Netanyahu condemns Trump’s Muslim ban

REPORT: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday that he rejects Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S.

“The state of Israel respects all religion and strictly adheres to the rights of all its citizens,” he said in a statement.

“At the same time, Israel is fighting radical Islam which is attacking Muslims, Christians and Jews alike and threatens the entire world,” Netanyahu added.

Netanyahu’s office also revealed Wednesday that he is not cancelling his huddle with the GOP presidential front-runner later this month.

“The Prime Minister decided earlier this year on a uniform policy to agree to meet with all presidential candidates from either party who visit Israel and ask for a meeting,” the Israeli leader’s office said in a statement, according to The Times of Israel.
“This policy does not represent an endorsement of any candidate or his or her views,” the statement continued.

“Rather, it is an expression of the importance that Prime Minister Netanyahu attributes to the strong alliance between Israel and the United States.”

Netanyahu’s office additionally confirmed it had scheduled Trump’s visit before his controversial remarks on Muslims last Monday.

It booked the meeting between both men two weeks ago, The Times of Israel said Wednesday.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Netanyahu condemns Trump’s Muslim ban

Former Adult Actress Miss Genocide Says James Deen Choked Her Until She Blacked Out

Does a porn actress named Miss Genocide trivialize the Holocaust and should we boycott her films?

Is James Deen a shanda for the goyim? Is it time for Jews to boycott James Deen’s films, not count him in a minyan, and not call him to the Torah?

I prefer to think the best of people. Perhaps James Deen won’t use condoms because of his religious beliefs against birth control?

REPORT:

A former adult actress said that porn actor James Deen choked her so aggressively during her first adult scene that she passed out, joining a growing list of women who have accused Deen of assault.
Miss Genocide, a former adult film actress who now works in mainstream film as Holly Jee, told LAist she worked with Deen when shooting scenes for alt porn company Burning Angel.
She said she was in her early 20s when she met Deen in New York in 2009, when he was dating adult performer Joanna Angel, the founder of Burning Angel. This was Jee’s first time shooting adult scenes, and though she was apprehensive, she said she wanted to trust the people she was working with. She said Deen was nice when she first met him, but aggressive behavior soon emerged.

* My friend bought his kids some remote control cars and a track.
Luke: “Can you send the cars into pedestrians and scream, ‘Allahu Akhbar’?”
Friend: “Interesting that your mind goes straight to violence.”
Luke: “Do you know a good priest? I think I might be possessed.”
Friend: “No, I don’t know a priest, and yes, I think you are possessed.”

* I fear that Obama’s insufficient support for Israel will drive young Jews to terrorism.

* Anyone who wants should be able to move to the US and get welfare. Otherwise we’re racist.

* America should be the dumping ground for the world’s refuse. It would be racist not to.

* I’ve never had any unique beliefs about God. Growing up, I accepted what I was taught by the church. Converting to Judaism, I accepted what Judaism said. Emotionally, I think I relate to God the same way I relate to my father and I think that goes for most people.

* When a man says, “She’s attractive” it means he wants to impale her. It’s not an aesthetic statement, it’s not lovey dovey, it’s not his F***-colored glasses, it’s the way God made him.

* The higher a person’s social status, the more slowly he speaks. The poor talk rapidly because they don’t expect anyone to listen to them for long. (Michael Caine)

Posted in Pornography | Comments Off on Former Adult Actress Miss Genocide Says James Deen Choked Her Until She Blacked Out

Why “Mismatch” is Relevant in Fisher v. Texas

Richard Sander writes: Affirmative action is before the Supreme Court again this week, as it rehears arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas. (I’ve discussed the legal issues in Fisher here.)

But perhaps the most important question about racial preferences is one that’s not directly raised by the case: do they even work? Do they help underrepresented minorities to achieve their goals, and foster interracial interaction and understanding on elite campuses? Or do large preferences often “mismatch” students in campuses where they will struggle and fail?

