Luke Ford | No sacred cows.

Opinion: U.S. Jews Responding to Donald Trump Should Learn From French Jews and Le Pen

Posted on December 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

The two largest Jewish communities in the West found themselves responding to a far-right racist surge this week. The first, on Sunday night, were the Jews of France, faced with the resounding success of Marine Le Pen’s National Front in the first round of regional elections, in which the party received the largest number of votes and came first in half the country’s regions.
A day later, it was the turn of American Jews, shocked – like the majority of their fellow Americans – by a speech by Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump in which he called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
In cases like these, silence is not an option. Le Pen has tried, with some success, to “detoxify” the National Front’s image from the proto-fascist party her anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying father, Jean Marie Le Pen, founded. However, the suspicion continues to linger. The front’s change of focus to France’s Muslim minority may have taken the heat off the Jews, but it has kept the party in its xenophobic corner. Trump himself has no history of anti-Semitism, he even has a daughter who converted to Judaism, but his racist proposal can’t be left without a response. Jews have too much historical memory of the price of not protesting such ideas.
And the responses were swift in coming. The morning after the election in France, French Jewry’s representative body, the CRIF, put out a press release calling on all French voters to “block the National Front” in the second round of voting next week, describing it as “a xenophobic and populist party” and exhorting France to “not let the Republic give way in the face of threats.” Le Pen hit back, calling CRIF a “tool of the establishment” in a radio interview. The French Jewish leadership did not back down. Chief Rabbi Chaim Korsia joined in, calling upon the French to keep “national cohesion” and vote against “obscurantists” and “proponents of exclusion.”
Twenty-four hours later, across the Atlantic, Jewish organizations were just as quick in denouncing Trump. The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement saying that his proposal “singles out Muslims” and is “deeply offensive and runs contrary to our nation’s deepest values.” Other groups, like the American Jewish Committee and Reform Judaism, joined in the condemnation.
But there was a contrast between the Jewish response in France and in the U.S.. While French Jewry’s denunciation was sweeping, coming from the organization and rabbi representing the community’s mainstream, the response in America was largely from groups identified with the more liberal and left-of-center sector of the community.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off

White Student Unions

Posted on December 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Radix Journal: Nathan Damigo of The Nameless Organization joins Richard Spencer to discuss the White Student Union phenomenon.

National Youth Front (NYF) at Rutgers
NYF in USA Today
NYF in Boston Magazine
The Dispossed Temp Blog
The Dispossessed Majority, by Wilmot Robertson
Abigail James, “The Long Troll”
University of Illinois FB Page
Buzzfeed, “Most Of Those “White Student Union” Facebook Pages For Canadian Universities Are Probably Fake”
Breitbart, “White Student Unions Are not ‘Hoaxes’ Created by Racists”
Ron Unz, “The Myth of American Meritocracy
Derek Bell, “Interest Convergence”

Posted in Academia | Comments Off

Why Do You Need Feminism?

Posted on December 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Posted in Feminism | Comments Off

Even After San Bernardino, Muslim Advocacy Group Gets Cold Shoulder From Jews

Posted on December 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

From the Forward: Hours after news broke of the shooting in San Bernardino, California, a group of Muslim community leaders gathered at a press conference to deliver a harsh condemnation of the deadly attack carried out by Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik. The activists were members of the Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization that has emerged as the most prominent voice of American Muslim fighting Islamophobia and calling for multi-faith tolerance.
But for most in the organized Jewish committee, CAIR is out of bounds.
For Jewish groups that see building ties with the American Muslim community as a key communal interest, CAIR’s position at the center of Muslim life poses awkward problems. But a mix of decades-old judicial allegations that the group has had ties with Hamas and more recent anti-Israel rhetoric from CAIR officials has served to render the group unacceptable for most Jewish organizations.

