R. Mordechai Finley: My experience of an active shooter incident

Posted on June 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

Rabbi Finley writes:

Sometime in 1979 (I actually forget exactly when), my ex-wife and I were at LAX picking up her sister and brother in law from a flight from Israel. I seem to recall that what is now the international terminal was under construction, so we met them at the baggage claim around where Terminal 3 is today.
While we were standing at baggage claim, I – we all – heard shots. I looked through the large plate-glass window, and on the other side I saw a woman holding what seemed to be an enormous handgun, shooting at people.
We – everyone – ran and hid. I pushed my then wife under a bench, and then I slid in beside her. Within a few seconds, though, my military training kicked in. I was just three years out of the Marines, and I distinctly remember thinking, “I am not going to get shot and killed here, hiding, lying down.” I decided to fight. I got up and went toward the sound of the gunfire.
I remember thinking the moment I got up that the sandals I was wearing were noisy. They flapped. I kicked them off and snuck toward the plate-glass window. (I have rarely worn sandals since).
I saw the woman stop shooting. I saw one wounded person through the glass; the rest had fled the hall. I then saw the woman walking out from the terminal to the sidewalk with gun in hand, make a right and head our way. I yelled at everyone who was hiding in the baggage claim area to get out quick. People seemed frozen in place. I yelled again for everyone to get out.
I hid on the side of the entrance to the baggage claim with my back to the narrow wall holding the plate glass, next to the sidewalk, determined to attack her when she turned the corner. A young Marine in uniform was tentatively approaching me from the side. I looked at the insignia on his upper sleeve, and said “Lance Corporal, when she turns this corner, you and I are going to take her down.”
Maybe when he saw me go toward the window it inspired him to join me. Not enough. I am sad to say that he thought for a brief second, then ran. I remember feeling alone.
She indeed came down the sidewalk and turned the corner. She was about my height (5’9”), or even taller. A big, heavy woman. She turned and faced me and still had the handgun in her hand right hand, but it was not (yet) pointed at me. I found myself staring into her eyes for what was probably a fraction of a second but seemed much longer. The white of her eyes (the sclera, to use the right word) were yellow. I saw what I could only describe as craziness. I felt mesmerized, swallowed up. Again, I think my military training kicked in, and I forced myself to into action.
I lunged at her before she could raise her gun. A man nearby, short but stocky, sprang up from his hiding place under some luggage right after I engaged her, bashing her with a suitcase. He and I got her down and pinned her. I seem to recall that I had her torso and he had her hands. When she slammed into the sidewalk, the gun spun out of her hand.

Posted in R. Mordecai Finley | Comments Off on R. Mordechai Finley: My experience of an active shooter incident

The Left’s Hypocrisy on Online Harassment and Anti-Semitism

Posted on June 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

Mike Cernovich writes: The Internet is a dangerous place, according to Jewish journalists who dislike having (((echoes))) places around their names. Yes, grown men are actually outraged that some trolls will put their last names in parentheses to identify them as Jews. People do (((this))) to me, by the way, too.

There are also plenty of pictures of me in ovens, and I’m told “the day of the rope” won’t be kind to me.

Oh well.

Cry more.

Why does the left cry about online harassment while ignoring the real-life harassment we receive?

When I or my friends attempt to hold a meeting or seminar, do you know what happens? People don’t post mean Tweets or call it a (((conference))). Instead they call in bomb threats to the venue. Or they make up lies about the people giving a seminar in order to no-platform us.

When I set up a Gorilla Mindset seminar, this message was sent to the venue owner:

Message: I believe you are hosting a seminar for Mike Cernovich. I thought you should know that he was tweeting today in favor of the shooting at planned parenthood in Colorado. Never want to see another business get tainted by such people.

This is a direct attack on my income and my reputation. Where was the media outrage?

SJWs have called the Los Angeles Police Department on me to attempt to have me Swatted. Where was the hand wringing from those who bravely signal their opposition to (((online trolls))).