Scholars began empirically studying the mismatch issue in the 1990s, but in the past five years the field has matured. There are now dozens of careful, peer-reviewed studies that find strong evidence of mismatch. None of the authors of these studies claim that mismatch is a universal or inevitable consequence of affirmative action. But in my view, only demagogues (of which there is, unfortunately, no shortage) or people who haven’t read the relevant literature can still claim that mismatch is not a genuine problem. 

It is helpful to think about mismatch as three interrelated phenomena that could affect a student of any race—let’s call her Sally—who receives a large admissions preference, so that she attends a college where her level of academic preparation is substantially below that of her peers. 

First, “learning mismatch” occurs if Sally learns less than she would at a less competitive school, because the pace is too fast or her professors are pitching their material at a level that’s not ideal for her. Others and I have argued that learning mismatch occurs on a massive scale in American law schools, where African-Americans (and some other students) tend to receive very large preferences and then, very often, are never able to practice law because they cannot pass bar exams.

Our best estimate is that only about one-third of blacks who start law school in America successfully graduate and pass the bar exam on their first attempt (see my September 2006 blog post here).

A second form of mismatch—“competition” mismatch—occurs when students abandon particular fields, or college itself, because of the practical and psychological effects of competing with better-prepared students.

Suppose that Sally dreams of becoming a chemist, does very well in a standard high school chemistry course, and receives a preference into an elite school where most of her classmates have taken AP chemistry. Even if Sally does not experience “learning” mismatch, she is likely nonetheless to end up with a B- or a C in chemistry simply because of the strength of the competition.

A long line of studies (e.g., this excellent study by two psychologists) have shown that students receiving large preferences, facing these pressures, tend to abandon STEM fields in large numbers. Competition mismatch thus appears to have large and damaging effects on the number of blacks, in particular, graduating with science or engineering degrees. 

The third type of mismatch—“social mismatch”—is in some ways the most intriguing.

Several studies have now found that college students are much more likely to form friendships with students who have similar levels of academic preparation or performance at college. The phenomenon operates even within racial groups, but when a college’s preferences are highly correlated with race (as they are at many elite schools), social mismatch can lead to self-segregation by blacks and/or Hispanics. 

The result is decreasing social interaction across racial lines. That’s particularly relevant to the Supreme Court’s deliberations because its tolerance of racial preferences has been based on the idea that a diverse racial campus promotes interracial contact and learning. But if preferences promote substantial social mismatch, then race-conscious admissions actually decrease interracial contact and learning—not only at the school where the preferences are used, but also at the college that the preferenced minority student would have attended in the absence of preferences.

Of course, new studies of higher education come out all the time, and one can point to some study to argue almost any point. What makes the evidence of mismatch so compelling is the large number of very high-quality studies that have appeared in the past few years, performed by a wide array of scholars and appearing in the strongest academic journals that exercise the most stringent peer review. 

For example, the highly-respected Journal of Economic Literature (“JEL”) last year commissioned two economists to summarize the state of research on higher education mismatch. To insure an impartial study, the two economists JEL selected started out with different views of mismatch: one was a skeptic, the other the author of research that had found evidence of mismatch. JEL also asked seven other economists, again representing a wide range of perspectives, to peer review the article when it was drafted.

The resulting article is circumspect, but unequivocal in finding that much of the evidence on mismatch (especially in law school and the sciences) is compelling.

The American Economic Review—one of the three or four top journals in the social sciences—also recently announced that it is publishing a comprehensive study of mismatch in the sciences. It takes advantage of an unusually large database from eight campuses of the University of California (“UC”), covering the period before and after California voters, through Prop 209, made it illegal to consider of race in public college admissions.

The study could thus examine how UC students who, through racial preferences, attended the most elite UC campuses before Prop 209 compared with very similar students who attended less elite campuses after Prop 209. Peter Arcidiacono, Esteban Aucejo, and Joseph Hotz conclude unequivocally: “We find less-prepared minority students at top-ranked campuses would have higher science graduation rates had they attended lower-ranked campuses.”

The gold standard for empirical research is a genuine experimental design, where a group of subjects are randomly assigned to “treatment” and “control” groups. While random experiments are routine in medical research, they are still uncommon in the social sciences. A revealing study of that kind was recently conducted by three economists working with the Air Force Academy. 

