Friday, June 29, 2018




Videos
unknown.jpg

Maxwell School of Syracuse...
YouTube - Mar 8, 2016
unknown_1.jpg

JBS
YouTube - Feb 7, 2017
unknown_2.jpg

IU Maurer
YouTube - Mar 14, 2014
unknown_3.jpg

TheJerusalemCenter
YouTube - Sep 7, 2016
unknown_4.jpg

Kohelet Forum Office
YouTube - Jun 29, 2016
unknown_5.jpg

PressTV
YouTube - Jun 5, 2016
unknown_6.jpg

TheJerusalemCenter
YouTube - Apr 14, 2016
unknown_7.jpg

NYS of mind
YouTube - Feb 25, 2017
unknown_8.jpg

TAMUBushSchool
YouTube - Mar 29, 2018
unknown_9.jpg

Maoz Israel
YouTube - Aug 12, 2015



  1. Cached
16 hours ago - Maxwell School of Syracuse University. 1.8K subscribers. International Law Issues in the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict, with Eugene Kontorovich.

  1. Cached
Eugene Kontorovich teaches at Northwestern University School of Law, and is a senior ... He is a leading expert on the legal issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and has ... His scholarship has been cited in pathbreaking international law cases ...


  1. Cached
  2. Similar
Professor Eugene Kontorovich teaches at Northwestern University School of Law . He specializes in ... International Law · Legal Issues in Arab-Israeli conflict ...


  1. Cached
Apr 8, 2018 - Professor Eugene Kontorovich is the head of the international law department ... Israel was created, like most countries, after a successful war where no one ... The Palestinians have the right to vote in Palestinian elections, and self- government. ... However, all of their foreign policies and defense issues are ...

  1. Cached
Eugene Kontorovich is a professor at Northwestern Law whose research spans the fields of constitutional law, international law, and law and economics. He has  ...

  1. Cached
  2. Similar
Mar 11, 2016 - Now, Northwestern University Professor of Law Eugene Kontorovich, ... International Law Issues in the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict, with Eugene ...

  1. Cached
Eugene Kontorovich 22 Kislev 5777 | 22 December 2016. The proposed “ Regulation Bill” raises the legal issues within Israeli and International Law regarding ...
International Law Expert: UN's Obsession With Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Robs it of Ability to Deal With More Serious Problems (INTERVIEW) ... Dr. Eugene Kontorovich — a professor at Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law and ...

  1. Similar
By Eugene Kontorovich March 10, 2016 Email the author ... about the extent of Israel's borders by examining the standard international-law rule used to determine the borders of newly ... He also writes and lectures frequently about the Arab-Israel conflict. .... A state-by-state look at where Generation Y stands on the big issues.



Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Charles Krauthammer: ‘How dreams of peace led to Israel’s biggest mistake’

JTA) — On June 10, 2002, Charles Krauthammer delivered the Distinguished Rennert Lecture upon receiving the Guardian of Zion Award from Bar-Ilan University’s Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies. Below is an excerpt from the lecture titled “He Tarries: Jewish Messianism and the Oslo Peace.” 





By Charles Krauthammer  Republished JTA June 22, 2018

Charles Krauthammer delivering a lecture at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University in 2002. (Yoni Reif)
(JTA) — On June 10, 2002, Charles Krauthammer delivered the Distinguished Rennert Lecture upon receiving the Guardian of Zion Award from Bar-Ilan University’s Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies. Below is an excerpt from the lecture titled “He Tarries: Jewish Messianism and the Oslo Peace.”

In the 1990s, America slept and Israel dreamed.

The United States awoke on Sept. 11, 2001. Israel awoke in September 2000.

Like the left and like the reverie that we had in the United States, secular messianism was intoxicated with the idea that history had changed from a history based on military and political conflict to one in which the ground rules were set by markets and technology. This was the infatuation with globalization as the great leveler and the abolisher of things like politics, war and international conflict. This kind of geo-economics was widely accepted in the early post-Cold War era.