The California State Bar has dealt with multiple false accusations against me.

I was falsely accused of threatening a woman who can’t wipe her own bottom with rape.

Where were their think pieces?

Let’s look at the “harassment” issue rationally.

On the one hand, Jewish pundits have people troll them. Guess what, people troll me every day. If you don’t have a thick skin, don’t share your words and ideas with the world.

Meanwhile I have people call the police on me, report me to the State Bar, and lie about me to prevent me from giving mindset seminars. (They always fail and I always give my seminars, which happen worldwide to rave reviews.)

And as far as my friends go, I have it pretty easy.

Vox Day had to hire private security for our happy hour in Paris France, which was covered in Le Monde.

Milo Yiannopoulos had his talk at DePaul university shut down due to violence:

Milo Yiannopoulos’ event at DePaul University had to be cut short Tuesday night after protesters stormed the stage, blew whistles, grabbed the microphone out of the interviewer’s hand, and threatened to punch Yiannopoulos in the face.

Roosh had entire countries ban him from entry after the dishonest media claimed he was holding seminars on how to rape people.

Where was the outrage from the (((mainstream media)))? Where were the “free speech bloggers”?

To the surprise of no one who follows these issues, the people who virtue signal how appalled they are by “online harassment” were silent.

The left doesn’t care about “harassment.”
They are simply looking to silence the right.

While media pundits complain about (((harassment))), I can’t even announce a seminar venue in advance due to the risk that a bomb threat will be called in, canceling my event.

I’ve had to waste time responding to complaints made to the State Bar.

And I had to leave my house for a weekend after a Swatting attempt was made on me.

The left doesn’t care. You won’t read articles in the New York Times disavowing violence from the left.

Posted in Internet | Comments Off on The Left’s Hypocrisy on Online Harassment and Anti-Semitism

Ann Coulter: Did Anyone Talking About Trump’s Speech Actually Hear It?

Posted on June 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Ann Coulter writes: The media have lost their minds after Trump’s magnificent speech on Monday. It’s all hands on deck, no attack is too extreme. Their main point is: DO NOT LOOK AT THAT SPEECH. It has “words that wound.” Much too dangerous even to read it.

Instead of reporting what Trump said, the media give us the “gist” of it (in the sense of an unrecognizable distortion). It was awful, Hitlerian, beneath our dignity as a nation. They lie about what he said and then attack their own lies as if they’re attacking Trump.

The Washington Post’s headline, which got their reporters banned from Trump’s press briefings, was: “Donald Trump seems to connect President Obama to Orlando shooting.”

I guess OK, You’re Right, didn’t sound professional, so the Post pretended not to understand Trump’s speech, at all. We can’t makes heads or tails of it, but he seems to be saying …

One thing Trump is not, is unclear.

Contrary to the Post’s headline suggesting that Trump had posited some crazy theory about Obama secretly meeting with Omar Mateen to plot the attack—No, this gun is much better for a mass shooting, Omar—Trump criticized the Obama administration policies that are not keeping us safe. (It’s completely unprecedented to respond to a mass murder by criticizing the policies that allowed it to happen!)

After San Bernardino and Orlando—also, the Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, Little Rock, Chattanooga and Times Square—quite obviously, Trump is right.

Washington Post: We’re confused. What do you mean?

How about: Washington Post seems to Connect President Bush to Abu Ghraib

Washington Post, May 26, 2006: “Bush has … addressed Abu Ghraib the same way he did last night: Expressing regret without responsibility.”

Or: Democrats Seem to Connect President Bush to Anti-Americanism in Muslim World

Washington Post, May 20, 2005: “It is certainly true that the Bush administration, at Guantanamo and at Abu Ghraib, is responsible for a good deal of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.”

Or: Washington Post Seems to Connect President Bush to Missing WMDs and Katrina Deaths

Washington Post, April 5, 2006: “How much was President Bush personally responsible for taking the country to war under false pretenses, or for the botched response to Hurricane Katrina? To hear the White House tell it, it wasn’t really his fault.”