Based on other work, they hypothesized that students entering the Academy with relatively weak academic preparation would learn more and do better if they were assigned to squadrons with particularly academically strong cadets, thus creating opportunities for mentoring and tutoring. The Academy agreed to do a large randomized experiment, assigning some of the targeted students to the experimental squadrons with strong peers, and other students to “control” groups comprised of more typical students.

Posted in Academia, Affirmative Action, Blacks, Diversity | Comments Off on Why “Mismatch” is Relevant in Fisher v. Texas

VDARE: French Jewish Leaders Condemn Le Pen, The Only Leader Likely To Protect Them From Muslims

From VDARE: To nobody’s surprise, and confirming the Open-Borders fix is in among Europe’s elites, France’s ruling Socialists and the potty-trained opposition led by former president Nicolas Sarkozy, now re-named (revealingly, to Americans?) The Republicans, joined forces to urge a vote for anything but the National Front in the December 13th second round. This repeats what they did when Jean-Marie Le Pen reached the final round of the presidential election in 2002. Plus ça change

Suicidally, given Islam’s views of Jews and the fact that “French” anti-Semitism is now essentially the exclusive province of France’s Muslim diaspora, Official French Jewry also leapt to condemn the National Front. CRIF, the leading French-Jewish group—France’s ADL/AJC/AIPAC-equivalent—issued a call to arms against the National Front:

CRIF calls [on French voters] to vote massively next Sunday to block the National Front, a xenophobic and populist party.

Let’s not let the Republic slide backward!

Le CRIF appelle à faire barrage au Front national, December 7, 2015 [My translations throughout]

CRIF president Roger Cukierman claims: “For us Jews, this is a dangerous political environment, even though we can count on the support of the governing parties and the opposition Republicans.” CRIF strongly supports mass immigration to France, no matter how hostile the immigrants are. Cukierman even says “it is unworthy for a Jew to vote for the National Front”—although French Jews would be more secure under the National Front, as those parties Jews “can count on” have failed utterly to safeguard France.

CRIF is also firmly in favor of securing Israel. CRIF’s Israel position makes sense, but its France position is insane, and its hypocrisy palpable.

Joining CRIF, the Grand Rabbi of France (there’s no American equivalent), Haim Korsia, pronounced that the French must “reject en bloc those who set one group against another, who promote isolation and exclusion.” The Grand Rabbi mused about how lighting Hanukkah candles leads us to oppose “obscurantism.”

Comment? Hanukkah commemorates the Hasmonean Jews’ revolt against their Seleucid Greek overlords to preserve the Jewish character of Israel—quite understandably. Invoking Hanukkah to defend the destruction of the French character of France through mass immigration is chutzpah indeed.

What explains this suicidal reflex of the French Jewish establishment? France has no Ellis Island, so it’s not Ellis Island Derangement Syndrome.

Posted in France, Immigration, Islam, Jews | Comments Off on VDARE: French Jewish Leaders Condemn Le Pen, The Only Leader Likely To Protect Them From Muslims

The Polls May Be Underestimating Trump’s Support

Henry Olsen writes for The Atlantic:

Donald Trump’s persistent lead in the GOP presidential-preference polls has been a great source of confusion for the chattering classes. But Trump is actually just the latest manifestation of a more global trend: Data suggests the appeal of anti-immigrant policies to working-class voters is much deeper than most American elites want to believe. And because Trump draws the bulk of his support from less-educated, working- and middle-class voters, he may be positioned to do even better still—for now. Polling data from Europe shows that parties with similar voter profiles to Trump’s consistently do better in both online polls and at the ballot box than in live-interview polling. And currently Trump is far ahead online.

Why does this happen? It starts with working-class voters across developed countries being under severe economic pressure because of competition with foreigners at home (immigration) and abroad (EU/trade). They respond to people and parties who tell them this state of affairs isn’t inevitable, and they are often impervious to cries of racism. Their lives are just plain harder than they used to be and working-class voters don’t see elites doing much—or wanting to do much—to make them better. Donald Trump is simply the American version of Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders, and many other European leaders of working-class, anti-immigrant parties who profit from stoking the flames of resentment because there is so much kindling available to light.