Posted in Islam, Jews | Comments Off

Five Police Officers Claim Donald Trump Is Right About Parts of London Being So ‘Radicalised’ They Are No-Go Areas

Posted on December 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Martin Robinson, Daily Mail, December 9, 2015

Serving police officers today backed Donald Trump’s claim that some Muslim communities in the UK are no-go areas because of extremism.

Several Met officers have said the ‘Islamification’ of some parts of the capital requires ‘extra vigilance’ and they can’t wear uniforms for safety reasons–despite Scotland Yard claiming the tycoon ‘couldn’t be more wrong’.

Home Secretary Theresa May tonight rejected Mr Trump’s claims, insisting: ‘The police in London are not afraid to go out and police the streets.’

The US presidential contender caused worldwide consternation yesterday after a string of incendiary remarks about Muslims, including in Britain, and said: ‘We have places in London and other places that are so radicalised that police are afraid for their own lives.’

But one serving officer said today Trump had ‘pointed out something plainly obvious, something which I think we aren’t as a nation willing to own up to’.

Another policeman said that he and other colleagues fear being terror targets and spoke of the ‘dire warning’ from bosses not to wear a uniform ‘even in my own car’.

It came as more than 250,000 people–seven people every second–signed a petition demanding Mr Trump is banned from Britain for being a ‘hate preacher’–an idea rejected by Chancellor George Osborne.

Mr Trump has said the US should close its borders to all Muslim migrants and claims parts of Britain are no-go areas because of Islamic extremism.

MPs responded by calling for the property tycoon to be stopped from entering Britain, where he owns several golf courses. Scotland Yard also hit back last night,

But one serving officer in west London said: ‘Islamification has and is occurring’, adding: ‘You have to have extra vigilance in certain parts when you are working’.

He told right-wing website Breitbart: ‘When I was a teenage lad in Burnley there were no go white areas. This is the case still nationally, including London where you have to have extra vigilance in certain parts when you are working’.

A Lancashire Police officer told MailOnline: ‘There are Muslim areas of Preston that, if we wish to patrol, we have to contact local Muslim community leaders to get their permission’.

One officer from Yorkshire said on the online forum Police.Community: ‘I’m not allowed to travel in half blues to work anymore IN MY OWN CAR as we’re ‘All at risk of attack’–yet as soon as someone points out the obvious it’s ‘divisive.’

He added: ‘In this instance he (Trump) isn’t wrong. Our political leaders are best either ill-informed or simply being disingenuous.

‘He’s pointed out something that is plainly obvious, something which I think we aren’t as a nation willing to own up to–do you think a US Police Department would ban officers from wearing their uniforms under jackets etc due to FEAR of their cops being killed by extremists?

‘We implement half measures such as ‘No-one is allowed to come into work half blues, even in your own cars because if you get beheaded it’ll be your own fault.

‘It would be seen as un-American, un-democratic, not the done thing… In the UK though we accept it’.

One female officer in the Met said if a police officer was attacked it would be written off.

She said: ‘Even if one of us did get killed or dragged off in a van. It would just be reported as a ‘one-off incident’ and no reason to change the ‘British style of policing.’

Another Met officer who resigned this year said: ‘I was a PC in the Met for 11 years–I resigned as I couldn’t handle it anymore

‘Whilst provocative Trump’s comments does carry some weight. PCs are not permitted to even come to work in ‘half Blues’ (just wearing trousers and shirt) for fear of attack whilst going to work. That is a directive from Scotland Yard.

‘PCs have come out to find police cars having the brake lines cut and sometimes their own personal cars damaged’.

Another serving police officer agreed and said: ‘Same here regarding the dire warnings of wearing half blues even in my own car and I’m not in London’.

But another officer responded: ‘I don’t think banning people from wearing half blues/blacks (uniforms) on the way in is about fear, I think it’s about minimising risk wherever possible. If there’s enough evidence to support the current threat level then why make life easy for people who will try and target us?’.