It was Sept. 11th that abolished that illusion. It taught us in America there are enemies, they are ideological, they care nothing for economics and they will use whatever military power they have as a means to achieve their ideological ends. This is the old history, perhaps the oldest history of all, the war of one God against another. No new history, no break in history, no redemption from history.

The other source of this secular messianism in the Israeli context was the success of the European Union, which was seen as a model for peace in the Middle East. There was talk of Israel, Palestinian and Jordan becoming a new Benelux, with common markets, open borders, friendship and harmony.

Indeed, if you look at the Oslo Accords, of course there is page upon page of all of these ideas of cooperation on economics, on technology, on environment, all which in retrospect appear absurd. And indeed, this entire idea of the Benelux on the Jordan looks insane in retrospect, but I believe that it was insane from the very beginning, when it was first proposed 10 years ago.

There are such obvious differences between the European situation and the Middle Eastern one. First is that the period of harmony, integration and commodity among the Europeans happened only after the utter and total defeat of one party. It did not come from long negotiations between France and Germany at Camp David, compromising their differences over the 20th century. It came from the utter destruction of Germany and the rebuilding of a new Europe after that surrender and accommodation.

These conditions do not apply in the Middle East. The only way that that kind of peace will come definitely is the peace not of the brave but of the grave, and that means a peace that would be established with the defeat of Israel and its eradication. There is no way that Israel can utterly defeat the Arabs the way the Allies defeated Germany and Japan in the Second World War. So that the idea of some kind of harmonious Middle Eastern Union drawing on the European mantle is drawn from a totally false historical analogy, one that is based on surrender and accommodation that could not happen in this Middle Eastern context unless we are looking at the world through the eyes of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Secondly, the Middle East is still a collagen of religious fanaticism, economic backwards and political tyranny. It is nothing more than a mirage to transpose the situation in Europe with the harmony that came after half a millennium of conflict and in conditions of modernity to transpose those conditions to the Middle East, with a conflict as much younger and the political culture infinitely less mature. In this context, to look at the savage religious and secular conflicts going on throughout the Middle East and to believe that the most virulent of these, the conflict with Israel, can find the kind of harmonious coexistence that exists in Europe, can only be called messianic.

Now this is not to say that the only impulse underlying Oslo was messianic. There was a messianic left and there was a realistic left, if you like. The realists saw Oslo as a pragmatic way out of Israel dilemma. I believe in retrospect, as I believed at the time, that they were utterly mistaken, but at least they were not dreaming.

I think Rabin had a fairly coherent logic behind Oslo. He saw three basic changes in the world having occurred in the ’90s, and he thought they would give Israel an opportunity to quickly settle the Palestinian dispute and to concentrate on the larger disputes coming in the longer run from the periphery, from the missiles and the weapons of mass destruction that would soon be in the hands of Iran, Iraq, Libya and others.

And the three events he saw were: First, the collapse of the Soviet Union, which deprived the rejectionist Arabs of the great superpower sponsor and source of economic, military and diplomatic assistance. Second was the victory of the United States in the Gulf War and the establishment of American hegemony in the region. Third was the terminal condition of the PLO. Arafat had again, as always, chosen the wrong side in war, was cut off by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, ostracized by the United States, lost all of his financial and diplomatic support. The PLO was on its last legs.

Rabin thought he was cleverly exploiting the weakness of the PLO by reviving it, he imagined, just enough so it could make peace with him. With the Soviets gone, with Iraq defeated, with the U.S. ascended, with the PLO weakened, he thought he could make a deal on this basis. He turned out to be hopelessly mistaken, both on the intentions and on the recuperative powers of the PLO once Israel had helped it out of its abyss.

It was one of the great miscalculations in diplomatic history.

Indeed, I believe Oslo will stand as perhaps the most catastrophic, self-inflicted wound by any state in modern history.

But at least in Rabin’s mind, as I understood it, it was a calculation. For Peres and his counterpart on the Israeli left, it was a leap of faith. And I mean the word literally, faith.

Chesterton once said that when a man stops believing in God he doesn’t believe in nothing, he believes in anything. In the ideologically fevered 20th century, this belief in anything often turned out to be a belief in history, history with a capital H. For the messianic left, Oslo was more than a deal. It was a realization, a ratification of a new era in history.