So what explains the chasm between these particular candidates’ online versus live polling data? It turns out that a nontrivial share of these same working-class, anti-immigrant voters won’t tell a live person who they support but will share their true feelings when their support is secret—like on Election Day. This is no surprise: Support for immigration and globalization are perhaps the only political sentiments that unite elites from both business and the academy, from right and left. Openly supporting an anti-immigration candidate can risk social opprobrium, ridicule, or worse. In other words, for every group of vocal Trump supporters, there are probably a lot more who just don’t advertise it.

Posted in America, Donald Trump | Comments Off on The Polls May Be Underestimating Trump’s Support

For Good and Ill, Donald Trump Has Brought Discussion of Political Impossibilities into the Open

He’s channeling Steve Sailer.

David French writes for the National Review:

Here is a term you need to know — the “Overton Window.” Developed by the late Joseph Overton, a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the “window” refers to the range of acceptable political discourse on any given topic. As the Mackinac Center explains, “the ‘window’ of politically acceptable options is primarily defined not by what politicians prefer, but rather by what they believe they can support and still win re-election.”

The key to shifting policy lies not so much in changing politicians but in changing the terms of the debate. In other words, “The window shifts to include different policy options not when ideas change among politicians, but when ideas change in the society that elects them.” The Left — dominating the media, the academy, and pop culture — is unmatched at moving the Overton Window. Consider gay marriage, a subject once so far outside the mainstream that less than 20 years ago, Republicans and Democrats united to pass the Defense of Marriage Act to define marriage under federal law as the union of one man and one woman. Now? That view is such an anathema that it’s difficult to get — or retain — a job in entire sectors of the economy if you openly hold to the traditionalist position on marriage.

The Overton Window moved even faster on transgender rights. Ten years ago the notion that a man with emotional problems and breast implants could be named “Woman of the Year” was unthinkable. Now, in some quarters it’s just as unthinkable to refer to Bruce Jenner — Bruce Jenner! — as a man. At the moment, the Left is working hard to move the Overton Window on the gun debate. The same president who mocked the idea that he was interested in confiscating guns is now openly admiring Australia’s confiscation program. But the president isn’t leading this charge. He’s following the emerging conventional wisdom on the left: that gun “control” is not enough, that advocating outright gun bans is the only morally serious position, and the Second Amendment — at a minimum — must be judicially reinterpreted into irrelevance…

Critically, the Overton Window was smashed not by a politician but by a very American hybrid of corporate/entertainment titan — a man rich and powerful enough to be immune to elite condemnation and famous enough to dominate the news media. How many people can commandeer live television simply by picking up the phone and calling in? How many politicians can cause Twitter to detonate seemingly at will? While many of Trump’s actual proposals are misguided, nonsensical, or untenable, by smashing the window, he’s begun the process of freeing the American people from the artificial and destructive constraints of Left-defined discourse. Serious and substantive politicians like Ted Cruz will get a more respectful hearing, and PC shibboleths about allegedly boundless virtues of Islam and immigration will be treated with the skepticism they deserve.

To be clear, this change is occurring both for good and for ill. The shattering of the window reflects the shattering of the American consensus, and the result will likely be deeper polarization, and even less civility, with further strains on the ties that bind our nation together. At the same time, however, the Left’s very success at defining the terms of discourse meant that the price of civility and unity was all too often an acceptance of liberal norms and manners. It meant swallowing liberal pieties and confining your discourse to Left-approved terms. In other words, it often meant surrender.

Posted in America, Donald Trump | Comments Off on For Good and Ill, Donald Trump Has Brought Discussion of Political Impossibilities into the Open

Did Trump Just Win?

James Taranto writes:

Vox’s headline announces the results for Republicans, 76% of whom agree. But the view is shared by a majority of all respondents (56%) and independents (57%) and a substantial minority of Democrats (43%). Blacks and Hispanics are evenly divided, and majorities of every Christian subpopulation, including black Protestants, agree.