In his speech, Trump said:

“The killer was an Afghan, of Afghan parents, who immigrated to the United States. His father published support for the Afghan Taliban, a regime which murders those who don’t share its radical views. The father even said he was running for president of that country.

“The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here.

“That is a fact, and it’s a fact we need to talk about.

“We have a dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens.”

Immediately after Trump’s speech, MSNBC’s Katie Tur “fact-checked” Trump, announcing that he had incorrectly said Omar was “born in Afghan.”

What did Tur think this meant? “Afghan” isn’t a country. Didn’t she pause for a moment and realize that what she thought he said makes no sense? Journalists with their outsized sense of importance say, No, no, that’s not what I heard. It says in my notes right here, you said, “blue carrots for Eisenhower.” I stand by my notes.

Obviously, what Trump said was that Omar was “born an Afghan.” Which he was.

The media began indignantly informing us that Trump was wrong because—as The Washington Post put it: “The shooter was born in Queens to parents who emigrated from Afghanistan.”

With the media, you’re an “American” when you commit the worst mass shooing in U.S. history, an “Afghan” when you’re applying to college. You’re an “American” when you shoot up the San Bernardino community center, a “Pakistani” when you’re offended by Trump’s remarks. You’re an “American” when you slaughter troops at Fort Hood, a “Muslim” when the Army realizes it can’t fire you.

This can lead to confusion. After the Post snippily corrected Trump on Omar not being an “Afghan” on Monday, on Tuesday, the Post admitted he was. Headline: “Orlando gunman said he carried out attack to get ‘Americans to stop bombing his country,’ witness says.”

The Atlantic’s Ron Fournier, Dispenser of Conventional Liberal Opinion, wrote an article on Trump’s speech titled “A Victory Lap in Blood” that would make any Social Justice Warrior proud.

Like the rest of the media’s reviews of a speech they apparently didn’t read, there were no quotes from Trump’s speech. Instead, Fournier [Send him mail] ran through a string of accusations, SJW-style: “You didn’t call it,” “You are helping ISIS recruit terrorists,” “You are dividing Americans …”

Trump never claimed he “called it,” but, if he ever does, Fournier has a fantastic takedown:

“You didn’t warn that an American man named Omar Mateen, a well-educated security guard investigated by the FBI for suspected ties to terrorism, would legally purchase a weapon made for warfare and use it to slaughter 49 people at a popular gay nightclub.”

Hillary Clinton is presidential because she wants to dramatically increase the number of unvetted Syrian refugees we bring in. But Trump is an embarrassment because he doesn’t have superhuman powers to know that a “man named Omar Mateen” would attack an Orlando nightclub.

Fournier repeated the fake fact currently sweeping the nation about Trump thinking he deserves congratulations, writing, “Donald Trump wants a pat on the back.”

But then Fournier made the fatal mistake of quoting Trump’s tweet allegedly saying this: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!”

Fournier’s “Trump wants a pat on the back” was 12 words away from Trump saying, “I don’t want congrats.” Even the most bored reader is probably going to make it that far.

Now you see why reporters aren’t quoting Trump and have to hope you won’t read the speech for yourself.

VDARE.com Note: Here it is, you can read or see for yourself—Donald J. Trump Addresses Terrorism, Immigration, and National Security, Donald J Trump for President, June 13, 2016.

COPYRIGHT 2015 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

Ann Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is the author of ELEVEN New York Times bestsellers—collect them here.

Her book, ¡Adios America! The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hell Hole, was released on June 1, 2015.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Ann Coulter: Did Anyone Talking About Trump’s Speech Actually Hear It?

What Creates Jihadis?

Posted on June 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* They become Jihadists because Islamic culture allows them to be, through its veneration of martyrdom. If you’ve got a quick path to glory, it doesn’t take much to push you down it.

