive to come out of that, it is that now the problem cannot be denied just because the universities hide their heads in the sand. How hard it has been for myself and other people concerned about the problem to convince the outside community that there was a problem on our campuses. Even mainstream national Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, the various chapters of the Jewish Federation, and Hillel shielded the universities from scrutiny because (in the case of the latter two) they were too embedded and dependent upon the universities and because they did not want to see a drop off in Jewish attendance at their respective schools. "Jewish life is thriving," they said even while Jewish students were going to school in an atmosphere of intimidation by the pro-Palestinian bullies in the Muslim Student Associations and Students for Justice in Palestine. Now the public at large knows the problem exists nation-wide. But now, it is not just on our campuses.
Most notably, the recent attacks on synagogues in Pittsburgh and Poway, California have captured the attention of the nation. Now the public is talking about it. President Trump is talking about it. That is a positive development that comes from two massive tragedies and a troubling resurgence in Jew hatred.
The great question now before us is who is responsible? Already this has stirred debate, and well it should.
The two men who attacked the aforementioned synagogues were white nationalists (but hardly Trump supporters). Those attacks in particular have put the spotlight on white nationalism, and I will be the first to admit that we have a problem in the US with this rise, which is due to many factors outside the scope of this writing. Suffice to say that we must condemn groups like the KKK, neo-Nazis, and the Aryan Brotherhood and call them out for their hatreds whether they be against Jews, blacks, Hispanics, or whatever.
But the question is-the point of the great debate- is whether they are the biggest purveyors of Jew hatred today. Without in any way trying to protect these groups-I condemn them- my belief is still that most Jew hatred in the world and in the US today is being stirred from Islamic quarters. I would rather use the word Islamic rather than Muslim here because I don't accuse all Muslims of being Jew haters. I do repeat, however, that Jew hatred has a long history within Islam and is part of Islamic teaching in the Koran and the hadith.
It is so much easier and convenient to put all of the blame for anti-Semitism today on white nationalists in North America and Europe than to talk about Islamic anti-Semitism and acts or speech against Jews by Muslims. After all, the politically correct crowd does not want to call out a so-called protected group like Muslims for criticism.
I personally witnessed this up close and personal shortly after the beginning of the Trump administration when the Bat Yahm synagogue in Newport Beach hosted an inter-faith event in 2017 dedicated to the idea that Trump supporters and other white nationalists were the main cause of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. I attended and watched speaker after speaker, Jew, Christian, and Muslim bemoan the white nationalist hatred being perpetrated by Trump supporters. The then Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at UC Irvine, Thomas Parham, spoke and lambasted not only Trump, who "didn't have the moral decency of a cockroach", but called then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions a "racist" from Alabama". Not one word was devoted to the problem of Islamic anti-Semitism. Some of us tried to get it in, but we were rebuffed. They would not even address the issue of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, whose campus was located just blocks away from the synagogue.
The UC Irvine issue leads to another important point. The pro-Palestinian crowd, which includes people like CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), US Representatives. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and others will tell us that their opposition to Israel is simply anti-Zionist, not anti-Jewish. Bull. To be anti-Zionist means that you want the Jewish state of Israel destroyed and replaced by an entity called Palestine, "from the river to the sea", which consists of a Muslim majority state where Jews remain at their own risk.
So now that anti-Semitism is on the front burner, we must debate the question of who is primarily responsible. If we just pass it off to white nationalists, the KKK, and neo-Nazis, we are not fully addressing the problem. History tells us that anti-Semitism comes from many quarters and that its nature changes from time to time given what the perceived grievances against Jews are. This is the state of anti-Semitism today as I see it. We are going to have to fight hard to prevent a mostly false narrative of anti-Semitism from controlling the discourse. I am gratified, at least, that anti-Semitism is now in the open and being discussed. Honesty demands that we identity the perpetrators no matter who they are.
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
This article first appeared in New English Review.
As a Gentile teacher who first became alarmed at campus anti-Semitism about 13 years ago on the University of California at Irvine, I have witnessed what I feel is a transition in that issue. Let me explain.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become a hot button issue on American college campuses. The only logical explanation, in my view, is that the Palestinian movement, both in the Middle East and North America, has been very effective in convincing many uninformed and gullible students that Israel is guilty of massive human rights violations against the Palestinian people including apartheid and even genocide. This pro-Palestinian movement is well-organized and well-funded. In my view, more than any other factor, it has led to a resurgence of anti-Semitism in the US and Canada.