Our own view of the question is complicated. Certainly Islam and the American way of life are compatible inasmuch as America is capable of welcoming Muslims who are not Islamic supremacists. On the other hand, it’s always struck us that categorical statements to the effect that Islam is “a religion of peace” are far more hortatory than empirical—which is to say that there is a gap between Islam as it actually exists and Islam as President Bush or President Obama would like it to be. How wide that gap is, and how dangerous, we do not know.

Thus Trump’s proposal for a pause in Muslim immigration “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” strikes this columnist as entirely reasonable. That’s not to say it’s necessarily a good idea. There are potential costs in American-Muslim relations both internationally and domestically, and humanitarian costs as well. There are practical questions about how it would be implemented. The religious-freedom argument, although legally empty, is not without moral force.

Instead of debating the proposal in a reasoned way, the political class—both parties—and many in the media are treating it as a thoughtcrime. Yet the PRRI poll suggests a large majority of Americans are thinking along similar lines.

The Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein summed up the politics in a tweet yesterday: “@realDonaldTrump will get days of coverage in which GOP rivals, Obama, Clinton, media, will all sound same. This is bad for him how?”

Posted in America, Islam | Comments Off on Did Trump Just Win?

Jewish Organizations React To Trump’s Proposal To Ban Muslim Immigration

I don’t know a Jew in my personal life who wants more Muslims in Israel or more Muslims in the West. Jewish organizations (though rarely normal Jews) such as the ADL, however, are using Because Holocaust with greater frequency and intensity. Comparing Trump to Hitler is of course risible but when it comes to immigration, Jewish nationalist organizations such as the ADL, SWC, SPLC, etc, reference WWII not because the goy is similar to the Nazis, but rather, because these Jews are focused on the larger conflict. The more closely you identify with your group, the more likely you are to fear and even hate the outsider. Some Jews never stopped fighting after WWII. Immigration plus WWII is a reminder to Jewish organizations such as the ADL that demographics is destiny and that they must drown the dangerous goy with Others. These organizations needs to be called out for their duplicity.

Israel doesn’t allow in Muslim immigrants or refugees, but is lecturing Trump on his proposal. This reveals who Israel really fears. Not the Muslim, but the goy.

Some left-wing Jews (ADL, SWC, etc) sure are revealing their fears pretty blatantly. I hope the goy isn’t noticing. They may figure out that the multiculturalism Jews are forcing upon them doesn’t really come from a loving, universal place. At all. This radical Jewish defense of Muslim immigration should awaken even the sleepiest of goyim as to the greatest Jewish fear.

Like all groups, Jews have radicals. Israel has radical Jews. Jews tend to condemn these freaks and Israel locks them up when they break the law.

At some point the goyim may wake up and ask, if Israel can have borders and ethnic solidarity, why not America? Why not Germany? And we all know where that can lead: The goyim erecting borders against us at exactly the moment we need to cross them, as when the Muslim figure out how to bring down the 3rd Temple.

From the ADL:

ADL: Trump’s Plan to Seal Borders Against Muslims Runs Contrary to Our Nation’s Deepest Values
New York, NY, December 7, 2015 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned Donald Trump’s calls to bar entry into the United States for all Muslims, calling the plan “deeply offensive.” Earlier today, Mr. Trump said in a statement he was calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL CEO, issued the following statement:

“Mr. Trump’s plan to bar people from entry to the United States based on their religion is unacceptable and antithetical to American values. The U.S. was founded as a place of refuge for those fleeing religious persecution, and religious pluralism is core to our national identity. A plan that singles out Muslims and denies them entry to the U.S. based on their religion is deeply offensive and runs contrary to our nation’s deepest values.

In the Jewish community, we know all too well what can happen when a particular religious group is singled out for stereotyping and scapegoating. We also know that this country must not give into fear by turning its back on its fundamental values, even at a time of great crisis. As we have said so many times, to do otherwise signals to the terrorists that they are winning the battle against democracy and freedom.”

As a 501c3 nonprofit organization, ADL takes no position on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for office.