* Just noting that an awful lot of the “Muslims condemn Orlando” headlined stories are in reality “Ahmadiyya Muslims condemn Orlando” stories.

The Ahmadiyya are a sect considered by Sunnis not to be Muslim, and are often attacked in places like Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The Glasgow shopkeeper killed for wishing a Happy Easter to Christians was an Ahmadiyya.

* The first Muslim to win a Nobel prize for science was an Ahmaddiya—only one of three so far.

The late Abdus Salam, a Pakistani, won the prize with Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg for the major development in physics known as electroweak theory.

For his trouble he has had the word “Muslim” removed from his tombstone and has no institutions, awards or places named after him. Pakistan stopped recognising Ahmaddiyas as Muslims in the 1970s and require them to renounce the founder of their sect before they can get a passport.

MORE COMMENTS:

* I saw a headline that said the FBI was investigating whether Mateen’s sexuality played a role in the event. Isn’t that illegal? I mean, to question one’s sexuality? Is this who we are? At tragic times and events like this, we question our sexuality?

* Who gave American politicians the mandate to inject unchecked ‘diversity’ into this country and when? Was it the 1965 immigration act? When I came to the US in the 1980s it was still the America we imagined it would be. I began noticing the change in the mid 1990s.

* Armenian Cher is defending Muslims & Islam on Twitter, even though Muslims murdered millions of her people. Muslims are not big fans of Armenians.

If her people were murdered by Germans for example instead of Muslims, I bet she would have an extreme hatred of Germans.

* The great sin was not shutting down immigration from the Middle East after 9/11.

Any halfway competent president would have done it, and it wouldn’t have even required congressional approval.

Bush was quite possibly the worst president in American history.

* “The difference today is that the Muslim Terminator wasn’t murdering elites like immigrant anarchists were a hundred odd years ago.”

Since 9/11, Islamic terror has mostly struck a bunch of low-rent nowheresvilles like San Bernardino and Orlando. So your point stands.

But on 9/11, they hit the most elite of elite zip codes. There was overwhelming political will to fix the problem. Bush could have signed an executive order shutting down MENA immigration in a week.

Instead he pranced around with Saudis, lecturing us about the “Religion of Peace,” and invading secular Arab nations.

* WP: “Carter, who was among several patrons Mateen held hostage after they’d tried to take refuge in a club bathroom, told a news conference Tuesday that Mateen asked if there were any African Americans in the bathroom. When one man answered yes, “the gunman responded back to him saying, ‘You know, I don’t have a problem with black people. This is about my country. You guys have suffered enough.’”

Oh, wow, even mass murdering fanatics/self-loathing homosexuals want to make sure they don’t come off as racists… in the middle of the rampage!

* The Dilbert man did a thought experiment last December on how many terrorism deaths would be acceptable as the cost of being good, clean liberals:

The odds of a Muslim immigrant being a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer is probably far lower than 1%, assuming we’re good at screening. I don’t know the exact odds, and neither do you, because it depends on how hard ISIS is trying to infiltrate in that particular way. If they are trying hard, one assumes the number is higher than if they are not trying. But the bottom line is that we don’t know.

I propose that instead of calling fellow citizens racists or idiots we do a deeper dive into the risks and put a price tag on our preference for religious intolerance. If the risk of future terror attacks is tiny, most of us would prefer maintaining our respect for religious differences.

But if the risk is more than tiny, can you put a price on your love of religious tolerance? In other words, how many dead Americans are you willing to accept? I’ll go first.

Personally, I would accept up to 1,000 dead Americans, over a ten-year period, to allow Muslim non-citizens to enter this country. My calculation assumes we are better off accepting some degree of tragedy in the name of freedom. That is often the case with freedom.

* Yeah, it’s been a really depressing couple of days. He [Trump] gave the speech of his life yesterday but I don’t think the public is ready for it and when they will be, it’ll be too late.