In Europe, where the situation is so grievous that Jews are leaving by the tens of thousands, Israel is more an issue to the native Europeans. In contrast, the wave of recent Muslim immigrants, migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees, need no Palestinian issue to stoke their centuries-old hatred of Jews. Not all Muslims, of course, but it is undeniable that hatred of Jews (and Christians) is deeply embedded in Islamic history and teaching.
Over that past decade, as I have written about anti-Semitism, I have said that the focal point for the resurgence in anti-Semitism in America is on our university campuses for the reason I mentioned above. Now, however, I see it metastasizing into the population at large removed from academia. The universities refused (and still refuse) to confront it, and now it has spread.
If there is anything positive to come out of that, it is that now the problem cannot be denied just because the universities hide their heads in the sand. How hard it has been for myself and other people concerned about the problem to convince the outside community that there was a problem on our campuses. Even mainstream national Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, the various chapters of the Jewish Federation, and Hillel shielded the universities from scrutiny because (in the case of the latter two) they were too embedded and dependent upon the universities and because they did not want to see a drop off in Jewish attendance at their respective schools. "Jewish life is thriving," they said even while Jewish students were going to school in an atmosphere of intimidation by the pro-Palestinian bullies in the Muslim Student Associations and Students for Justice in Palestine. Now the public at large knows the problem exists nation-wide. But now, it is not just on our campuses.
Most notably, the recent attacks on synagogues in Pittsburgh and Poway, California have captured the attention of the nation. Now the public is talking about it. President Trump is talking about it. That is a positive development that comes from two massive tragedies and a troubling resurgence in Jew hatred.
The great question now before us is who is responsible? Already this has stirred debate, and well it should.
The two men who attacked the aforementioned synagogues were white nationalists (but hardly Trump supporters). Those attacks in particular have put the spotlight on white nationalism, and I will be the first to admit that we have a problem in the US with this rise, which is due to many factors outside the scope of this writing. Suffice to say that we must condemn groups like the KKK, neo-Nazis, and the Aryan Brotherhood and call them out for their hatreds whether they be against Jews, blacks, Hispanics, or whatever.
But the question is-the point of the great debate- is whether they are the biggest purveyors of Jew hatred today. Without in any way trying to protect these groups-I condemn them- my belief is still that most Jew hatred in the world and in the US today is being stirred from Islamic quarters. I would rather use the word Islamic rather than Muslim here because I don't accuse all Muslims of being Jew haters. I do repeat, however, that Jew hatred has a long history within Islam and is part of Islamic teaching in the Koran and the hadith.
It is so much easier and convenient to put all of the blame for anti-Semitism today on white nationalists in North America and Europe than to talk about Islamic anti-Semitism and acts or speech against Jews by Muslims. After all, the politically correct crowd does not want to call out a so-called protected group like Muslims for criticism.
I personally witnessed this up close and personal shortly after the beginning of the Trump administration when the Bat Yahm synagogue in Newport Beach hosted an inter-faith event in 2017 dedicated to the idea that Trump supporters and other white nationalists were the main cause of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. I attended and watched speaker after speaker, Jew, Christian, and Muslim bemoan the white nationalist hatred being perpetrated by Trump supporters. The then Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at UC Irvine, Thomas Parham, spoke and lambasted not only Trump, who "didn't have the moral decency of a cockroach", but called then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions a "racist" from Alabama". Not one word was devoted to the problem of Islamic anti-Semitism. Some of us tried to get it in, but we were rebuffed. They would not even address the issue of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, whose campus was located just blocks away from the synagogue.
The UC Irvine issue leads to another important point. The pro-Palestinian crowd, which includes people like CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), US Representatives. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and others will tell us that their opposition to Israel is simply anti-Zionist, not anti-Jewish. Bull. To be anti-Zionist means that you want the Jewish state of Israel destroyed and replaced by an entity called Palestine, "from the river to the sea", which consists of a Muslim majority state where Jews remain at their own risk.
So now that anti-Semitism is on the front burner, we must debate the question of who is primarily responsible. If we just pass it off to white nationalists, the KKK, and neo-Nazis, we are not fully addressing the problem. History tells us that anti-Semitism comes from many quarters and that its nature changes from time to time given what the perceived grievances against Jews are. This is the state of anti-Semitism today as I see it. We are going to have to fight hard to prevent a mostly false narrative of anti-Semitism from controlling the discourse. I am gratified, at least, that anti-Semitism is now in the open and being discussed. Honesty demands that we identity the perpetrators no matter who they are.