Another serving officer told LBC Radio: ‘There has been a time when it’s been advised not to wear half-blues or uniform to and from work.

‘It’s like damage limitation. You try to do the most you can to prevent anything bad from happening.

‘All intelligence is around you and you do the best with that to essentially stay safe. And if that means taking measures to not identify yourself off-duty too much then so be it.

‘It’s covering your backs. It’s a common sense approach’.

In 2014 Tom Winsor, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, caused a row when he claimed minority communities had turned their back on police.

He told The Times: ‘There are some communities born under other skies who will not involve police at all.

‘I am reluctant to name the communities in question but there are communities from other cultures who would prefer to police themselves.

‘There are cities in the Midlands where the police never go because they are never called. They never hear of any trouble because the community deals with that on its own. They just have their own form of community justice’.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off

Plan to Bar Foreign Muslims by Donald Trump Might Survive a Lawsuit

Posted on December 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Charlie Savage, New York Times, December 8, 2015:

When Donald J. Trump called on Monday for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” many legal scholars were aghast and said that such a ban would certainly be struck down by courts as blatantly unconstitutional.

But on Tuesday Mr. Trump clarified his proposal, saying that he would exclude only foreign Muslims, not Muslim American citizens who travel abroad and then seek to come home. That distinction, legal specialists said, made it far less likely the courts would strike it down.

{snip}

Several legal scholars who specialize in immigration, international and constitutional law said a policy of excluding all foreign Muslims from visiting the United States would still be “ludicrously discriminatory and overwrought,” as Gerald L. Neuman, a Harvard Law School professor, put it. But he said that it was far from clear that the Supreme Court would block it.

Under a provision of immigration law, Congress has already delegated to the president broad power to issue a proclamation indefinitely blocking “the entry of any class of aliens into the United States” that he or she thinks would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” No president has ever used that power in such a sweeping way, but the text provides a potential statutory basis for a President Trump to carry out his plan, specialists said.

Still, if Mr. Trump won the White House and invoked that power as a justification to bar all foreign Muslims, people affected by that policy inside the United States–like a person seeking reunification with a family member, or a university that wanted to invite someone to come speak–could file a lawsuit challenging it.

Several legal questions would be raised by such a policy.

First, as a matter of international law, a treaty the United States has ratified, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bars laws that discriminate against people because of their religion. It protects “all persons,” not just citizens of a member state.

But any lawsuit invoking that provision of the treaty would face an uphill struggle, the specialists said, because Congress has not acted to make that provision enforceable by domestic courts. So even if Mr. Trump’s policy clearly violated the provision, it is doubtful that the Supreme Court would decide that the treaty provided the judiciary with authority to strike the policy down, the specialists said.

Second, as a matter of domestic constitutional law, barring foreigners from visiting–or even barring the return of green card-holding lawful permanent residents–would be subject to a different legal test.

Because decisions about which foreigners to permit into the country are closely related to issues of foreign policy, the courts have long adopted an extremely deferential approach to reviewing such policies by Congress and the executive branch.

Indeed, for most of American history, including a famous 1889 Supreme Court decision upholding a statute passed by Congress that barred all Chinese people from coming to the United States, courts would not even review such decisions. That changed in the 1970s, when the Supreme Court began holding that it could review them.

But even after that change, the court adopted an extraordinarily solicitous standard: So long as the government cites a reason that sounds legitimate on its face for barring a foreigner from entering the country, the justices will uphold it without further scrutiny.

In practice, since establishing that standard, the Supreme Court has never overturned a decision to deny entry to someone.

Posted in America | Comments Off

Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Likely GOP Primary Voters Back Trump’s Muslim Ban

Posted on December 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

John McCormick, Bloomberg Politics, December 9, 2015:

Almost two-thirds of likely 2016 Republican primary voters favor Donald Trump’s call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while more than a third say it makes them more likely to vote for him.