* I’m feeling pretty down too. Latest poll has the Evil One beating Trump 49-37. Too many simply don’t care about justice, fairness, or the truth in this country. Supposedly even with White men he’s only pulling 58%. You can’t save people who won’t save themselves, those who would rather signal than live.

Like George Carlin’s dog Tippy: “Poor Tippy was full of guilt. So much so, in fact, she’s the only dog I ever had who committed suicide. Yeah, well, we don’t say it like that around the house. We say she put herself to sleep. But she ran out in front of a milk truck. That’s f***ing suicide! But that was her decision. That’s what Tippy wanted to do. And that’s the way it is in our family. If you want to commit suicide, we back you up. So we supported Tippy in her little suicide decision…”

The White race is pulling a Tippy.

NYP: What we really need to reject is Islamophobia-phobia

A dangerous mindset has taken hold in America, but it isn’t Islamophobia. It’s Islamophobia-phobia.

In a large and growing segment of American society, fear of being tagged “racist” about Muslims (though Islam is not a race) provides a much more direct threat to your livelihood than radical Islam.

Former police officer Daniel Gilroy told Florida Today that he repeatedly raised red flags about Omar Mateen when both men worked at the same security firm, but his employer did nothing because Mateen was a Muslim.

The pattern is familiar. Before the Islamist attack that left 14 dead in San Bernardino last December, neighbor Aaron Elswick told ABC 7 News in Los Angeles that shooter Syed Farook was “kind of suspicious” and Elswick “wanted to report it” but “didn’t want to profile” him.

Before Army Maj. Nidal Hasan murdered 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, “He made his views known, and he was very vocal, he had extremely radical jihadist views,” Lt. Col. Val Finnell told FoxNews.com.

Finnell took health-services classes with Hasan, who said, “I’m a Muslim first, and I hold the Shariah, the Islamic Law, before the United States Constitution,” according to Finnell.

That statement alone disqualified Hasan from military service. No one did anything, Finnell added, because “they were too concerned about being politically correct.”

Perhaps nothing could have been done to stop Mateen’s rampage, but I have a sickening suspicion that we’re going to learn that many more warnings went unseen by those who blindfolded themselves with political correctness.

No one wants Muslims to feel harassed as a class, but it’s silly to pretend that being a Muslim makes you just another patch in the glorious American quilt, like being black or Jewish or gay.

In a poll of British Muslims, a majority said homosexuality should be illegal. Nearly a quarter said Shariah law should be imposed in Britain. Four percent — that’s tens of thousands of people — admitted they sympathized with suicide bombers.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off on What Creates Jihadis?

Why Orlando Massacre Has America So Angry With Itself — Guns, Islam and Especially Homophobia

Posted on June 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

J.J. Goldberg writes: For all the rancor in our national discourse over the past decade, it’s hard to remember a moment so dominated by vitriol and mutual loathing as the aftermath of the Orlando shooting. It’s almost as though we’re angrier at each other than at the murderer.
In part it’s the toxic impact of Donald Trump. But he’s merely sharpening the faultlines. Half of us, liberals, are outraged that America still doesn’t face up to the gun problem. The other half, conservatives, are appalled that we don’t look radical Islam square in the face and call it by its name. Those who think it’s all about guns dismiss the very notion of radical Islam problem as a bigoted distraction. Those who think it’s about radical Islam think the gun talk is just liberal whining.
Actually, both explanations are true. Both problems — guns and Islamist radicalism — are real, urgent and maddeningly complicated. Each side has something to teach the other. But that’s not how America works anymore. No, we line up with our teams and fire away at the opposition.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Why Orlando Massacre Has America So Angry With Itself — Guns, Islam and Especially Homophobia

How a Jewish Con Man Tried To Get Herbert Hoover To Think in Yiddish

Posted on June 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Walter Shapiro writes: “Not political by nature, Freeman grasped the biggest truth about presidential campaigns— millions of dollars flowed through party coffers with minimal accounting. That’s why he had tried to sell the Democrats in 1916 on paying him to produce a movie glorifying Woodrow Wilson. Now with Hoover running in 1928 against New York’s Democratic Governor, Al Smith, Freeman concocted a Jewish angle to pick up some Republican coin.”