Rabin’s Oslo was pessimistic, peace with fences, separation, divorce wearing its tenuousness. Peres’ Oslo was eschatological: Benelux, geo-economics, the abolition of power politics.

Israel, labored under its illusion, did not awake to its reality for seven long years, until reality declared itself in the summer of 2000 at Camp David, when Barak’s astonishingly conciliatory peace offer elicited a Palestinian counteroffer of terrorism and suicide bombing.

This is not to say that peace is impossible; it is only to say that peace will always be contingent. And even that contingent peace will require the demonstration by the Arab side of its willingness, its genuine willingness, to live in acceptance of a Jewish state.

Again, that is not impossible. That is what Sadat offered, and he meant it. It is not clear that post-Sadat Egypt means it, although it has lived within the Sadatian parameters at least for reasons of prudence ever since.

But there has never been a Sadat among the Palestinians. And the idea that one can strike a real peace deal with Arafat, in the absence of a Sadat-like acceptance of the Jewish state, is indeed delusional. Until there is a genuine Arab, a genuine Palestinian acceptance of a Jewish state within whatever borders, there will be no end to history, there will only be more and more history.

Bismarck once said of the Balkans that they produce more history than they can consume, and that will be the fate of the Middle East for the foreseeable future.

Let me conclude by dealing with one objection to my characterization of the secular messianism of the Israeli, and I might say American, left. One might ask, “Was not the original Zionist dream itself messianic?” After all, a hundred years ago Zionism itself appeared to be a crazy dream. The idea of the ingathering of the exiles, the reestablishment of the Hebrew language, of Hebrew culture, the settling of the land, the achievement of political independence, appeared all to be, well, messianic.

I would argue precisely the opposite. Zionism is the antithesis of messianism. Zionism argued against waiting in the Diaspora with prayer and fervency for some deus ex machina to come and to rescue the Jews. Zionism rejected the idea of waiting for an outside agent, for a Shabbetai Zvi and a Bar Kochba. Zionism is supremely an ideology of self-reliance, of self-realization. It refuses to depend on others, it postulates no sudden change in the psychology of enemies, it postulates no change in human nature, it postulates no discontinuity in history.

Zionism accepted the world precisely as it was and decided that precisely because the world was as it was, the Jews had no future in the Diaspora and would have to build their future in Zion. Most of all, they understood that the building of Zion would depend on Jewish action, Jewish initiative, Jewish courage. They had to go out and to build a state themselves, and they did.

Oslo, on the other hand, a supreme expression of post-Zionist messianism, was entirely contrary to that spirit. Why? Because of its passivity, its reliance on an almost quasi-religious change of heart among Israel’s enemies. It is an acceptance of Israel by people who daily in their propaganda, in their sermons, in their pedagogies, anatomize the very idea of the Jewish state. It expected a renunciation of terrorism by people who practice, support, and fund and glorify it, and who had been doing that for 20 years, 30 years. It believed in entrusting the security, the safety, perhaps even the very existence of the Jewish state into the hands of sworn enemies.

We have now learned, to our sadness and horror, that one cannot contract out the safety of the Zionist experiment to others, most especially to Arafat and the PLO. That was the premise of Oslo and it has proven to be catastrophic.

I repeat, in the 1990s America slept, and Israel dreamt.

The only good news is that Israel has awoken from that reverie, the most disastrous messianic seduction since Shabbetai Zvi. Shabbetianism survived nonetheless for centuries; Osloism still has its cultic adherence. But the body of the Jewish people has awoken, let us hope not too late, and once and for all determined never again to succumb to the messianic temptation.

© Bar-Ilan University

(Charles Krauthammer wrote a  weekly political column for The Washington Post, was a Fox News commentator and appeared regularly on “Special Report with Bret Baier.” He died Thursday.)

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media.

Saturday, June 23, 2018

Decoding Trump

Donald Trump and the stability of the loyalty of his followers has been perplexing to the left who claim that Trump lies and exaggerates about everything.