From Wiesenthal.com:

Simon Wiesenthal Center reaction to Donald Trump’s statement on Muslims

“Mr. Trump, by lumping all Muslims in the crosshairs of the Terrorism crisis only hurts the legitimate campaign against Islamist Fundamentalism anddemeans law abiding American citizens,” said Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper Dean and Founder and Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a leading Jewish Human Rights NGO. “Such a policy would only serve to strengthen ISIS recruitment around the world,” Center officials concluded.

Rob Eshman writes for the Jewish Journal:

In ways direct and subtle, the Jews of America and the Jews of France, the Jews of the left and the Jews of the right, the Jews of the Reform movement and the Jews of the Orthodox movement, have sent Donald J. Trump a message: Feh.
“Feh” is Yiddish for “Go away, get out of here.” And the fact that Trump could provoke such a uniform reaction from such a fractious people is a credit to the dumbness and darkness of his ideas.
His increasingly xenophobic and racist rhetoric reached a low point this week when he declared that under a Trump administration, America would close its borders to Muslims.
“We need a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States while we figure out what the hell is going on,” Trump said to cheers of approval from his supporters.
If Trump thought Jews, so often the targets of Islamic terrorism, would join the cheers, he really doesn’t get Jews. The reaction from Jewish organizations and leaders was immediate and uniformly negative.
Trump’s plan was “unacceptable and antithetical to American values,” Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan A. Greenblatt said in a written statement.
“The U.S. was founded as a place of refuge for those fleeing religious persecution, and religious pluralism is core to our national identity,” Greenblatt continued. “A plan that singles out Muslims and denies them entry to the U.S. based on their religion is deeply offensive and runs contrary to our nation’s deepest values.”
Greenblatt’s words echoed similar statements from across the Jewish political, religious and ideological spectrum. Last month, even the Orthodox Union joined in opposing Trump’s call to keep Syrian refugees out of America.
Trump must be scratching his – insert your own hair joke here. Jews are a particular target of Islamic terror. The coward who shot up the disabilities center in San Bernardino was “obsessed” with Israel, his father told reporters.
According to the FBI’s most recent statistics, Jews still are the prime target for hate crimes in America—59 percent are directed at Jews. Second place, but rising faster, are Muslims.
But Jews understand that the democratic safeguards built into America’s Constitution, including the separation of church and state, form our strongest safeguard against hate and discrimination. When those crumble, we all fall down.
Beyond the danger posed by the threat to civil liberties and religious freedom, there is the practical issue. In Trump’s mind, the best way to stop Islamic terror is to target all Muslims. But that just encourages Muslim radicalism, creates the “holy war” between Muslims and non-Muslims that the extremists pray for, and pushes moderate believers to the extremes.
Liberal claptrap? Ask the French Jews and the Israelis.
When Trump’s recent foulness exploded across the Web, I was having coffee with an Israeli official. Israelis, he told me, are simply bemused by Trump’s antics. If Muslims in and of themselves are the problem, how to account for the success of Israel, a democratic Jewish state with a 20-percent mostly Muslim Arab minority ?
Israel faces threats from Islamic extremism that, to use a Trumpism, would make your head spin, but Israeli leaders from David Ben Gurion to Benjamin Netanyahu have known that the best way to increase radicalization is to persecute the majority of law-abiding Muslim citizens, or to insult the Muslim religion itself.
French Jews have seen their own and their fellow countrymen slaughtered on the streets of Paris and Toulouse at the hands of Muslim terrorists – but they know the moral and practical dangers of a discriminatory France are a far greater threat.
This week, the Jews of France issued a stinging rebuke to their homegrown anti-democratic forces, and, by extension, to Trump.
On the eve of the upcoming regional elections in France, the Alsace chapter of CRIF, the umbrella Jewish organization, came out strongly against the Muslim-baiting National Front, led by Marine Le Pen.
“The Alsace chapter, strongly attached to the values of the Republic,” the statement read, “calls upon all voters to participate at the upcoming elections – since so much is at stake. We are calling to reject the extremist parties that advocate hatred and try to prosper at the expense of the divide within the society created by fear.”
CRIF president Roger Cukierman called on the Jewish community to vote “in order to block the National Front, a party of xenophobia and populism.”