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on How a Jewish Con Man Tried To Get Herbert Hoover To Think in Yiddish

Rabbis: Why We Shouldn’t Force Hasidic Jews To Offer Secular Education

Posted on June 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

There’s not a word in this essay about what is plainly in America’s interests. Clearly, America benefits from a population that is literate in its national language, English, and knows basic math and history and other secular subjects well enough to make a living.

America does not benefit from people who can’t read and write in English and thereby are less likely to live honestly and honorable. The rabbis are signing off on Hasidic Jews living like parasites. They’re fine with the heimish sucking off the welfare teat.

The welfare of America does not matter to these rabbis. It’s not even a consideration.

Marc B. Shapiro writes: “Two people have asked me to comment on Rabbis Yitzchok Adlerstein’s and Michael Broyde’s article here arguing that hasidic schools shouldn’t be forced to offer secular education. While the Seforim Blog is not the place for commenting on these sorts of matters, after reading the article I felt I had to make one point. Adlerstein and Broyde cite the famous Supreme Court case which allowed the Amish to opt out of secular education and they apply this logic to the hasidic communities. While it is true that if it went to court the hasidic communities would probably prevail, there is a big difference between the Amish and the hasidic communities. The Amish do not take welfare, food stamps, and other forms of government assistance. Thus, they make choices and live with the consequences. However, the hasidic communities refuse to provide their children with the basic skills needed to function in the modern economy, and as a result rely heavily on the welfare state. No one who believes in limited government and is opposed to the welfare state can support a situation where kids are allowed to grow up almost guaranteed to be in need of public assistance.”

Yitzchak Adlerstein and Michael J. Broyde write: More generally, many civil-liberties-minded Americans are skittish about any and all government regulation of religious practice. Since Employment Division v. Smith allowed the government to curtail religious rights incidentally, all religious liberty has been tenuous; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and its progeny have generally demanded of states and the federal government accommodation for sincerely held religious beliefs unless there is no other way to accomplish a very important governmental goal, and even then, no targeting of religion specifically is allowed. But supporters of religious freedom know they’re skating on thin ice all the time.
Satmar shares enough characteristics with the Old Order Amish that we think they would have little problem arguing in court that compelling secular education will destroy its basic religious values. This is reason enough for Jewish organizations not to rally to the side of New York State. In a legal showdown, Satmar will prevail: Yoder controls as a matter of law and denies the state the ability to force Satmar children to go to any school. If forced, Satmar can direct that its children go to an unlicensed Satmar yeshiva with no secular education at all and the Constitution protects that: A Satmar yeshiva is as protected as an Amish farm.
There is yet another good reason why Jewish organizations have not spoken up on the side of the State. While Satmar can challenge the curricular intrusion under Yoder, the State can push back by connecting any financial assistance to the teaching of the New York curriculum. This would, of course, be completely constitutional — even as the State cannot force children into schools if they do not want to go, the State is under no obligation to pay for a yeshiva education, just like it does not have to pay for Amish to work the farm.
The difference is government funding. The Amish were not funded by the state. Not so Satmar: Its yeshivas are beneficiaries of the many different programs the State and City of New York provide to private schools, from money for lunches for poor children to transportation assistance to many more programs of great value.
If there is a battle, the yeshivas will stay open under Yoder, but no state aid will be provided to such yeshivas, because they will not be recognized as schools. “Until now there were also strict laws, but because we live in a kingdom of benevolence, to put it bluntly they simply turned a blind eye to what’s going on by the Jewish children,” said Satmar Rebbe Aaron Teitlebaum in a May 4 address. That’s where Satmar is vulnerable — and might have to make a painful decision.

