Saturday, February 28, 2015

UK: Antisemite George Galloway suing people for calling him an antisemite

Via The Independent:

George Galloway has ordered lawyers to issue Twitter users who alleged he was an anti-Semite with letters demanding £5,000 and threatening legal action.

The Bradford West MP has reportedly singled out up to a dozen people, including some who had only re-tweeted other posts and a charity worker with just 75 followers.

Anti-Zionists-Not-Antisemites Of The Day

..are those responsible for this poster, apparently seen in Amsterdam
zionist brain
Frontal money lobe..World Domination lobe..Holocaust memory center..
Nope, no antisemitic tropes there at all. And if you think so, it is clearly the “antisemitic sensory” part of the brain reacting again.
You know, two can play this game..

anti zionist brainisraellycool

Sweden: School justifies Holocaust-denying narrative

Obviously, Sweden feels it's necessary to teach immigrants about the Holocaust.  But it can't deal with them when they deny it.  

Via The Local Sweden (h/t onelpeleg):
A substitute teacher has been told off for challenging a Holocaust denier during a Swedish for Immigrants (SFI) class in southern Sweden.

The teacher claimed one of the students questioned the Holocaust after watching a news segment about the persecution of Jews in an SFI class at adult education centre Kärnan in Helsingborg, newspaper Helsingborgs Dagblad has reported.

But the student said he was misunderstood and claims the teacher yelled at him.

The school co-ordinator later criticized the teacher over the incident – which prompted the student to leave the classroom – according to a recorded meeting about the incident quoted by Helsingborgs Dagblad.

“The student talked to me and he said he felt misunderstood and insulted and painted as a Holocaust denier and Nazi,” the co-ordinator is quoted as saying on the recording.

“What he said was to deny the Holocaust,” replied the teacher.

“Yes, but he felt unfairly treated after he had been accused of that.”

“He wasn’t accused. I only told him it is not okay to say that the Jews just lie.”
The co-ordinator went on to later add: “You should remember that what we think of as history is the history we've been taught. When we have students who have read other history books there's no point setting facts against each other.” 


Jihadi John ‘Had Anger Management Therapy at School’

By Nick Hallett 

One of Mohammed Emwazi’s former teachers has said he received anger management therapy while at secondary school. Emwazi, who was unmasked as Islamic State killer Jihadi John earlier this week, was involved in several fights in his first year at Quintin Kynaston School in London and needed therapy to control his emotions, the teacher told BBC Newsnight.
The unnamed teacher said: “We’d find that he’d get very angry and worked up and it would take him a long time to calm himself down, so we did a lot of work as a school to help him with his anger and to control his emotions.”
She claimed that the therapy seemed to work, adding: “He had a lot of respect for all of the work that had been done for him at our school.”
From his poor start at the school, Emwazi seemed to “blossom” into a “lovely, lovely boy” with a “real willingness to try and succeed,” the teacher said.
“I’d say that Mohammed was a success story of our school, he went on to achieve everything that he wanted to do; he went to a university of his choice, and from the way he started in Year Seven to how he blossomed ’til he left at the end of sixth form was a huge achievement for him, so I’m very surprised … ”
A statement from the school, released by Westminster City Council, said it was “shocked and sickened” that its former student was involved in terrorism.