Those are some of the findings from a Bloomberg Politics/Purple Strategies PulsePoll, an online survey conducted Tuesday, that shows support at 37 percent among all likely general-election voters for the controversial proposal put forward by the Republican front-runner.

“We believe these numbers are made up of some people who are truly expressing religious bigotry and others who are fearful about terrorism and are willing to do anything they think might make us safer,” Doug Usher, who runs polling for Washington-based Purple Strategies, said in his analysis of the findings. “This indicates that, despite some conventional wisdom expressed in the last 48 hours, this is unlikely to hurt Trump at least in the primary campaign.”

Support for Trump’s proposal remains virtually unchanged even after voters are told both sides of the argument. {snip}

When voters were provided with this additional information, support for the proposal remains essentially unchanged, with 64 percent of likely Republican primary voters saying they favor the idea. That includes 52 percent who say they strongly support the proposal.

After being told about the idea, 37 percent of likely Republican primary voters say it makes them more likely to support the billionaire real estate mogul, while 16 percent say less and 46 percent say it has no impact.

Posted in America | Comments Off

White Nationalist and Anti-Muslim Fringe Embrace Trump Proposal

Posted on December 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Andrew Kaczynski and Christopher Massie, BuzzFeed, December 8, 2015:

A coalition of America’s top white nationalists again praised an initiative from Republican front-runner Donald Trump, this time praising his plan to restrict Muslim immigration to the United States.

In what is becoming a fairly routine ritual in a campaign that has seen no shortage of racially charged rhetoric from the Republican front-runner, American’s prominent white nationalists again found comfort in a proposal from The Donald.

“I would not let in any Muslim immigrants at all, from Syria or from anywhere else,” said Jared Taylor, who runs the site American Renaissance (which says that “one of the most destructive myths of modern times is that people of all races have the same average intelligence”), in an email to BuzzFeed News in mid-November. “They only cause trouble. Even if they don’t throw bombs, they want special food, won’t work with pork, want special swimming pool hours for women only, etc. Who needs them?”

Taylor, unprompted, emailed BuzzFeed News on Monday after Trump’s comments, forwarding the previous comments with addendum “you saw it here first.”

{snip}

Brad Griffin, who runs the white nationalist blog Occidental Dissent under the pseudonym “Hunter Wallace,” similarly praised Trump.

“In addition to the Trump database, this should help Trump peel off a lot of the Carson/Cruz vote while sending the Left into a new fit of PC rage that will generate free publicity through Iowa,” wrote Griffin.

“That’s great,” Griffin said of Trump’s policy. “We need to stop the damage the U.S. government is already doing to places like Minneapolis–St. Paul and Middle Tennessee with the refugee resettlement program. It was revealed today that ISIS is targeting the refugee program to funnel terrorists into the U.S.”

On the white nationalist site VDare.com, Trump’s comments drew rave reviews across the board. In one post from editor James Kirkpatrick seeking donations to the site, Trump’s call was cited as proof The Donald was embracing the white nationalist cause.

“Even as this is written, Donald Trump has come out for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, just days after our Editor-in-Chief Peter Brimelow advocated precisely the same thing,” wrote Kirkpatrick. “They may not admit it, but more people than ever are reading VDARE.com. And finally, people are beginning to act.”

In another post, writer Allan Wall called the idea “fantastic.”

“I am a conservative Evangelical Christian and I think Trump’s idea is fantastic. They don’t have Muslim terrorism in Japan, do they,” he wrote.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off

National Security Profiling (Of Ethnicity, Nationality And Religion) Is a No-Brainer

Posted on December 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Michelle Malkin writes:

Calm down and think, America.

While everyone’s undies are in a bunch over Donald Trump’s proposal for a Muslim immigration moratorium, it is undeniable in a time of “heightened alert“—when violent jihadists have no problem targeting their enemies here and around the world—that national security profiling is imperative to our survival.