Friday, May 24, 2019
LA Mayor Caves in to MPAC
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
It wasn't long ago that Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti was traipsing off to Iowa to "test the waters" for a possible run for the 2020 Democrat nomination to run for president. Many wondered how any mayor of Los Angeles, a city beset with all kinds of problems like gang violence, homeless encampments and trash piling up that was leading to the biggest rat infestation ever seen in the city, could decide he really should be promoted to president.
Fast forward to this week. Garcetti, who also had time to take a trip to Israel while his city crumbles, had made a statement that he supported the move of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After all, it is Israel's capital. All well and good, but that didn't sit well with the Islamists at the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), run by Salaam al-Marayati (who is based in LA). MPAC, like CAIR, is one of those myriad of Islamic organizations in the US that pretend to be moderates merely looking out for the civil rights of American Muslims. In reality, like CAIR, MPAC is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.
So when Garcetti made his comment about Jerusalem, MPAC sprang into action. They asked for a meeting with Garcetti and got it. What came out of that meeting was a videotaped message from Garcetti wishing his Muslim brothers and sisters a happy Ramadan and apologizing for his comment. MPAC is proudly boasting of this achievement on their blog. You can see the video here.
"This move represented the ultimate violation of religious freedom and a real provocation of violence."
One wonders how moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem was violating anyone's religious freedom in Israel since all religions, including Islam, enjoy religious freedom in Israel, much in contrast to her neighbors, where Christians are living in genuine fear. (The Jews were driven out back in 1948.)
And just who would be provoked into violence? Certainly not Israelis. The answer is Muslims.
So while the homeless population of Los Angeles continues to climb, the resultant trash continues to climb (literally), and the rat infestation continues to explode, Eric Garcetti takes time out from his busy schedule to issue this video apologizing for his statement supporting the embassy move. Frankly, it looks like one of those ISIS ransom videos. The only thing missing is a masked al Marayati standing behind him with a dagger.
This is why Eric Garcetti is not fit to be president of the United States. He is a craven hack who can't even run a city, let alone a country.
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
This article first appeared in Times of Israel Blogs.
"We had Mayor Garcetti clarify his statement about Jerusalem"
It wasn't long ago that Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti was traipsing off to Iowa to "test the waters" for a possible run for the 2020 Democrat nomination to run for president. Many wondered how any mayor of Los Angeles, a city beset with all kinds of problems like gang violence, homeless encampments and trash piling up that was leading to the biggest rat infestation ever seen in the city, could decide he really should be promoted to president.
Fast forward to this week. Garcetti, who also had time to take a trip to Israel while his city crumbles, had made a statement that he supported the move of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After all, it is Israel's capital. All well and good, but that didn't sit well with the Islamists at the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), run by Salaam al-Marayati (who is based in LA). MPAC, like CAIR, is one of those myriad of Islamic organizations in the US that pretend to be moderates merely looking out for the civil rights of American Muslims. In reality, like CAIR, MPAC is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.
So when Garcetti made his comment about Jerusalem, MPAC sprang into action. They asked for a meeting with Garcetti and got it. What came out of that meeting was a videotaped message from Garcetti wishing his Muslim brothers and sisters a happy Ramadan and apologizing for his comment. MPAC is proudly boasting of this achievement on their blog. You can see the video here.
"This move represented the ultimate violation of religious freedom and a real provocation of violence."
One wonders how moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem was violating anyone's religious freedom in Israel since all religions, including Islam, enjoy religious freedom in Israel, much in contrast to her neighbors, where Christians are living in genuine fear. (The Jews were driven out back in 1948.)
And just who would be provoked into violence? Certainly not Israelis. The answer is Muslims.
So while the homeless population of Los Angeles continues to climb, the resultant trash continues to climb (literally), and the rat infestation continues to explode, Eric Garcetti takes time out from his busy schedule to issue this video apologizing for his statement supporting the embassy move. Frankly, it looks like one of those ISIS ransom videos. The only thing missing is a masked al Marayati standing behind him with a dagger.
This is why Eric Garcetti is not fit to be president of the United States. He is a craven hack who can't even run a city, let alone a country.