The left points to the Access Hollywood tapes and to Stormy Daniels and appeals to evangelicals  [and to other moral thinking people] to abandon Donald Trump on moral grounds.

Some analytical observers believe that Trumps  "stable support" is because Donald'Trump supporters take everything  that Donald Trump says figuratively ,while Donald Trump’s detractors take everything that Donald says absolutely literally. Donald Trump  supporters  state that Donald Trump should be evaluated not on what he says but on what they believe are his very substantial accomplishments.

Also, some Donald Trump supporters state that on the little stuff, Donald Trump fabricates but on the big stuff Donald Trump tells more truth than the New York Times.

Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) who  was not a Trump supporter predicted in advance, that Trump would win. Adams also predicted the various stages that the anti-Trumpers and the never-Trumpers would go through after the election.   

On November 24, 2017 Scott  Adams joined Dave Rubin to discuss his newest book “Win Bigly” about how Donald Trump used the power of persuasion to win the election, Trumps negotiating strategies and tactics, the trend of ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome,’ the crumbling mainstream media, the Trump/Russia controversy, his predictions for future candidates and the future of Trump, and more.  The interview, below is slightly more than one hour. I found my time well spent watching it ……and would like to share it with you.

Scott Adams and Dave Rubin: Trump’s Persuasion and Presidency (Full Interview)  Published on Nov 24, 2017  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWA5pOmSDgQ      1hour, 2 minutes

As part of their counter arguments,Trump supporters point to the sexual scandals and misdeeds of Ted Kennedy and of previous Democratic presidential administrations. These include:

FDR  longtime mistress Lucy Page Mercer Rutherfurd

JFK  John F. Kennedy was in constant scandal about his relationships with a number of women,from White House secretaries to supermodel Marilyn Monroe .Mistress Mimi Alford wrote a book detailing how as a White House secretary she went from virgin to being seduced on Jackie Kennedy's bed by JFK  to being passed around as a White House plaything.

Ted Kennedy and the Chappaquiddick incident .The late night accident was caused  by Sen. Ted Kennedy's negligence, and resulted in the death of his 28-year-old passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne,  who was  trapped inside the vehicle for hours  and eventually drowned while Ted Kennedy failed to report the accident and failed to summon prompt aid to rescue Mary Jo.

Lyndon Johnson While the Vietnam War was controversial during his presidency, it wasn’t until after Lyndon Johnson left office that the true level of controversy was revealed. The Pentagon Papers were splashed across the front page of the New York Times, indicating that the president had systematically lied to the American people about American involvement and actions in the Southeast Asian region.


Bill Clinton has been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by three women: Juanita Broadrick accuses Clinton of raping her in 1978; Kathleen Willey accuses Clinton of groping her without consent in 1993; and Paula Jones accuses Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 and sexually harassing her. In addition to the three allegations of sexual misconduct, many other women claim to have had consensual adulterous liaisons with Clinton. Of all the allegations made against him regarding his sexual history, Clinton has only admitted extramarital relationships with Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers.


Barack Obama  scandals and deceptions.

JCPOA-  Iranian  nuclear deal [ The Iran nuclear deal was pushed with lies and media manipulation. Ben Rhodes echo chamber as reported in the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html  ]

Operation Fast and Furious program to use American gun dealers and straw purchasers to arm Mexican drug lords.Eric Holder held in contempt of Congress.  

ObamaCare was sold on false pretenses by people who knew it wasn’t going to work the way they promised.[if you like your doctor you will keep your doctor, if you like your medical plan you will keep your medical plan.  Jonathan Gruber, Obamacare architect, says system 'working as designed’ … law passed on 'stupidity of the American voter  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-thanks-to-jonathan-gruber-for-revealing-obamacare-deception/2014/11/17/356514b2-6e72-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html?utm_term=.75790ab902f7    ] 

IRS scandal: The selective targeting of conservative groups by a politicized Internal Revenue Service .

Benghazi:  the Obama administration’s story for the first few weeks after the attack was false, and they knew it was false. 





.




