Time to Revisit the Muslim Brotherhood's Immigration Strategy

Lest we forget, Earl Cox reminds us what it's all about (and, no, it doesn't involve "yuge" walls or "extreme" vetting):

In the Muslim Brotherhood’s 1991 “General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,” purposeful Muslim immigration is Stage One of radical Islam’s battle against the West and Western values. The 1987 Muslim Brotherhood Project presents Islam as a “civilization alternative” supporting a “global Islamic State” through jihad ...“to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within, and to sabotage its miserable house…so it is eliminated…so that Islam is victorious over all other religions.” Islam is on a global caliphate mission with a country-by-country political strategy of subjugation in four stages beginning with immigration (“settlement”) and population expansion. The second stage is “consolidation of power”—via demands for deferential treatment, religious accommodation, judicial, cultural and educational non-integration, and covert efforts to destroy the host society from within. This is achieved by undermining the power base of non-Muslims and their religions, especially Jews and Christians. The third stage is “Open War.” The fourth is transformation of the host state to an Islamic theocracy under sharia law, which denies and destroys non-Muslims’ rights, freedoms, religions, culture, worship and populations. Most global jihadist organizations embrace this theology, including Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian militants who threaten Israel from the southwest, north and from its own heartland, squeezing her forcibly from three sides.

The only two countries that acknowledge radical Islam’s goal of a worldwide caliphate are Israel and the United States, though political correctness misleads some. Israel is a Jewish state and the United States historically was founded on Judeo-Christian values. In democracies, immigrants are free to live and worship as they choose, but not to unravel the fabric of the society, culture and country that has welcomed them. Democracy’s "melting pot" doesn’t mix with radical Islam, because Islam and freedom cannot coexist.

In Canada soon (with the passage of time following the passage of an anti-Islamophobia motion), such harsh truths may well be considered "Islamophobia"/"hate" speech, which, when you think about it, is perfectly in synch with the MuBros' strategy. (The Brothers don't seem to have factored in the role that infidels' useful idiocy would play in furthering its goals, but, clearly, it's helping to move things along at a much faster pace.)

Finally, A Blast of Common Sense Re the Zion-Loathing UNHRC

Erin Barclay, the U.S.'s deputy assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, had this to say re the UN's deranged "human rights" body:

She questioned the sense behind giving Israel a dedicated agenda item at the UNHRC, as opposed to countries like Syria, North Korea, and Iran. 

“The obsession with Israel through agenda Item 7 is the largest threat to the Council’s credibility. It limits the good we can accomplish by making a mockery of this Council,” Barclay noted. “The United States will oppose any effort to delegitimize or isolate Israel – not just in the HRC, but wherever it occurs. When it comes to human rights, no country should be free from scrutiny – but neither should any democratic country be regularly subjected to unfair, unbalanced, and unfounded bias.”

Bravo, Barclay!

Silicon Valley a Bastion of Frat Boy Misogyny, Rape Culture? I'm Shocked, Shocked, I Say

In other words, this doesn't shock me at all:

What’s hard to believe is the extent to which this behavior exists in an industry that prides itself on doing everything better, cooler, and more inclusive than ever before. Far from the stodgy, old boy practices of bankers, Silicon Valley should be the antithesis of fart-joking bros. They should see gender and color as blindly as first graders, pay men and women the same for the same work, and have no tolerance for misogyny or sexual harassment. 

While Twitter, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and now Tesla have faced accusations of gender discrimination, the problem seems even worse with the smaller and younger entrants given their lack of structures, rules, and human resources departments. They often lack an obvious “parent in the room” to consult in sticky situations...

An unfortunate use of the word "sticky," no?

Beware of Anti-Trump, Anti-Israel Islamist Activists Bearing Gifts for Dead Jews

Words to live by, I think. And so would The Tower's Ben Cohen, who writes this:

In these times, it is dangerous to suggest thought experiments, but I will throw caution to the wind. I wonder if those who agree with Steven Goldstein of the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, when he said that Trump’s Feb. 21 condemnation of anti-Semitism was a “band-aid on the cancer of anti-Semitism that has infected his own administration,” would have similar qualms about Linda Sarsour, the Palestinian-American activist in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign who is rapidly achieving iconic status in the protest movement that has coalesced around Trump’s election. 