Yes, that means taking politically incorrect criteria such as ethnicity, nationality and religion into account when battling radical Islamist throat-slitters, suicide bombers and hijackers who incinerate children on airplanes traveling to Disneyland, plant bombs in their shoes, underwear, soda bottles and belts, and shoot up concert halls, restaurants, malls, Army bases and social services centers.

Yes, that means unapologetic government tracking of Arab and Muslim foreign students, high-risk Muslim refugees, Muslim chaplains serving in the military and in prisons, and Arab and Muslim pilots and flight students.

Yes, that means taking immigration status into account to apply increased, common-sense scrutiny of temporary visa holders from jihadist breeding grounds.

All temporary visa-holders—foreign students, tourists, businesspeople and guest workers—are here by privilege, not by right. Their visas can and should be revoked whenever necessary to protect national security.

It is not “un-American” to bar any new religious visas for dangerous Muslim clerics or to freeze visas issued to travelers from official state sponsors of terrorism.

It is not contrary to our “values” to prioritize the immediate removal of all illegal visa overstayers and deportation fugitives from terror-sponsoring and terror-supporting nations.

Should we have a special registration system for visa holders from jihadist strongholds? Hell, yes. After 9/11, the feds put in place a National Security Entry-Exit Registration System that required higher scrutiny and common-sense registration requirements for individuals from jihad-friendly countries including Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, as well as other at-risk countries.

The basic components included a more rigorous application process in light of the shoddy visa questionnaires and undetected overstays of the 9/11 hijackers; 30 extra minutes of interviewing at ports of entry; a digital fingerprint check and in-person registration after they arrived in the interior of the country; and verification of departure once they exited.

The targeted registration of certain foreign nationals already in the country (temporary visa holders including students, tourists and businesspeople) resulted in the detection and apprehension of at least 330 known foreign criminals and three known terrorists who had attempted to come into the country at official ports of entry—including suspected al-Qaida operatives who were caught trying to enter the U.S. after their fingerprints matched ones lifted by our military officials from papers found in Afghanistan caves.

Posted in America, Immigration | Comments Off

Happy Birthday To Ann Coulter!

Posted on December 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Ann Coulter writes:

For my best birthday gift this week, Donald Trump called for blocking Muslim immigration to the United States. If he throws in all immigration, it will be my merriest Christmas ever.

By contrast, the eunuchs running against Trump went mental.

Marco Rubio called Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration “offensive and outlandish.”

Rubio’s idea for stopping Muslim terrorist attacks on U.S. soil is something simple: Launch several wars to clean up the entire Middle East.

Chris Christie called Trump’s plan “ridiculous,” saying, “This is the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don’t know what they’re talking about.”

People with “experience” say things like: Walls don’t work and are “too expensive.”

Ted Cruz said he disagreed with Trump and instead would focus on “radical Islamic terrorism.” Cruz will have a lot more radicals to focus on if we keep importing a quarter million Muslims every year.

And these were Republicans. MSNBC acted as if the nation had come under terrorist attack (by a Muslim immigrant) with its round-the-clock, breaking-news coverage of Trump’s proposal, rife with images of dangerous demagogues from George Wallace to Hitler.

People without real arguments call anything they don’t like “racist” or “unconstitutional.”

Trump’s proposal is neither — I won’t waste space mentioning 100 years of constitutional law and practice, but of course our country has absolute authority to decide who gets to immigrate here.

In the 14 years since Muslims killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11, this country has admitted another 1.5 million Muslims. So we’re xenophobic, bigoted racists if we don’t make it 2 million? Three million? When will we have enough? How many murdered Americans is an acceptable number before we can shut off the spigot of Muslim immigration?

The amazing thing is that no one (except the American people) wants any pause in Muslim immigration — even after more than a dozen Muslim terrorist attacks on our soil in the last 15 years.

House Speaker Paul Ryan announced that he will refuse to consider cuts to Muslim immigration, saying, “That’s not who we are.”