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
Hussam "Hot Air" Ayloush Questions FBI Role in Terrorist Arrest
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Hussam "Hot Air" Ayloush
Yesterday, the FBI in Los Angeles announced the arrest of Mark Steven Domingo, a 26-year-old Muslim convert living in Reseda, California, who is charged with planning to set off explosives and kill people as revenge for the attack against two mosques in New Zealand.
The Southern California CEO of CAIR, Hussam "Hot Air" Ayloush, is in damage control mode with his public response. Once again, a CAIR official implies that the FBI entrapped a Muslim.
https://ca.cair.com/losangeles/news/cair-la-expresses-relief-at-foiling-of-alleged-bombing-plot/
Before Mr Ayloush gets too wound up and invested in his entrapment conspiracy theory, let me explain a thing or two about entrapment law. I say this based on my own 25-year career as a Customs and later DEA agent.
Entrapment exists when law enforcement (or their informant) actually lead a person to commit an crime that person was not predisposed to commit. Predisposition is the key word. In this case, the question is-was Domingo predisposed to commit an act of terror prior to coming into contact with the FBI or its informant acting undercover? It appears from the information provided in the FBI press conference that he was predisposed- putting it out online what he wanted to do.
The fact that an FBI undercover agent or informant made contact with Domingo and acted with him-apparently delivering a fake bomb- is not entrapment. A person who is predisposed to commit a crime may be "afforded the opportunity" by an undercover operative. In this case, the undercover person pretended to help Domingo in his mission. Another example would be if an agent infiltrated a drug ring and was tasked with picking up a shipment of drugs and delivering it from point A to point B or person A to person B. That's not entrapment; it's just good undercover work. Same with an agent being introduced as a buyer to a drug dealer, who was already in the business. It is not entrapment when the drugs are delivered and the dealer is arrested. Again, prior statements or acts by a defendant and taped conversations will generally effectively counter any claims of entrapment.
If CAIR hacks like Ayloush want to (once again) claim FBI entrapment, good luck. That will be dealt with at trial. There are many safeguards and rules that go along with undercover work or using informants. These will be properly examined at trial. I suspect once this case is adjudicated, H.A. will once again have egg on his face.
And don't be fooled: CAIR is not relieved about anything. They are in damage control mode.
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Hussam "Hot Air" Ayloush
Yesterday, the FBI in Los Angeles announced the arrest of Mark Steven Domingo, a 26-year-old Muslim convert living in Reseda, California, who is charged with planning to set off explosives and kill people as revenge for the attack against two mosques in New Zealand.
The Southern California CEO of CAIR, Hussam "Hot Air" Ayloush, is in damage control mode with his public response. Once again, a CAIR official implies that the FBI entrapped a Muslim.
https://ca.cair.com/losangeles/news/cair-la-expresses-relief-at-foiling-of-alleged-bombing-plot/
Before Mr Ayloush gets too wound up and invested in his entrapment conspiracy theory, let me explain a thing or two about entrapment law. I say this based on my own 25-year career as a Customs and later DEA agent.
Entrapment exists when law enforcement (or their informant) actually lead a person to commit an crime that person was not predisposed to commit. Predisposition is the key word. In this case, the question is-was Domingo predisposed to commit an act of terror prior to coming into contact with the FBI or its informant acting undercover? It appears from the information provided in the FBI press conference that he was predisposed- putting it out online what he wanted to do.
The fact that an FBI undercover agent or informant made contact with Domingo and acted with him-apparently delivering a fake bomb- is not entrapment. A person who is predisposed to commit a crime may be "afforded the opportunity" by an undercover operative. In this case, the undercover person pretended to help Domingo in his mission. Another example would be if an agent infiltrated a drug ring and was tasked with picking up a shipment of drugs and delivering it from point A to point B or person A to person B. That's not entrapment; it's just good undercover work. Same with an agent being introduced as a buyer to a drug dealer, who was already in the business. It is not entrapment when the drugs are delivered and the dealer is arrested. Again, prior statements or acts by a defendant and taped conversations will generally effectively counter any claims of entrapment.
If CAIR hacks like Ayloush want to (once again) claim FBI entrapment, good luck. That will be dealt with at trial. There are many safeguards and rules that go along with undercover work or using informants. These will be properly examined at trial. I suspect once this case is adjudicated, H.A. will once again have egg on his face.