Posted in Hasidim, R. Michael J. Broyde, R. Yitzhock Adlerstein | Comments Off on Rabbis: Why We Shouldn’t Force Hasidic Jews To Offer Secular Education

JJ: New head of Anne Frank Center wants a rights agenda as aggressive as he is

Posted on June 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Many people don’t know that gay rights were Anne Frank’s passion.

Jewish Journal: Garden State Equality helped pass hundreds of gay-rights laws in New Jersey, including allowing same-sex marriage in 2013. Goldstein, however, sees himself as an advocate for social justice broadly — and says he’s “18 times more Jewish than gay.” LGBT rights, he says, aren’t even his top issue. That would be pro-Israel advocacy.
“It reminds me of actors who are associated with one part for the rest of their lives,” he said. “Jerry Seinfeld will be associated with his character on ‘Seinfeld.’ There’s absolutely nothing he can do about it. I never wanted to spend my life as a gay civil rights leader.”
Now Goldstein has the chance to play a new part. Starting Tuesday, he’ll be the executive director of the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, a relatively obscure Holocaust memorial organization based in downtown Manhattan. Goldstein wants to turn it into a national leader in fighting hate and discrimination of all kinds.
Founded in 1959 by Otto Frank, Anne’s father, the center was originally the American counterpart to the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam. The house shows visitors where the family hid during the Holocaust, along with running educational programs about the Holocaust and the dangers of anti-Semitism and racism. It has run programs in more than 50 countries, from Japan to South Africa.
Goldstein plans to expand that mission by establishing five institutes, led by prominent activists and academics, that will focus on civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, religious discrimination and journalism. He plans to release policy reports on those topics.
He also aims to open offices in Los Angeles, South Florida and a dozen other cities with large Jewish communities, and hold annual conferences for youth and women’s rights activists. He wants to support young filmmakers documenting social justice struggles.
His philosophy, in three words: “Bigger is better.”
“It’s not about are you going to do this over that,” he said. “For those who say you can’t do it all at once: first of all, watch. Welcome to Steven-land.”
Goldstein’s allies say he’s got a flare for the big. When he and Loretta Weinberg, a New Jersey state senator whom he says is “like a mother to me,” got a same-sex civil unions bill passed in 2006, he offered to host a small gathering at her Teaneck office. When Weinberg arrived, she saw teams from every major TV network.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on JJ: New head of Anne Frank Center wants a rights agenda as aggressive as he is

The Plight Of Christian Arabs

Posted on June 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Sadly, almost no one is particularly interested in the plight of Christian Arabs.

I don’t think it takes much analysis to see why Obama’s lack of interest in Christian Arabs is not much different from Dubya’s lack of real interest. Most humans have a “bully” instinct, an instinctive contempt for losers and failures. Christian Arabs are the losers of the Middle East – once dominant, then living for centuries at the mercy of their Muslim overlords. Even in the 19th century most European Christians never seem to have had much sympathy for them.

* When Trump referred to the Orlando terrorist as “an Afghan” in his speech on Monday, journos jumped on Twitter to correct him: “He was born in America!”.

Now we hear the killer referred to Afghanistan as “my country” and claimed affiliation with the Islamic State. Had he called himself a woman, the PC left would insist he was a woman. But Trump calling him an Afghan is a mark of ignorance.

* For today’s “left,” if you’re born with male genitalia but identify as a woman – you’re a woman. On the other hand, if you’re born in America but identify with your Afghan ancestors, your an American. (At least, if you do anything bad).

* The Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, blamed the 9/11/2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. ambassador to Libya in Benghazi on a Coptic Christian’s YouTube video. Copts are Egyptian Christians though the Obama administration appears to consider them to be Arabs (viz. “Arab Spring”).

An analogy would be if in the 1930s, the U.K. ambassador in Germany was murdered by a group of Nazis and the U.K. prime minister blamed anti-Hitler literature, produced by a German Jew living in the U.K., for the murder. How would “history” view this Prime Minister?