Charities Under Investigation for Funding Jihadi John Apologist Group

By Nick Hallett 

Two charities that have funded the controversial group Cage, which described Jihadi John as a “beautiful young man”, are being investigated by Britain’s Charity Commission. The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Roddick Foundation have both made six-figure donations to the group set up by former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg.
The Rowntree trust, a Quaker charity, is reported to have given a total of £305,000 to the group, while the Roddick Foundation, which hands out charity grants from the estate of Body Shop founder Dame Anita Roddick, is reported to have given £120,000.
The Charity Commission confirmed to the Times that there were “compliance cases” into the charities. A spokesman said: “Public statements made in the last few days by Cage raise clear questions for a charity considering funding its activities as to how they could comply with their legal duties as charity trustees.”
Regarding the investigation into the Rowntree trust and the Roddick Foundation, the spokesman added: “The commission’s regulatory concerns are about how the trustees have ensured that charitable grants made to non-charitable bodies are only used for exclusively charitable purposes.”
Questions have also been raised over Amnesty International’s support for Cage. Breitbart London reported yesterday that Amnesty played host to a European tour by Begg and organised a joint trip to Downing Street with the group to petition for the release of Guantanamo inmates.
Gita Saghal, head of Amnesty’s Gender Unit, was hounded out for questioning their links with Begg. She later said that the group’s support of Begg was “something that undermines every aspect of the work we have done on discrimination against minorities. I cannot underestimate the level of horror expressed throughout the global women’s movement.”
Cage sparked outrage after the identity of Jihadi John was revealed on Thursday by describing him as “gentle” and a “beautiful young man”, accusing British security services of radicalising him.
Downing Street said the suggestion MI5 was to blame was “completely reprehensible,” adding: “We should not be seeking to put blame on other people, particularly those who are working to keep British citizens safe.”
London Mayor Boris Johnson also hit out at the group, saying: “This group called Cage — they were plainly apologists for terror.
“They were trying to excuse what had happened and I think that it was absolutely shameful and beyond satire that this group — funded by charities, by good British people — could stand up and blame the security services for the radicalisation of these young men.”
A spokesman for the The Rowntree Trust said: “We reject and condemn all violence, including all violence for political ends.
“Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust has previously funded Cage to promote and protect human rights. We believe that they have played an important role in highlighting the ongoing abuses at Guantanamo Bay and at many other sites around the world, including many instances of torture.
“The trust does not necessarily agree with every action or statement of any group that we have funded. We believe that Cage is asking legitimate questions about security service contact with those who have gone on to commit high-profile and horrific acts of violence, but this does not in any way absolve any such individual from responsibility for such criminal acts.”