And don't be fooled: CAIR is not relieved about anything. They are in damage control mode.
Friday, April 26, 2019
Swedish State Media and Islamic Terrorism
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Hat tip Katerina Magasin and Kronans Martell. Translation by Fousesquawk.
It would be hard to argue that any European country has caved to Islamic terror and supremacy more than Sweden. The rape capital of Europe even allows ISIS fighters who left Sweden to return with their families. Not only that, but they are given new identities, their old identities are erased even from police inspection, they are given job training and new residences.
The below article by Katerina Janouche in her blog, Katerina Magasin, reveals how Swedish state media is under reporting or covering up the Muslim slaughter of Christians and other religions. As example, she gives Sri Lanka, the disruption of a church service in Munich and the case of Nusrat Jahan Rafi.
http://katerinamagasin.se/sa-vilseleder-skattefinansierad-public-service-medvetet-om-muslimers-kriminalitet-och-terror/
How Much the Tax Financed Public Service Deliberately Misleads (on) Muslim Criminality and Terror
22 April 2019, 10:50am
Since January 1, 2019, all are involved and pay via our tax bills to be disinformed and misled by the large media platform, Public Service, which includes Swedish Television and Swedish Radio. If one were conspiracy (oriented), one might believe that there is an agenda to diminishing and hiding the acts carried out against Christians, Atheists and Jews by Muslims, in the name of Islam. Swedish Public Service has taken on the role for itself as educator of the people, where criticism against Islam is now seen as blasphemy, and where one is obviously expected to forgive and tolerate abominable acts when the perpetrators are Muslims.
It became clear with the terrible terror attack in Sri Lanka yesterday. Though, in principle, all the large international news channels reported early on that the terrorist acts were carried out by jihadists, i.e. radical Muslims, SVT chose several hours later to write that it was still not known who carried out the act.
In a long article, it was speculated instead that it could be Buddhists who were behind the attacks, where over 290 people, including many children, died and over 500 were injured. Only in a short bite are Muslim terrorists mentioned. This is generally an approach that Public Service has toward Islamic terror.
Now it is said that (a) "militant group" is behind the "attacks".
That there occurred an attack against church visitors in Munich by a Muslim criminal, where 24 people were injured, has not even been reported by Public Service.
Last week, the same thing occurred when SVT (Swedish Television) reported on Nusrat Jahan Rafi, a 19-year-old student who was killed by her school mates after she refused to take back her report of sexual harassment against the headmaster of the Islamic school in Bangladesh where she was studying. Nusrat Jahan Rafi was attacked and burned to death by five women in burkas. SVT, however, left out the connection to Islam in its reporting. SVT, however, uses BBC as a source, and thus, it is evident that it was known that the school was Islamic and that the killers were dressed in burkas, but they still chose to leave this out, (and) it does not even appear that all were women. It would be a stretch to believe that that SVT (would) leave out information that the perpetrators were white men or for that matter what one would call, "right extremists". Imagine if a black woman were attacked by a white man in a Nazi uniform? I guess that SVT wouldn't leave out these details. That tax-financed SVT, which should be impartial, fails to write the connection to Islam in the Rafi case is a scandal.
BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-47947117
SVT: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/anmalde-rektorns-overgrepp-brandes-till-dods
That other mainstream media and weak politicians back off from Islam and Muslim criminality and crimes against democracy and human rights is, unfortunately, a fact. The politicians are employed by the people, but lie wildly. Then one verbally changes Christians into "Easter worshippers" according to any international manual appears to be used by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Left party leader, Jonas Sjöstedt. Sweden's prime minister, Stefan Löfvén, who held a press conference after the terror attack against mosques in New Zealand, is carefully silent when Christian children are slaughtered. There isn't much talk about solidarity now. I wonder if the great Social Democrat leader is afraid to come up against his constituents, who, in large part, consist of Muslims?
He has seen what happened in Copenhagen last week, when riots arose when one dared to criticize the religion of peace and love, and threw a Koran (in the air). Twenty-three people were detained in the riots that arose....
And the Swedish Church, with Bishop Antje Jackelen in the lead, doesn't say much about if people should form human shields to protect Christian buildings and churches. The Swedish Church, which has even turned its back on its own symbol, the cross, has long since betrayed its Christian values, so it isn't very surprising. Nonetheless, it is true, really unpleasant.
