Rubio opened his first round of questions to Friedman by referring to the confirmation process as “unreal” due to the amount of scrutiny Friedman is facing for prior statements. He then directed his attention to J Street.
Let me begin by saying I find this whole process to be unreal. This sort of ordeal you’re being put through to account for all the words, in particular given some of the groups that have been ratcheting all this up. This group J Street, that, for example, a few years ago invited the chief Palestinian negotiator Erekat to address their conference, a person who has justified the murder of Jews as self-defense, as a person as they invited to speak at the conference.
Rubio is absolutely correct. J Street, a Soros-funded anti-Israel group masquerading as the home for “pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans,” invited Erekat to their 2015 conference. Not long after attending their conference, Erekat called on the Palestinian Authority to support lone-wolf Palestinian-Arab terrorist attacks against Jews, called for rejecting a future Jewish state, and called for cooperating with genocidal terrorist organizations like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Rubio continued to target J Street:
This is a group who has routinely attacked people who hold my views, with content that I find to be a smear and a mischaracterization of our views. DailyWire
Denmark has charged a man under a still-existing blasphemy law for burning a copy of the Koran.
The Center for Inquiry unequivocally condemned the charge of blasphemy brought by Danish prosecutors against a man for burning a copy of the Quran in an online video. CFI blasted the charge as an affront to the fundamental rights to freedom of belief and expression, and called upon Denmark to repeal its blasphemy law.
“The fundamental rights that allow a religious believer to freely profess the divinity of a holy book also allow someone else to defile that book, and still others to censure such an action,” said Michael De Dora, CFI’s main representative to the United Nations. “While the actions of the accused may be offensive and his sentiments ugly, real democracy is only possible with the freedom to criticize even the most deeply held beliefs.” CenterForInquiry
A man who filmed himself burning the Quran has become the first person to be charged under Denmark’s blasphemy law in 46 years.
The 42-year-old filmed himself burning a copy of Islam’s holy book in his back yard in December 2015. He then posted the video on the anti-Islamic Facebook group, “Yes to freedom – no to Islam” along with the words, “Consider your neighbour: it stinks when it burns.”
Danish prosecutor Jan Reckendorff announced his decision to bring charges in a press statement issued on Wednesday afternoon.
“It is the prosecution’s view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in certain cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion.”
This marks the fourth time in history anyone has been prosecuted under Denmark’s blasphemy clause: four people were sentenced for posting posters mocking Jewish teachings in 1938; two people were fined for carrying out a fake baptism at a masked ball in 1946; and two programme leaders at Danish Radio were exonerated in 1971 for airing a song mocking Christianity.
Danish prosecutors famously declined to invoke the country’s blasphemy laws in 2006, when the Jyllands-Posten newspaper published twelve cartoons picturing the Prophet Mohammed, the founder of Islam. TheLocal
Which countries still outlaw blasphemy?
The Trump administration has ended federal protection for transgender students that required public schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms matching their chosen gender identity.
The administration lifted the federal guidelines on Wednesday that had been issued by the Obama administration back in May.
It will now be up to states and school districts to interpret federal anti-discrimination law and determine whether students should have access to restrooms in accordance with their expressed gender identity and not just their biological sex. DailyMail
A growing Israeli-Saudi alliance that has been kept hidden is coming out into the daylight.
Shortly before al-Jubeir spoke, Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman called on the Arab world to help put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “The Palestinians do not have a capacity to sign a final status agreement with Israel,” he said. “It is possible only as a part of [an] all regional solution. We must sign simultaneously a regional solution with the Arab world and [the] Palestinians.” JOL
After Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman called on the Arab world to help put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said that he believes that the conflict will be resolved this year.
Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir spoke at the 53rd Munich Security Conference today about the option of achieving regional cooperation in order to put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “I believe that 2017 will be a year when a number of challenges in the Middle East will be resolved,” he said, adding that Saudi Araba is ready to do what is necessary in order to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. JOL
Al-Jubeir also sounded optimistic about the Trump administration, saying that the US president and Riyadh both want to destroy ISIS and stop Iran from gaining too much power. “Iran remains the single main sponsor of terrorism in the world,” al-Jubeir said. “It’s determined to upend the order in the Middle East.” JOL
Saudi Arabia and Israel both called on Sunday for a new push against Iran, signaling a growing alignment in their interests, while U.S. lawmakers promised to seek new sanctions on the Shi’ite Muslim power.