‘Uni-slam’ Part 1: How British Universities are Complicit in Radical Islamism

By Danny Lee Weston 

With the identification of ‘Jihadi John’ this week as one Mohammed Emwazi, much focus has been given to his numerous apologists. Not least have been the representatives of the ‘CAGE’ activist group. As Maajid Nawaz and Mehrdad Amanpour have both complained, this platform given to them by journalists effectively normalises jihadist narratives in the media and wider society. There is however another massive normalising entity for these barbarians – the UK’s University sector, and it fails to receive anything near the scrutiny it deserves.
Hot on the heels of Mohammed’s unmasking, we find out that he graduated from the University of Westminster. The University issued a statement shortly after, claiming the institution was “shocked and sickened by the news” and that it is “working…to tackle extremism”.
Which is interesting. As on the very same day this news broke, an Islamic hate preacher was due to speak at the University. Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad is a lovely chap – “kind, gentle” just like his co-religionist Mohammed. He believes that homosexuality is “criminal”, a “scourge” and “evil”. He also provides advice on the correct way to hack a girl’s genitals to pieces. Oh, and of course, the obligatory “hating the Kuffar”.
Students presented the university with a petition containing over 2,000 signatures against al-Haddad’s talk being allowed to go ahead. The University’s initial response was stunning. They said they were “committed to maintaining freedom of speech and a diversity of views as set out in the Education Act 1986″ but that “[a]s a diverse community of local and international students of many faiths, respect and tolerance is our foremost concern”.
This is simply beyond belief in the kind of environment where the most minor infraction, or even perceived infraction (whether intended or not) of the groupthink speech codes can lead to excoriation, banning, or even sacking. Robin Thicke’s excellent ‘Blurred Lines’ is banned from campuses across the UK for allegedly inciting and fuelling “rape culture”, but speakers promoting criminalisation, or even murder, of homosexuals and promotion of the permanent sexual maiming of prepubescent girls is, apparently, acceptable.
The University of Westminster has form on this issue, and were a league table of jihadi-factory Universities ever created it would surely feature within the top ten for the UK. They officially express “shock” and surprise, yet have no grounds for either. The institution’s disingenuous platitudes dramatically increase its culpability. It has had an Islamist problem for years.
In 2011, one Tarik Mahri, a member of Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, was elected as the Union President. That’s right – the Union President – the public face of the students! Not only was he elected with a comfortable majority but another Hizb ut-Tahrir member was elected as vice-president. It is no wonder that, in the Harry’s Place reporting on al-Haddad, a quoted LGBT student from the university wished to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals.
And yet such stories are not incredibly rare exceptions. They have become commonplace for institutions across the country. Michael Adebolajo, one of Lee Rigby’s murderers, converted to Islam and was radicalised whilst attending the University of Greenwich and its student Islamic Society. Both the university and Lee Rigby’s murder occurred just a few miles away from where I live now. Unlucky, right? No. The preponderance of Islamist coddling institutions is much higher than you might think.
I returned to London having lived for many years in Sheffield, where each University in the city – the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University – had an Islamist problem at the time when I left. Both student Islamic societies at each institution regularly hosted Islamist speakers. Worse, Rashad Ali, an ex-member of Hizb ut-Tahir (them again) admitted that they had used Sheffield Hallam’s Islamic society as a recruiting ground. He also confessed that they had control of the student Islamic societies at both Bradford and Birmingham universities.
How is it possible that such activity could become so widespread and tolerated in our higher education sector for so long? Especially as campuses have now become breeding grounds for Offendotrons as well as Islamists?
A substantial part of it is the white hot hypocrisy, double standards and cowardice of the student left. I will get onto that in another piece. Beyond the student bubble though, surely we see grown-ups in charge who should be responsibly stamping down on this?
Rashad Ali gives us a disturbing insight into the processes within the University that facilitate their Islamist recruitment outside of the purview of student union politics:
“We had Hizb people delivering sermons every Friday and influential lecturers stayed on as PhD students and then lecturers at universities. These were people whom the university had confidence in and would not doubt.”
Such infiltration into the very ranks of the University staff themselves can be seen materially at the University of Westminster. Who was responsible for “vetting” al-Haddad’s suitability for speaking on campus? Step forward “Interfaith Adviser” Yusuf Kaplan. Kaplan was previously a student of al-Haddad. What a pretty little circle.
Seeing such a blatant infiltration and conflict of interests, one starts to wonder at the behaviour of other higher education institutions and their related bodies. In 2013, UniversitiesUK, the premier advocacy organisation for British Universities, issued guidance stating that sex-segregated meetings were absolutely fine on campus. Their only stipulation is that the separate groups of men and women are seated side by side. Oh, that’s OK then. Whilst in the face of opposition they were forced to recant this position, that such an obviously sexist and offensive policy would be recommend by such an august body boggles the mind and shows how far the university sector has fallen, both in terms of its capacity to issue collectively wise judgements and its submission to cultural relativism.
Both websites of the National Secular Society and Harry’s Place routinely document the ongoing attendance of hate preachers at university campuses across the UK. They tend to do so wearily though, and who can blame them, because the pattern has been set now that whilst institutions express “shock” and “sickness” when such events are in the public eye, once the attention of the media has passed on they are quick to resume turning a blind eye – until the next time, when the cycle just rinses and repeats. This is exactly what has occurred at the University of Westminster – under the intense gaze of public scrutiny, al-Haddad’s talk has been “postponed” (but not cancelled).
Indeed, the National Secular Society’s assessment of the current state of play is grim:
“There’s no doubt that the influence of political Islam in British universities is growing and with Islamic societies frequently hosting extremist preachers, universities need to be mindful of the effect that such speakers are having on young British Muslims.”
They go on to advocate that “the best response to their poisonous narrative is open discussion and debate, where it can be systematically exposed, ridiculed and defeated.” Yet such an approach is difficult to take even once, never mind consistently. And let us be clear, consistent and continual exposure of such individuals, groups and their sponsors within Universities is what is required. Those who try are routinely targeted by the left’s Useful Idiot contingent on campus and intimidated into silence.
It is an utterly despicable and shameful state of affairs and both the Higher Education sector itself and the student left have an awful lot to answer for. I will address the deficiencies of the latter in the next part.

Police in German city warn of potential extremist threat

Police in the German city of Bremen are warning of a potential danger from Islamic extremists there and say they are stepping up security measures.
A police statement said that officials received tips about activities of potentially dangerous Islamic extremists from a German federal authority on Friday evening. Saturday’s statement said that police in the northwestern city are responding “with coordinated and adapted security measures.”
Police gave no further details of the nature of the potential threat.
The warning comes amid heightened concern in Europe about terrorism following attacks this year in Paris and Copenhagen.
In mid-February, police in the northern German city of Braunschweig canceled a Carnival street parade over fears of a terrorist attack.