The mainstream media is reluctant to write that it is about the terror by radical Muslims against Christians and non-believers, so called "unbelievers". Svenska Dagbladet, a newspaper that used to be bourgeois, expresses worry that the terror act in Sri Lanka will result in revenge against Muslims.
Nor does Swedish mainstream media report on the frequent attacks that take place against Christian buildings and targets all over Europe. Vandalism, graffiti, destruction. And quickly the fire at Notre Dame in Paris is dismissed as an "accident" despite the fact there are many indications that it may have been attack.
And at the same time, jihadists and their families are evidently welcome to Sweden.
With sadness in the heart, I am forced once again to note that lies, disinformation and coddling of terrorists seems to be the new Swedish model.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fousesquawk comment:
To a lesser extent, this is also true in the US. Our media also is hesitant to report Muslim terror and crime, and when they have to, they are careful to couch it very carefully. But when the media and people like Barack Obama downplay these horrible atrocities by referring to "Easter worshippers" and not saying anything about the fact that the attackers were Muslims on ba mission of jihad, they are betraying their own public, which is entitled to be fully informed on the dangers we are facing.
Make no mistake: The Islamists have turned it up a notch and things are getting worse instead of better despite the efforts of our political and religious leaders to placate Muslims hoping that if we were just a little bit nicer, it would all go away. Now they are attacking our churches and synagogues and in the case of Sri Lanka, while we are present and worshipping. Weakness and kindness have produced no positive results. On the contrary, it has only emboldened our enemies who believe we are ripe for the kill.
I write this not forgetting the horrible attack against Muslims in New Zealand. It also must be condemned, and we must not take out our rage on innocent Muslims who live in our countries. Yet, we as a people must stand up and tell the jiahdists and their US apologists that we will never submit to Islam. We must also let the phony Muslim moderates like CAIR, MPAC, the Shura Council, and so many other extremist Islamic organizations that we are onto their game of telling us that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamophobia is some evil danger, that Muslims are the real victims when these attacks occur. We must also continue to speak out openly about the true nature of this ideology, which is built around violence and hate towards those who follow other religions. In Sweden, that exposes people to risk that they could have their careers and lives destroyed by the power machine of the Social Democrats and the media. It is shameful, and true here in the US albeit to a lesser extent. We still have the First Amendment. We need to use it and protect it.
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Hat tip Katerina Magasin and Kronans Martell. Translation by Fousesquawk.
It would be hard to argue that any European country has caved to Islamic terror and supremacy more than Sweden. The rape capital of Europe even allows ISIS fighters who left Sweden to return with their families. Not only that, but they are given new identities, their old identities are erased even from police inspection, they are given job training and new residences.
The below article by Katerina Janouche in her blog, Katerina Magasin, reveals how Swedish state media is under reporting or covering up the Muslim slaughter of Christians and other religions. As example, she gives Sri Lanka, the disruption of a church service in Munich and the case of Nusrat Jahan Rafi.
http://katerinamagasin.se/sa-vilseleder-skattefinansierad-public-service-medvetet-om-muslimers-kriminalitet-och-terror/
How Much the Tax Financed Public Service Deliberately Misleads (on) Muslim Criminality and Terror
22 April 2019, 10:50am
Since January 1, 2019, all are involved and pay via our tax bills to be disinformed and misled by the large media platform, Public Service, which includes Swedish Television and Swedish Radio. If one were conspiracy (oriented), one might believe that there is an agenda to diminishing and hiding the acts carried out against Christians, Atheists and Jews by Muslims, in the name of Islam. Swedish Public Service has taken on the role for itself as educator of the people, where criticism against Islam is now seen as blasphemy, and where one is obviously expected to forgive and tolerate abominable acts when the perpetrators are Muslims.
It became clear with the terrible terror attack in Sri Lanka yesterday. Though, in principle, all the large international news channels reported early on that the terrorist acts were carried out by jihadists, i.e. radical Muslims, SVT chose several hours later to write that it was still not known who carried out the act.
In a long article, it was speculated instead that it could be Buddhists who were behind the attacks, where over 290 people, including many children, died and over 500 were injured. Only in a short bite are Muslim terrorists mentioned. This is generally an approach that Public Service has toward Islamic terror.
Now it is said that (a) "militant group" is behind the "attacks".
That there occurred an attack against church visitors in Munich by a Muslim criminal, where 24 people were injured, has not even been reported by Public Service.