Tuesday, June 19, 2018



JEWISH JOURNAL OF LOS ANGELES  SPEWS LEFT-WING PROPAGANDA AS A NEWS JEWISH MORALS  STORY…. RESPONSE TO A BOMBASTIC SCREED WRITTEN BY  ARYEH COHEN  [http://jewishjournal.com/opinion/235308/the-cries-of-a-child/   ]

Cohen and  the Jewish Journal which published  Cohen's article  state”: We must hear the cries of the children and their parents. We must stop this criminal behavior masquerading as law. Call your senators, call your representatives. Do not rest until this has been stopped.

Cohen’s article starts off as follows: "John Moore’s picture of a Honduran 2-year-old, wearing clothes in a similar color combination to Aylan’s (red shirt, blue pants, sneakers), her dark hair matted across her face, standing, crying, next to her mother as they were taken into custody near the Mexico-U.S. border, might define the current immigration crisis. It has grabbed people’s attention for this week.”

As Scott Adams would point out :Wearing the same colors? Child of the same age? John Moore just  having been  there at the time of of a crying child  and the apprehension? This photo has exactly the same identifiers as the pictures pedaled to the Western world by Hezbollah and the Western media which claimed to be showing dead Lebanese children "murdered by the IDF".

AND NOTE THAT THIS PICTURE OF A CRYING CHILD WAS REPORTED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN WELL BEFORE ANY CLAIMED SEPARATION.      Also, note that the child has been taken on a very   hazardous journey. If you or I as US citizens would undertake an equivalent hazardous camping trip with our children, they would soon be separated from us to  be taken away by  Child Welfare and we would be languishing in a jail cell facing the charges of criminal child endangerment. And Cohen and presumably the Jewish Journal would actively and vocally support our incarceration.

“Aside from Trump’s blatantly false assertions that these are policies the Democrats put into place and he cannot do anything about it, " 

Mark Levin , a conservative talk show host who is a lawyer  who  served in the US Justice Department explained the Catch-22 circumstances. A liberal California  Federal District Court Judge mandated that children could not be held in a detention facility with their parents. Thus, if the parents are to be charged with illegal entry, removal of the children is  required by judicial decision. Note that this was a liberal judge in California that made a decision that she mandated would apply nationwideand that other Federal districts might make a different decisions. The overwhelming percentage of the children "separated" are arriving in Texas, where the District Court would have a high probability of making a different decision. Therefore, it would be appropriate for Cohen  and the Jewish Journal  strongly suggest that the Trump administration go to a federal District Court in Texas for an emergency hearing and request for a decision permitting family unification.

Currently, Hamas is attempting to breach the border between Gaza and Israel by mass attempts of" unarmed civilians" [serving as human shields for Hamas and other terrorist groups]. They are utilizing managed images of "innocent civilians" such as a female medic who turned out to be a Hamas activist and the world media to demean Israel.

Cohen points out that the current enforcement actions have “generated wall-to-wall criticism. In the Jewish world, social justice and human rights organizations (Bend the Arc, T’ruah, Jews for Racial & Economic Justice) condemned the move”    So many of these organizations have also condemned Israel and the IDF for its response to Hamas’  campaign to breach the border with Israel and have their terrorists enter Israel for a campaign terror and murder.


As examples false arguments, Cohen states "Aside from the tendentiousness of the claim of the zero-tolerance policy (that people who cross the border to seek asylum are breaking the law, since the United States is obligated under international law to grant asylum), does our tradition have anything to say about the conflict between laws and values? Should an asylum seeker be able to cross the border illegally in order to be able to make a legal claim of asylum?

In fact, most of these illegal immigrants are economic migrants. Most of the rest are fleeing crime and lawlessness in their home country. Neither of these classes are ENTITLED TO  asylum under international law. Also it  is very significant that they are attempting to enter the United States  through Mexico. By international law, political asylum seekers must register in and seek political asylum at the first country in which they touch base after they flee their home land. [This also applies to the African migrants to Israel who enter through Egypt/Sinai…. They should be the problem of Egypt, not Israel.]