Sarsour and her Muslim activist colleagues raised more than $100,000 for the repair of the desecrated Chesed Shel Emeth cemetery in St. Louis, earning plaudits from nearly every mainstream media outlet and winning the endorsement of Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling. In publicity terms, it was an unbelievably smart move; by the time news of Sarsour’s initiative broke, her critics were immediately placed in the uncomfortable position of questioning her motives at just the time that she reached out to the Jewish community. 

But if Kenneth Marcus is right that patterns of speech and action determine what constitutes anti-Semitism, then Sarsour’s past denunciations of Zionism, and her support for a solution to the Palestinian issue based on the elimination of Jewish sovereignty, at least warrant a critical examination of the politics behind her cemetery gesture. It is easy, after all, to be empathetic and kind to dead Jews and their memories, whether in Poland or Missouri—and far harder to deal with the ones who are still alive, and who regard Sarsour’s “one state of Palestine” fantasies as sinister code for a solution that would need to be imposed, in all likelihood through violent conquest, on the Jews of Israel. 

Can the enemies of Israel be, at the same time, the friends of Jewish communities outside the Jewish state? Conversely, do friends of Israel get a pass when they play down or outright deny the presence of anti-Semites among their political allies? Why should Sarsour be acceptable to the Jewish community, but not Richard Spencer, the pudgy racist at the helm of the so-called National Policy Institute? Are we that easily taken in? I fear the answer is yes.

Why should Sarsour be acceptable? Because she's a Muslim woman who wears a hijab and who hates Trump. And for "progressive" Jews, who esteem victimhood and their own sense of virtuousness above all else, that makes her kosher.

Why Were the 7,000 Antisemtic Incidents Under Obama Largely Ignored?

Um, because they couldn't be blamed on Trump?

"Every Time Someone Says That the Jews are Horrible, are Criminals and Thieves, One Thousand American Jews Applaud"

Who's a bigger threat to Israel--a nuclear Ayatollah, or "Haaretz" Jews?

Don't answer that until you read the following, an excerpt from gonzo journalist Tuvia Tenenboim's latest book, The Lies They Tell, which details some of his adventures in America. In this snippet, Tuvia, a non-"progressive" Jew, stumbles into something dark and ugly--an event co-sponsored by Israel's house organ for the usefully (and malevolently) idiotic:

I’m in New York, I am invited to countless parties and events, but say no to all – except one. US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power is to speak at the Roosevelt Hotel as part of a conference organized by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and an American Jewish organization, New Israel Fund (NIF), both avowed progressive liberal institutions. 

I enjoyed listening to Samantha months ago in New York, at Abe Foxman’s tribute at the Waldorf-Astoria, and I’d like to hear her again. I go to the conference. I’m not alone. About one thousand people, almost all of them liberal American Jews, are in attendance. 

Speaking to governors at the White House on Monday, US President Donald Trump announced a sharp increase in the military... 

I’m a little early for Samantha’s speech and so I stand outside and smoke. Near me is a top NIF official and we talk a bit. She tells me that about 70 percent of American Jews hold the same views as NIF, and she also tells me that there are fifty speakers at this conference, forty-nine of whom are liberals and one of whom is conservative. 

What happened to the liberals? They are progressing, it seems, to the Stone Age. Be that as it may, it does arouse my attention and I go up to hear some of the forty-niners. 

What a show! Here I hear a lady, by the name of Suhad Babaa, who talks of  “Palestinian  boys  killed  in  broad  daylight by Israeli soldiers” as an example of the brutal and lawless Jews. The audience, liberal American Jews, applaud. Don’t ask me to explain. 

Amira Hass, a Haaretz columnist, tells these American Jews: “Anybody who intends to emigrate to Israel is about to commit a crime.” The Jewish state, if you didn’t know, is a criminal state. 