From the Jewish Journal:

Oren: Jews, Israelis must be first to condemn Trump

Jews and Israelis must be the first to condemn Donald Trump’s comments against Muslims, Israeli Knesset Member and former Israeli Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren said Tuesday.
In an interview with i24News, an English-Israeli TV network, Oren said, “Whatever the reason, it is thoroughly unacceptable. It is very important for Israelis to stand up against this, precisely because we are Israelis; precisely because we are facing threats from radical Islam. We have to stand up for the vast majority of Muslims who are not radical.”
Oren said that during his tenure as Ambassador he worked with Imams and hosted an Iftar party every years at the Embassy. “This are wonderful people. And to stigmatize, derogate and criminalize an entire population is thoroughly unacceptable,” the Knesset Member told host Lucy Aharish, herself an Arab-Israeli. “Support for Israel in the U.S. is at an all-time high. But I knew as Ambassador that a part of that 70 percent were people who like Israel because they don’t like Muslims, and I would go out to the audience and say: ‘If that’s why you like Israel, we don;t want your support.’If that’s the price, we don’t want it.”
On Monday, Trump, the Republican presidential frontrunner, called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” He doubled down on his call during a campaign rally Monday night, as well as in a round of TV interviews Tuesday morning.
The comments were immediately condemned by the Anti-Defamation League, who compared the ban to the persecution of the Jewish people in the 1930′s. “Mr. Trump’s plan to bar people from entry to the United States based on their religion is unacceptable and antithetical to American values,” Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL CEO, said in a statement. “A plan that singles out Muslims and denies them entry to the U.S. based on their religion is deeply offensive and runs contrary to our nation’s deepest values. In the Jewish community, we know all too well what can happen when a particular religious group is singled out for stereotyping and scapegoating,” he added.
The former Ambassador said he hopes the most recent comments would be a “turning point” in the Republican race for president.
“It is very important for Israelis to say” that recent terror attacks in Israel and abroad are “not about Islam,” Oren stressed. ”We were victims of precisely what Mr. Trump is calling for – calling for closing the gates on immigration on the basis of a racial and religious Identity. So, we know what it feels like.” Adding, “One of the reasons I moved to Israel was because I grew up in a neighborhood where I was the only Jewish kid and I got beaten up every day for being Jewish. But I don;t want to be part of a majority that, in any way, discriminates and is judicial against its minorities.”

From the Forward:

Some Jewish Groups Waffle on Donald Trump Anti-Muslim Push

Mainstream and left-leaning Jewish groups joined both Republican and Democratic honchos in condemning the statement. But some Jewish leaders were more equivocal in their responses.
Zionist Organization of America national president Mort Klein said banning all Muslims from entering the country was “going too far.” But he went on to rationalize Trump’s position: “Few people would oppose Hindus or Buddhists, or Christians coming to America, but Hindus or Buddhists or Christians are not saying or doing things that threaten people’s lives,” Klein said. “Muslims are.”
Klein said that the ZOA’s board recently voted unanimously to oppose “Syrian Muslims coming to America.”
Congressman Lee Zeldin, the only Jewish Republican in the House of Representatives, did not answer directly when asked what he thought of Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the country.
Instead, he too focused on the issue of Syrians.
“Focus at the moment should be on improving the visa waiver program, stopping the influx of Syrian refugees due to current vulnerabilities in the vetting process, and defeating ISIS altogether,” Zeldin wrote in a statement.
The Orthodox Union, meanwhile, a large centrist Orthodox umbrella group, said that it had “no position” on Trump’s Muslim ban. The group and its advocacy arm are often vocal on foreign affairs issues, and rallied loudly on Capitol Hill against the Iran deal.
The Rabbinical Council of America, a Modern Orthodox group, did not respond to a request for comment about Trump’s plan. The group has made statements in recent months on terror attacks in Israel and Paris, and on the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
Groups that did condemn Trump include the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, J Street, and the Israel Policy Forum, according to a JTA report.
Blogger and activist Pamela Geller, who the Southern Poverty Law Center calls “the anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead,” told the Forward that Trump’s proposal doesn’t go far enough.
“Trump didn’t call for a complete ban, but only a temporary one,” Geller wrote in an email.