Turkey also joined the de facto united front against Tehran as Saudi and Israeli ministers rejected an appeal from Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif for Sunni Gulf Arab states to work with Tehran to reduce violence across the region. Reuters
Nationalism and Transnationalism
President Trump’s nationalist sensibility, “America First”, has shattered the globalist elitist consensus.
Nationalists see patriotism as a virtue; they think their country and its culture are unique and worth preserving. This is a real moral commitment, not a pose to cover up racist bigotry. Some nationalists do believe that their country is better than all others, and some nationalisms are plainly illiberal and overtly racist.
But as many defenders of patriotism have pointed out, you love your spouse because she or he is yours, not because you think your spouse is superior to all others. Nationalists feel a bond with their country, and they believe that this bond imposes moral obligations both ways: Citizens have a duty to love and serve their country, and governments are duty bound to protect their own people. Governments should place their citizens interests above the interests of people in other countries. American-Interest
Nationalist strengthen allies to minimize U.S. overseas military deployments while still securing American interests.
The same economic forces that were transforming the world after the Cold War had salvaged “Palestine”. Arafat had lost his sponsors in Moscow, but his new sugar daddy’s name was “Globalism”.
The Cold War had been the focus of international affairs. What replaced it was the conviction that a new world tied together by international commerce, the internet and international law would be born.
The demands of a clan in Hebron used to be able to hijack the attention of the world because the scope of the clash between Capitalism and Communism could globalize any local conflict. Globalization was just as insistent on taking local conflicts and making them the world’s business through its insistence that every place was connected. The terrorist blowing up an Israeli pizzeria affected stock prices in New York, the expansion prospects of a company in China and the risk of another terrorist attack in Paris. And interconnectedness, from airplane hijacking to plugging into the international’s left alliance of global protest movements, had become the best weapon of Islamic terrorists.
But now globalization is dying. And its death may just take “Palestine” with it.
A new generation of leaders is rising who are actively hostile to globalization. Trump and Brexit were the most vocal rebukes to transnationalism. But polls suggest that they will not be the only ones. The US and the UK, once the vanguards of the international order, now have governments that are competitively seeking national advantages rather than relying on the ordered rules of the transnational safety net. Read full article at FrontPageMag
“U.S. is determined to stand up to the UN’s anti-Israel bias” – Nikki Haley
The racially motivated attacker Rezzas Abdulla, spat in the face of a 9-month-old baby and shouted “white people shouldn’t breed”
Rezzas Abdulla approached Rebecca Telford while she was taking her baby Layla-Jean for a stroll in a pram in South Shields last January.
Prosecutor Emma Dowling told Newcastle Crown Court: “He lent into the pushchair and spat into the face of her daughter. As he did so, he shouted or said ‘white people shouldn’t breed.’”
When Telford confronted Abdulla, he told her to “shut the f*** up” and walked off, according to the Daily Mail.
The baby was said to have been covered in saliva. The spit had been “sprayed around” the baby’s face and a shocked passer-by gave Telford a tissue so that she could clean her baby up.
The court heard that Layla-Jean, now almost two, was taken to the doctor for tests after the attack due to fears that she could have contracted TB.
In a victim impact statement, Rebecca told police: “I am completely disgusted and distressed that a grown man, regardless of race or religion, would spit on a defenseless baby in a completely unprovoked attack. If he had just walked by I would not have even noticed him, there was no eye contact and no words had been exchanged. I had never seen him before.”
Abdulla, who has two previous convictions for race-hate attacks on white women, was later tracked down through CCTV.
On Tuesday, he was convicted of racially aggravated common assault after a trial at South Tyneside Magistrates’ Court, which he did not attend.
Abdulla was sentenced to eight months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, with rehabilitation and mental health treatment requirements. RT
He has two previous convictions for race-hate attacks on white women.
Despite previous crimes, Abdulla avoided a jail term on a suspended sentence and instead received rehabilitation and mental health treatment. The infant’s mother says punishment may have been different if she had abused him.
The judge said “society in general” would be better served if Abdulla was allowed to continue his psychiatric treatment program.
No, society would be better served if Abdulla was jailed or deported.
When a Muslim does a race-based attack, they are suffering from mental problems, but if a white person does it, they are racist.
Muslim + race-based attack = mental illness.
Muslim + terrorist attack = mental illness.
Is Islam a mental illness?
What is wrong with the German people.
Open Doors defines “persecution” as:
Christian persecution is any hostility experienced from the world as a result of one’s identification as a Christian. From verbal harassment to hostile feelings, attitudes and actions, Christians in areas with severe religious restrictions pay a heavy price for their faith. Beatings, physical torture, confinement, isolation, rape, severe punishment, imprisonment, slavery, discrimination in education and employment, and even death are just a few examples of the persecution they experience on a daily basis.