Cohen resorts to his self- selected reading of Jewish law to justify his political orientation: "Jewish tradition is very clear that pikuach nefesh, or the saving a life, overrides or sets aside all other commandments (except idolatry, illicit sexual relations and murder). Therefore, one is obligated (not merely permitted) to violate the Shabbat to save a life. However, this is not the only time that the rabbis valorize going against the halachah in service to a greater good."

I will leave it to others to discuss whether certain solutions/improvements would serve the purposes of these families better than the current situation and still maintain the security and integrity of US borders and US immigration policy. For example, since, nearly all of these individuals are coming through Mexico possibly requiring them to register and remain in Mexico until processing would meet every reasonable requirement .

Cohen asks  the readers of the Jewish Journal to   urge  members of Congress to decrease the funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that enables the administration’s family separation practices. [What Sen. Rubio proposes is more resources to provide better housing and faster processing. Which of these two alternatives makes more sense to the immigrants and to the US government?]

What Cohen is really asking for asking for is that we have open borders and unlimited immigration which unfortunately has included vicious criminal gangs, drug dealers, sex trade operators, etc.

What is really needed has been pointed out by Sen. Cruz. More resources to expedite those who deserve sanctuary and to weed out those who would destroy the fabric of the society of the United States of America.


Do you believe, as we do, that the Jewish Journal should devote itself to articles that are vital to the American Jewish community and/or the survival of Israel?    If so, Publisher and Editor-in-chief David Suissa  can be reached at davids@jewishjournal.com











Saturday, June 9, 2018



Just who is behind the policing of our thought online?

 Pamela Geller, June 8, 2018

https://gellerreport.com/2018/06/geller-internet-thought-police.html/

An article, “What the Red Pill Means for Radicals,” published on June 7 in the ironically named publication Fair Observer might have passed unnoticed as yet another uninformed, biased and ideologically motivated attack on all who ever get labeled “extremists.” The piece is so riddled with non-sequiturs and wild generalizations that it seems almost cruel to rip it to shreds.

But the author is Bharath Ganesh. A little online research reveals that Ganesh is currently working at the Oxford Internet Institute — at the esteemed Oxford University — on a research project funded by the European Union to devise ways to disrupt the “far right” online. The project in question is under the banner of the Vox-Pol Network of Excellence, which “is designed to comprehensively research, analyse, debate, and critique issues surrounding violent online political extremism (VOPE).”

This research group is only interested in violent extremism – according to their website. “The qualifier ‘violent’ is therefore employed here to describe VOX-Pol’s interest, which is in those that employ or advocate physical violence against other individuals and groups to forward their political objectives. The extremist nature of the politics in which VOX-Pol is interested is thus not decided upon by project participants, but by the decision of those involved in particular types of politics to advocate or employ violence to advance their goals.”

Note the claims – utterly disingenuous, as it turns out – that the labeling of certain people or groups as “violent extremists” is entirely due to their own behavior; in other words, don’t worry, folks, it’s all scientifically objective.

This research is being used to advise companies who host online platforms, such as Facebook, as well as governments, on how to stamp out online radicalization – using strategies such as working out ways of preventing people from seeing material posted that is deemed unsuitable in some way, or offering them alternative “nice” things to look at. This is a seriously important issue. The people and political powers behind such initiatives are manipulating behavior online and literally controlling how people think and get information. They are the appointed guardians of the online hoi polloi.

But who guards the guardians?

For if Dr. Ganesh is in charge, we have some very worrying questions to ask. One could start from the observation that the article is certainly not an academic piece, and gives no concrete evidence for any of the sweeping claims it makes about the so-called “alt-right” and the “manosphere”; nor does it, as any academic should do, attempt to test ideas and consider alternative explanations. (Oddly enough, this makes it rather like the groups it claims to criticize.)

And the label of “violent extremist” turns out to be used very generously. Ganesh makes wild leaps and inferences. He talks of Darren Osborne, the perpetrator of the vehicular attack on Finsbury Park Mosque. This was a heinous crime, and should rightly be condemned. But why did Osborne do this, according to Ganesh? The attack “was executed after he had become indignant after watching a BBC broadcast on child sexual exploitation and turned to social media to make sense of it. He found a narrative from British counter-jihad groups closely aligned with the alt-right, such as Britain First and the founder of the English Defence League Tommy Robinson.” The British counter-jihad movement is thus swept into the same group of violent extremists as Osborne, because Ganesh “knows” they encouraged him.