From JTA:

Jewish groups slam Trump for call to block entry of Muslims

WASHINGTON (JTA) — Jewish groups blasted Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for his proposal to block all Muslims from entering the United States.

“A plan that singles out Muslims and denies them entry to the U.S. based on their religion is deeply offensive and runs contrary to our nation’s deepest values,” the Anti-Defamation League said in a statement Monday evening hours after Trump, a real estate billionaire and reality TV star, issued his call.

“In the Jewish community, we know all too well what can happen when a particular religious group is singled out for stereotyping and scapegoating,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL’s CEO. “We also know that this country must not give into fear by turning its back on its fundamental values, even at a time of great crisis.”

The American Jewish Committee’s director of policy, Jason Isaacson, noted the timing of Trump’s statement, which called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” coincident with the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah.

“As Jews who are now observing Hanukkah, a holiday that celebrates a small religious minority’s right to live unmolested, we are deeply disturbed by the nativist racism inherent in the candidate’s latest remarks,” Isaacson said. “You don’t need to go back to the Hanukkah story to see the horrific results of religious persecution; religious stereotyping of this sort has been tried often, inevitably with disastrous results.”

Trump in his news release alluded to the massacre in San Bernardino, California, last week of 14 people by a couple apparently radicalized by the Islamic State terrorist group.

“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension,” he said. “Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Other Jewish groups condemning the comments included J Street, Bend the Arc, the National Jewish Democratic Council, the Israel Policy Forum, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and JAC, a Jewish political action committee.

We must know our enemy. We must be clear about who the enemies of America are so we can more effectively fight them.

Posted in ADL, Diversity, Donald Trump, Islam, Jews, Nationalism | Comments Off on Jewish Organizations React To Trump’s Proposal To Ban Muslim Immigration

Will France Vote For The National Front?

Steve Sailer writes: French history is currently speeding up, which ought to be of intense interest to American Republicans pondering whom to nominate in 2016. While many Americans enjoy engaging in lowbrow derision of France, the French traditionally value displays of intelligence, and thus are often the first to work out the logic of events. If the 21st-century French are beginning to figure out that the conceptions of left and right (which they invented in the late 18th century) are becoming less critical in a new century when the fundamental issue is whether the West will allow itself to be swamped by the Rest, Republicans ought to pay attention.

The most important novel of 2015, Michel Houellebecq’s Submission, a tale of the 2022 French election, provides English speakers with a convenient literary lens upon the central question in France: Will the French ruling class accede to the demographic replacement of the French nation with the overflowing populations of the Middle East and Africa?

As part of the global electoral trend toward the right, in the initial round of the French regional elections on Sunday, Marine Le Pen’s National Front came in first with 28 percent of the vote nationally. Her party led in six of thirteen zones.

Posted in France, Immigration | Comments Off on Will France Vote For The National Front?

Steve Sailer: What % of shrieking coeds of the Black Autumn are lesbians?

A black woman writes: I tend to chalk up my ambivalence about Princeton to my experience as a lower-middle-class black woman on campus. It felt like the expectations of the university were constantly shifting goalposts that I could never hope to meet. My introductory-level science instructors would grant me extensions when I was sick from stress, but then my freshman adviser would admit that he purposely told me to sign up for too many classes in a semester because he wanted to weed me out of premedical studies. I shared that adviser with many students, and from what I heard the only ones who received such treatment were minorities.

The university paid for me to go home during an internship to attend my uncle’s funeral, but then my department head essentially told me to get over it when I told him that grieving the deaths of my pastor, uncle, and aunt in one year was making it difficult to cope. Based on his response, it seemed impossible for him to believe that a student could have a pastor gunned down in a robbery, an uncle murdered, and an aunt who died of untreated cancer all in one year. He seemed to think that I was making up tragedies in order to get out of classwork or to cover up academic inadequacies. To me, it seemed that since he had never experienced a life that was so frequently beset by setbacks, he couldn’t empathize with a student who came from a background where these things happen, maybe not with regularity, but with relative frequency.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: What % of shrieking coeds of the Black Autumn are lesbians?