Republicans are totally copacetic with Pew’s recent finding that white Christians are now a minority in America, but furious with Trump for suggesting we take a break from importing Muslims.

Can we move them to Ryan’s district? According to Pew, only 11 percent of Muslims are Republican or “lean Republican.” They may not make the “best Americans” — as Ryan claims — but at least they’d get rid of him.

The hysterical demand for never-ending Third World immigration has gone beyond the rich’s need for cheap servants and the Democrats’ need for voters. It’s a mass psychosis.

Everyone acts as if Pakistani pushcart operators are the same as American blacks, and we’re required to bring them here to make up for the legacy of slavery.

Foreigners aren’t the descendants of American slaves! The rest of the world does not have a civil right to move here. We’re under no moral imperative to allow any immigration at all. We don’t owe citizens of other countries anything.

But as long as you brought it up: They owe us. America runs around saving other countries from tsunamis, earthquakes, pirates, disease, starvation, warlords, dictators, Nazis, communists — then their citizens show up full of grievances, as if we owe them.

Angry Muslims have been popping up all over TV to denounce Trump and complain about anti-Muslim bigotry in the U.S. If they’d prefer a country with a larger Muslim population and no white devil oppressors, low-rent mud huts are available in any of about 50 Muslim countries around the world. First month free; after that, two goats a month.

In addition to the thoughtful policy objection that Trump is a racist, we’ve been treated to an endless stream of stunningly stupid arguments against Trump’s proposal.

Fox News’ Dana Perino complained that Trump’s policy doesn’t “distinguish the peaceful from the radicals.”

Yeah, nor can our government.

Given the devastation caused by only two Muslims in San Bernardino, eight Muslims in Paris, two at the Boston Marathon, one at a Chattanooga military recruitment center, one at Fort Hood, 19 on 9/11, etc. etc. — it’s really irrelevant whether “most” Muslim immigrants are peaceful little lambs. It doesn’t take a lot of them to create havoc.

I don’t know why we need any.

While it’s fantastic news that most Muslim immigrants aren’t terrorists, as Samuel Johnson said, “A horse who can count to 10 is a remarkable horse, not a remarkable mathematician.”

We want remarkable Americans, not immigrants whose selling point is: “hasn’t blown anything up yet.” What’s the upside of admitting 250,000 poor, culturally backward, non-English-speaking Muslims every year? When are we allowed to talk about what’s good for America?

San Bernardino shooter Syed Farouk’s mother described his father — the original immigrant — this way: “My husband is mentally ill and is on medication but is also an alcoholic and drinks with the medicine.”

Fantastic. So glad we got him. The father, who has been here since 1973 — thanks, Teddy Kennedy! — told an Italian newspaper that he preached moderation to his son, saying it’s not worth fighting Israel, because Russia, China and the U.S. “don’t want Jews there any more.” In “two years,” he assured his son, “Israel will not exist any more.”

So after four decades in American culture, these highly integrated, model immigrants are still clinging to their insane magic potion fantasies.

The senior Farouk didn’t come here to work in some highly complex technical field, like nuclear physics or cell extraction biology. He’s a truck driver. So one American lost his job as a truck driver and 14 Americans lost their lives because of Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act.

How else have the 1.5 million Muslims admitted since 9/11 made our country better? Their massive welfare use? Overburdening our schools and hospitals? The machete attacks? The clitorectomies? The honor killings? The occasional terrorist attack?

Currently, there are more than a thousand active investigations of ISIS in all 50 states. Here’s an idea: Instead of paying for an ever-expanding federal workforce to track, wiretap and investigate immigrants with possible terrorist sympathies, let’s stop bringing them in!

Beginning to sense the public’s fury, a number of Republican politicians have been trying to talk tough on immigration. This week, Trump proved that that’s all it is: talk.

Posted in Ann Coulter, Donald Trump, Islam | Comments Off