The BBC broadcast was the drama based on real life, Three Girls, which showed real-life events of three of the (very many) victims of the Rochdale Muslim rape gangs. Ganesh somehow knows precisely what went on in Osborne’s mind. Rather than thinking that it was outrage at the behavior of the gangs of Muslim men of Pakistani background who abused the girls portrayed in Three Girls that caused Osborne to lose his mind and commit his terrible crime, Ganesh blames Obsorne’s act on the likes of Tommy Robinson. Yet Robinson explicitly fights AGAINST political violence. What “narrative from British counter-jihad groups” can one find which suggests driving vehicles into innocent Muslims standing outside a mosque? I’m sure if there was any, Ganesh would, as a researcher at an elite institution, be able to find it. But there is none offered – only surmise and Ganesh’s mindreading techniques. I suppose if you’re paid to fight online extremism, you’d better find it, or you’re out of a job and short of academic publication.

We have also the ridiculous idea that Tommy Robinson is “alt-right.” He, in fact, describes himself as a centrist – he’s said he agrees with Labour on some things, the Tories on other things, and he left the EDL precisely because he didn’t like the infiltration by the far right. He shows no hint of racism or of white supremacism.

The writer of this shoddy article is working at one of the most elite universities in the world, on research funded by the European Union, and giving advice based on this sloppy thinking to those who are in charge of manipulating and policing the communications and information we have online.

We have to ask. Is it simply a coincidence that Tommy Robinson is now in prison, and that a “researcher” who presents such a misleading account of Robinson is currently actively engaged in consultation with Oxford University and the European Union in advising how to disrupt Robinson’s activities, reinforcing the lies and misrepresentations about him to those in power?

There’s more. Bharath Ganesh’s profile tells us this: “During his Ph.D., Bharath was also a Senior Researcher at Tell MAMA, a national project dedicated to mapping and monitoring anti-Muslim hate in the United Kingdom. He has given evidence in the Houses of Parliament on governance, extremism, gender, and hate crime and authored a number of reports in this area.”

Is it simply a coincidence that this “researcher,” prior to coming to Oxford University, worked for Tell Mama, that factory for the production of bogus claims about Islamophobia?

Who runs the Internet runs the world. Is this a partnership between Europe’s governments, the Internet giants, and Islamic influence?

CHART FROM ANOTHER SOURCE

Friday, June 8, 2018

KRAUTHAMMER  SAYS GOODBYE
`
The following letter from Charles Krauthammer was delivered to his home paper and syndicate, The Washington Post.

I have been uncharacteristically silent these past 10 months. I had thought that silence would soon be coming to an end, but I'm afraid I must tell you now that fate has decided on a different course for me.

In August of last year, I underwent surgery to remove a cancerous tumor in my abdomen. That operation was thought to have been a success, but it caused a cascade of secondary complications -- which I have been fighting in hospital ever since. It was a long and hard fight with many setbacks, but I was steadily, if slowly, overcoming each obstacle along the way and gradually making my way back to health.

However, recent tests have revealed that the cancer has returned. There was no sign of it as recently as a month ago, which means it is aggressive and spreading rapidly. My doctors tell me their best estimate is that I have only a few weeks left to live. This is the final verdict. My fight is over.

I wish to thank my doctors and caregivers, whose efforts have been magnificent. My dear friends, who have given me a lifetime of memories and whose support has sustained me through these difficult months. And all of my partners at The Washington Post, Fox News, and Crown Publishing.

Lastly, I thank my colleagues, my readers, and my viewers, who have made my career possible and given consequence to my life's work. I believe that the pursuit of truth and right ideas through honest debate and rigorous argument is a noble undertaking. I am grateful to have played a small role in the conversations that have helped guide this extraordinary nation's destiny.


I leave this life with no regrets. It was a wonderful life -- full and complete with the great loves and great endeavors that make it worth living. I am sad to leave, but I leave with the knowledge that I lived the life that I intended.