A tragic part of Christian persecution in the Middle East is those who have fled, find the persecution resumes in the West. Christian fleeing finds Muslims placed in positions of power in Europe. The gatekeepers are the same ones they are fleeing.
German broadcaster Welt24 reports, that a few days ago, German politician Wolfgang Bosbach met a Christian Iraqi family in Nordrhein-Westphalia (his constituency), who had recently applied for asylum in Germany.
Bosbach heard them tell how they had fled their country for fear of jihadist violence. Eventually, they reached the part of their story, in which they filled in their asylum application, in one of the foreign offices of the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). There, they faced a BAMF employee with a headscarf, who was going to decide whether or not they, Christians, would get protected status.
Last year, 97.000 Iraqis submitted an application for asylum in Germany. In January, 64.6% of Iraqi asylum applications were successful. The family that Bosbach met however, was rejected, and they told him they felt they were at a disadvantage because of the official who handled their case. Bosbach understood their reasoning:
“I understand the applicants’ concern that their application may not have been decided upon solely on objective and prejudice-free considerations, (…) when they are Christians telling a headscarf-wearing Muslima that they have suffered persecution by Muslims.”
To Bosbach, it doesn’t matter so much, whether or not the official in question really was prejudiced, but merely that “the applicants have reason to fear that their application might not be objectively decided.” And Bosbach is of the opinion that this fear
“is not entirely ungrounded. Therefore, I cannot understand, why only Muslims in BAMF get to decide whether or not Christians, who fled from radical Muslims, get the right to stay in the Federal Republic of Germany.”
The Ministery of Internal Affairs meanwhile, appears to agree with the BAMF. It simply does not consider the headscarf, unlike the Christian cross, to be “a religious symbol in and of itself.” Only in context can it have a comparable meaning. And even that is not considered a problem, as there is no law or regulation against the wearing of religious symbols by civil servants. Gatestone
A must read!
The concern is U.S. aid money going to Soros’ Open Society Foundation in the country of Macedonia.
George Soros’ alleged meddling in European politics has caught the attention of Congress.
Concerns about Soros’ involvement most recently were raised by the Hungarian prime minister, who last week lashed out at the Soros “empire” and accused it of deploying “tons of money and international heavy artillery.”
But days earlier, Republican lawmakers in Washington started asking questions about whether U.S. tax dollars also were being used to fund Soros projects in the small, conservative-led country of Macedonia.
Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., led a group of House lawmakers in writing to Ambassador Jess Baily — an Obama appointee — demanding answers. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, also expressed concerns about USAID money going to Soros’ Open Society Foundations as part of a broader concern that the U.S. Embassy has been taking sides in party politics.
“I have received credible reports that, over the past few years, the US Mission to Macedonia has actively intervened in the party politics of Macedonia, as well as the shaping of its media environment and civil society, often favoring groups of one political persuasion over another,” Lee said in his letter.
Together, the concerns reflect growing conservative pushback against Soros’ operations in Europe. FoxNews – A must read.
Hungary Prime Minister Orban
In his annual state of the nation speech, Hungarian Prime Minister Orban spoke of George Soros, who was born in Hungary.
Prime Minister Orban:
We also must be aware, respected ladies and gentlemen, that there are some large-bodied predators swimming in the water. This is the transnational empire of George Soros, with lots of money and international artillery.
I still feel that we have had enough, that despite of the will of the people — shown in the quota referendum — George Soros’ organizations work continuously to transport the migrants by the hundreds of thousands to Europe. They work, to divert the Hungarian Parliament and Hungarian government from the path on which the people’s will is directing them.
US Embassy in Macedonia
Leading Republican House representative Christopher Smith announced an investigation in the activities of the US Embassy in Macedonia, and the allegations that it has acted in an openly partisan way in the past years, supporting the left-wing SDSM party, MIA reported.
The call comes after the Embassy failed to respond to a letter signed by Smith and five other GOP representatives, who demanded answers over meddling in domestic politics, but also over Embassy funding for activities of the George Soros-led Foundation Open Society Macedonia. Independent MK
— News Zapper (@NewsZapper) February 15, 2017
I know what’s better. I know what’s damaging and I know what’s not damaging, and I know what the Soviet Union is really all about, and I know what’s best for foreign policy and national security….and I’m going to act on that.
Over the past few months, America has lurched from partisan warfare to the cliffs of an existential crisis.
Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government.
Said an intelligence officer: “I know what’s best for foreign policy and national security… And I’m going to act on that.”