The Jews applaud. 

Bridget Todd, a black lady who is associated with Black Lives Matter, shares the stage with Amira. What is she doing here? I can’t tell, but it’s definitely an effective visual tool to illustrate to Americans what the Jews are doing worldwide: murdering non-whites. 

What else do I see here? Roger Waters is sitting in the front row of the main hall, being glorified by a Haaretz fellow who tells him how pleased he is to see such an important man at this conference. Roger, co-founder of the old favorite English rock band Pink Floyd, is still in the music business. But besides music, he has some other things on his mind, such as comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and engaging in endless activism against Israel. 

The Jews here love him for that. And they applaud at the mere mention of his name. 

This conference is called HaaretzQ, where the “Q” stands for question, but nobody is questioning anything. Everybody here has the answers, all the answers. And they talk.  

The forty-niners say, for example, that Jewish Voice for Peace, whose activists I met while in DC and by whom I was told that I’m a fat, filthy Jew, is an exemplary organization. 

All in all, it is bizarre to watch...

Israel sucks because of its wicked, murderous ways?

Not so bizarre, really. Just a typical news day at the New York Times (rimshot!).

Oh, and that "Q" in question?

It stands for quislings.

Not a Real Thing, Surely

Hipster wallpaper:

Dumbest Thing I've Read All Day

Oscars Best Picture Gaffe and Slow Response Eclipse Diversity Gains

And here Hollywood had been feeling so good about itself, what with all the African American nominees, only to have it all be for naught because of a mix up at the end of the night.

I can understand the sentiment had Moonlight, the picture that won based partly on its "intersectionality" (it's about a gay Black person, a Hollywood and Vine intersection of victim groups), been robbed of the prize. But everything was corrected on the spot, and within minutes, so I don't understand what all the kvetching is about (save for the knowledge, some of it first hand, that for certain kinds of people, there's no such thing as too much kvetching).

Bin There, Done That

According to The Local, this photo of some refuse in Paris that looks like you-know-who has become "an internet sensation."

Photo: Stom Regembal @stom01/Twitter

The Immorality of Hollywood "Sophisticates"

Yesterday I quoted a Jew who observed, re making common cause with an avowed enemy of Israel, that "the existence of multiple moral frameworks with which to view the world is not a sign of confusion; it is a sign of sophistication and strength."

One needn't be a "progressive" Jew, however, to exist within that sort of moral maze. In fact, it was also on display last Sunday night at the Academy Awards, when Hollywood cheered the victory of a citizen of Ayatollahville. Sickened by the overt display of "sophistication"/useful idiocy on view, Bruce Bawer comments:

Taking in Tinseltown's huzzahs for [Best Foreign Film director Asghar] Farhadi, I couldn't help but recall the students at Columbia University who, ten years ago, gave Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the then president of Iran, a similar ovation. Never mind that Ahmadinejad then, and Farhadi now, represent a nation that is in the world's bottom ten for free speech and free press, a nation that arrests, tortures, and imprisons writers and artists, a nation that executes gays and rape victims, a nation that has made no secret of its desire to destroy Israel, and a nation that, since we're speaking of travel bans, happens to be one of sixteen (all of them Islamic, needless to say) that ban entry by Israeli citizens. But who cares about such niggling details? Just as the kids at Columbia hailed Ahmadinejad because he was the enemy of their enemy, George W. Bush, the celebrities at the Dolby Theater on Sunday night cheered Farhadi because his country is the enemy of their enemy, Donald J. Trump. If anybody saw the absurdity of an Iranian accusing America's president of “fanaticism” and of taking an “inhumane” action, there was no sign of it whatsoever. 

Beware with whom you make common cause, "sophisticated" "progressives." The lesson of history--including the history of Iran's Islamist "revolution"--is that once the folks you're unwilling to subject to a litmus test come to power, you will be amongst the first to be eliminated.

"Sanders, Kaine, Pelosi and Erekat Will Be There"

This year's J Street gathering attracts the usual Israel-bashing suspects.