* During Ottoman times and presumably before, Christians and Muslims were viewed as separate groups. The people who today we identify as Christian Arabs would have considered themselves to be Assyrians, Chaldeans, Copts, Maronites, Greek Orthodox, etc., but not Arabs. Arabs were Muslim.

However starting in the 1920s, Arab nationalism was invented by a few intellectuals and some Christians in these regions began identifying as Arab. After the rise of secular dictators in the 40s and 50s, these regimes had an interest in promoting a supposed shared ethnic identity among the people and suppressed separate identifications. Many Christians became enthusiastic participants in the new nationalistic Baathist regimes, the PLO and so on.

Now with the rise of Islamism the Christians of the region have discovered how the Muslims actually feel about them, and it is often not as fellow co-ethnics. As the old Muslim saying goes ‘First the Saturday People, then the Sunday People,” meaning once the Arab countries have been rid of Jews, which was accomplished after 1948, they can be rid of Christians. At this point they largely are. For example Jordan has gone from 30% Christian in 1950 to 5% today. ISIS may be removing the last traces of the 2000 year old Assyrian Christian community from its territory.

Lessons of history usually go unlearned, but many people in the West would benefit from understanding what happened to the Christians of the Middle East. They tried to ally with Muslims only to find out that the alliance was all take and no give.

Posted in Arabs | Comments Off on The Plight Of Christian Arabs

Steve Sailer: Is This the Most 2016ish Thing of 2016?

Posted on June 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: Commenter Twinkie calls our attention to this characteristic anecdote from 2016, as recounted in the Washington Post article entitled “Inside the Hate-Filled Mind of a Mass Murderer:”

Carter, who was among several patrons Mateen held hostage after they’d tried to take refuge in a club bathroom, told a news conference Tuesday that Mateen asked if there were any African Americans in the bathroom. When one man answered yes, “the gunman responded back to him saying, ‘You know, I don’t have a problem with black people. This is about my country.* You guys have suffered enough.’”

Twinkie comments: “Oh, wow, even mass murdering fanatics/self-loathing homosexuals want to make sure they don’t come off as racists… in the middle of the rampage!”

By the way, you’ll notice that poor Latinos remain completely out of the running in the Oppressed Minority sweepstakes. Here’s Omar taking time out while slaughtering dozens of Latinos to express sympathy for the plight of African-Americans. As a New York Times subscriber, I blame straight white Christian men for Omar’s lack of awareness of how much Latinos have been discriminated against. (By the way, should I also subscribe to the Washington Post for the duration of the election campaign? I sense that the Post is ferociously dedicated to outdoing the Times in 2016 in generating iSteve-worthy content. On the the other hand, while I feel quite calm, I’m not sure if even my good-natured sanity could withstand five months of the WaPo’s mania.)

*As we all know, Omar Mateen was an AMERICAN CITIZEN, born right down the street from Donald Trump. Omar’s reference to Afghanistan as “my country” must have been due to evil Trump brainwaves from the future affecting him via a time portal.

Omar’s massacre couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the inherent tensions in our elites’ grand strategy of Invade the World & Invite the World, because Invade the World & Invite the World is not a thing. It’s just not. Why are you even thinking about it when you haven’t been told to think about it? Before answering, remember that anything you might say goes on your Permanent Record. So it’s probably best for all concerned if you just Shut Up.

COMMENTS:

* The whole Post article really has to be read to be believed. The Pulitzer-Prize winning “reporter” (aptly named A. Nutt) begins by asking “what can science tell us” about Mateen’s motivations…she then interviews a “social psychologist” (God help us all) who delivers herself of the profound insight that “hate of other people is really displaced hate of oneself.” From this it follows that when Donald Trump says mean things about Muslims, it adds to their self-hatred, which then turns into hatred of others, leading to terrorist killing sprees. Or something like that. SCIENCE! Where would we be without it?

Posted in America | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Is This the Most 2016ish Thing of 2016?