Some of us might applaud this man, including a few of my fellow Democrats. In their minds, this is a case of Mr. Smith Goes to Langley to do battle against a corrupt President Trump.
One small problem. The intelligence officer quoted above was actually Aldrich Ames, a CIA traitor whose crime of treason in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in the compromise of more than 100 assets. Many were tortured and executed as a result.
Ames’ flawed logic is eerily similar to that of his present-day colleagues who are engaged in a shadow war with their commander in chief. They, too, have decided that their superior judgment is more important than following the law. FoxNews
Online; CIA Traitor Aldrich Ames
Video: David Horowitz Exposes Muslim Student’s True Intentions – UC San Diego
Former Huffington Post journalist Hunter Stuart was pro-Palestinian, gradually his views changed about the Israel and the conflict when he moved to Jerusalem in 2015 to report on the region.
In the summer of 2015 I moved to Israel for a year-and-a-half stint freelance reporting in the region. I was very pro-Palestinian. Almost everyone I knew was, viewing Israel as an aggressor, oppressing the poor noble Arabs who are being so brutally denied their freedom.
It wasn’t until the violence became personal that I began to see the Israeli side with greater clarity. When I traveled to the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan for a story, a Palestinian kid pointed at me and shouted “Yehud!” which means “Jew” in Arabic. Immediately, a large group of his friends were running toward me with a terrifying sparkle in their eyes. I shouted at them in Arabic “I’m not Jewish,” over and over. I told them in Arabic that I was an American journalist who “loved Palestine.” They calmed down after that, but the look in their eyes when they first saw me is something I’ll never forget.
Even the kindest, most educated, upper-class Palestinians reject 100% of Israel – not just the occupation of east Jerusalem and the West Bank. They simply will not be content with a two-state solution and they want the Israelis who live there now to leave. They almost never speak of coexistence; they speak of expulsion, of taking back “their” land. The ongoing desire of Palestinians to wipe Israel off the map is unproductive and backward-looking and the West must be very careful not to encourage it.
I know a lot of Jewish-Israelis who are willing to share the land with Muslim Palestinians, but for some reason finding a Palestinian who feels the same way was near impossible. If the Palestinians are given their own state in the West Bank, who’s to say they wouldn’t elect Hamas, an Islamist group committed to Israel’s destruction? That’s exactly what happened in Gaza in democratic elections in 2006. Having Hamas in control of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem would be suicide for Israel. And no country can be expected to consent to its own destruction. Read full article at JPost
In 1983 Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Ma) wanted to run for president, and so he sent a friend, John Tunney, to Moscow to set up a quid pro quo deal with the Russians.
Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”
Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.” Forbes
In 1980 Ted Kennedy wanted to run for president in place of Carter, the Mitrokhin Archives reveal Kennedy sent a friend, John Tunney (former Senator from California) to reach out to the KGB and Leonid Brezhnev.
Kennedy’s long history with the KGB is well documented, but underreported. It remains available through the writings of the now deceased Vasiliy Mitrokhin, who defected to Britain from the Soviet Union in 1992, and a separate 1983 memo addressed to then General Secretary Yuri Andropov. Kennedy’s actions occurred at the expense of presidential authority and in violation of federal law, according to academics and scholars who are familiar with the documents.
The Mitrokhin papers highlight a meeting that took place at the behest of Kennedy between former Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) and KGB agents in Moscow on March 5, 1980. The information exchanged during this encounter is included as part of a report Mitrokhin filed with the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington D.C. The former KGB man continued to work with British intelligence until the time of his death.
Noted Cold War author and researcher Herbert Romerstein has described Mitrokhin as a “highly credible source” with vast knowledge of the now-closed KGB archives. Romerstein, who headed up the U.S. government’s Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation and Active Measures during the 1980s, has explained in previous interviews that Mitrokhin made meticulous copies of KGB files by hand prior to his defection.
The KGB files Mitrokhin retrieved indicate that Kennedy fixed the blame for heightened international tensions on the Carter White House, not on the Kremlin. It is important to note that Kennedy was challenging incumbent Carter for the Democratic nomination for president at that time.
Tunney told his KGB counterparts that Kennedy was impressed by the foreign policy statements made by General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev. Kennedy saw in Brezhnev a leader who was firmly committed to the policy of “détente,” the report said.
Moreover, Kennedy also blamed the Carter Administration for assuming an overly belligerent posture toward the Soviet Union after the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan, according to the papers. Spectator
Paul Kengor, a Grove City College political science professor, included the 1983 Soviet archives document in his 2006 book: The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and The Fall of Communism.