Last week, the same thing occurred when SVT (Swedish Television) reported on Nusrat Jahan Rafi, a 19-year-old student who was killed by her school mates after she refused to take back her report of sexual harassment against the headmaster of the Islamic school in Bangladesh where she was studying. Nusrat Jahan Rafi was attacked and burned to death by five women in burkas. SVT, however, left out the connection to Islam in its reporting. SVT, however, uses BBC as a source, and thus, it is evident that it was known that the school was Islamic and that the killers were dressed in burkas, but they still chose to leave this out, (and) it does not even appear that all were women. It would be a stretch to believe that that SVT (would) leave out information that the perpetrators were white men or for that matter what one would call, "right extremists". Imagine if a black woman were attacked by a white man in a Nazi uniform? I guess that SVT wouldn't leave out these details. That tax-financed SVT, which should be impartial, fails to write the connection to Islam in the Rafi case is a scandal.
BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-47947117
SVT: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/anmalde-rektorns-overgrepp-brandes-till-dods
That other mainstream media and weak politicians back off from Islam and Muslim criminality and crimes against democracy and human rights is, unfortunately, a fact. The politicians are employed by the people, but lie wildly. Then one verbally changes Christians into "Easter worshippers" according to any international manual appears to be used by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Left party leader, Jonas Sjöstedt. Sweden's prime minister, Stefan Löfvén, who held a press conference after the terror attack against mosques in New Zealand, is carefully silent when Christian children are slaughtered. There isn't much talk about solidarity now. I wonder if the great Social Democrat leader is afraid to come up against his constituents, who, in large part, consist of Muslims?
He has seen what happened in Copenhagen last week, when riots arose when one dared to criticize the religion of peace and love, and threw a Koran (in the air). Twenty-three people were detained in the riots that arose....
And the Swedish Church, with Bishop Antje Jackelen in the lead, doesn't say much about if people should form human shields to protect Christian buildings and churches. The Swedish Church, which has even turned its back on its own symbol, the cross, has long since betrayed its Christian values, so it isn't very surprising. Nonetheless, it is true, really unpleasant.
The mainstream media is reluctant to write that it is about the terror by radical Muslims against Christians and non-believers, so called "unbelievers". Svenska Dagbladet, a newspaper that used to be bourgeois, expresses worry that the terror act in Sri Lanka will result in revenge against Muslims.
Nor does Swedish mainstream media report on the frequent attacks that take place against Christian buildings and targets all over Europe. Vandalism, graffiti, destruction. And quickly the fire at Notre Dame in Paris is dismissed as an "accident" despite the fact there are many indications that it may have been attack.
And at the same time, jihadists and their families are evidently welcome to Sweden.
With sadness in the heart, I am forced once again to note that lies, disinformation and coddling of terrorists seems to be the new Swedish model.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fousesquawk comment:
To a lesser extent, this is also true in the US. Our media also is hesitant to report Muslim terror and crime, and when they have to, they are careful to couch it very carefully. But when the media and people like Barack Obama downplay these horrible atrocities by referring to "Easter worshippers" and not saying anything about the fact that the attackers were Muslims on ba mission of jihad, they are betraying their own public, which is entitled to be fully informed on the dangers we are facing.
Make no mistake: The Islamists have turned it up a notch and things are getting worse instead of better despite the efforts of our political and religious leaders to placate Muslims hoping that if we were just a little bit nicer, it would all go away. Now they are attacking our churches and synagogues and in the case of Sri Lanka, while we are present and worshipping. Weakness and kindness have produced no positive results. On the contrary, it has only emboldened our enemies who believe we are ripe for the kill.
I write this not forgetting the horrible attack against Muslims in New Zealand. It also must be condemned, and we must not take out our rage on innocent Muslims who live in our countries. Yet, we as a people must stand up and tell the jiahdists and their US apologists that we will never submit to Islam. We must also let the phony Muslim moderates like CAIR, MPAC, the Shura Council, and so many other extremist Islamic organizations that we are onto their game of telling us that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamophobia is some evil danger, that Muslims are the real victims when these attacks occur. We must also continue to speak out openly about the true nature of this ideology, which is built around violence and hate towards those who follow other religions. In Sweden, that exposes people to risk that they could have their careers and lives destroyed by the power machine of the Social Democrats and the media. It is shameful, and true here in the US albeit to a lesser extent. We still have the First Amendment. We need to use it and protect it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)