Europe Without Jews?

By Guy Millière
Even if many Muslims came to Europe seeking economic opportunity, they are often defined as victims of racism and oppression. So, the thinking goes, if you are a victim of racism and oppression, how can you be racist yourself?
The Palestinians repeat almost daily that they would like to kill the Israelis, while the Israelis say they would like peace. What follows are usually bitter, politically-motivated denunciations of Israel by Europe, masquerading as human rights.
Despite the increasingly savage state of the world and an openly genocidal Iran -- soon to be nuclear, if it is not already -- Israeli leaders remain the ones Europeans love to accuse, hate and demonize.
The terrorist attacks are denounced by journalists and political leaders, but their denunciations always sound sanctimonious and thin, condemning the "anti-Semitism" they themselves have been encouraging.
In Europe today, slandering Israel is widely conveyed by European Muslims, and if a political leader or journalist does not agree with what they say, he must be a racist.
There are now 44 million Muslims in Europe.
In Europe, evoking the memory of Auschwitz has become difficult; tomorrow, it may be impossible.
The ceremony marking the seventieth anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp was held on January 27 -- and will likely be the last commemoration of its kind. The Nazis wanted a Europe without Jews. They killed six million, but in their ultimate goal, they failed.
Three hundred survivors were invited; all were more than eighty years old. Although filmed testimonies will remain, there may be no more direct witnesses.
While European political leaders speak of Auschwitz with the solemn formula of "never again," it increasingly seems meaningless. Surveys show that in most European countries, including Germany, a growing number of people want to turn the page, and say they want forget about the Holocaust in a way they do not say they want to forget about, for instance, the Crucifixion.
When articles on the Holocaust are published in major European magazines, an increasing number of people leave comments to point out that the Holocaust was just one genocide among others, and there is no reason to insist on this one in particular.
When other genocides are evoked, the fate of the Palestinians also quickly takes center stage, even though the Palestinians repeat almost daily that they would like to kill the Israelis, while the Israelis say they would like peace. The Israelis have never said they would like to kill the Palestinians.
What follows are usually bitter, politically motivated denunciations of Israel by Europe, masquerading as human rights.
Despite the monstrous crimes committed by the Islamic State, Boko Haram or Iran; despite two hundred thousand dead in Syria; and despite the massacres of Christians and Yezidis in Iraq, for European journalists, the Jewish state remains, it seems, the favored prime target.
Where else in the middle east but Israel can a journalist lead a comfortable life, file a story along the only lines his editor will like by noon, go to the beach, and have dinner with his family? Maybe if he bashes Israel enough, his story will even make the front page, and he will receive an award for courage in journalism. So, in the international media, Israeli Jews are often libelously described as criminals who simply are doing to other people what was done to the Jews seventy years ago.
Despite the increasingly savage state of the world, with an openly genocidal Iran -- soon to be a nuclear, if it is not already -- and with the squalid brutality of dictators such as Bashar al-Assad, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Kim Jong Un and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, Israeli leaders remain the ones many Europeans love to accuse, hate and demonize.
The desire to forget the past, to hurl degrading charges against Israeli Jews, to slander the Jewish state, and to demonize Israeli leadership displays a growing animosity against Jews, in addition to encouraging renewed anti-Jewish violence on European soil.
Often anti-Israeli demonstrations are punctuated with explicit slogans targeting Jews. These demonstrations then lead to riots and physical attacks against synagogues and Jews.
The attacks are denounced by journalists and political leaders, but their denunciations always sound sanctimonious and thin, condemning the "anti-Semitism" they themselves have been encouraging. Most European journalists and political leaders claim to fight anti-Semitism. Most do not.[1] They almost never address the harsh words used about Israel, Israeli Jews or Israel's leaders. They speak and act as if those words had no influence. Their denunciations therefore always sound devious and glossy.
The long, persistent, European hatred of Jews, which led to Auschwitz, was a crime so sickening that, for a few decades, Europeans were crushed with shame. Since then, they seem to have sought unceasingly to alleviate this burden.
One attempt, Holocaust denial, merely sparked outrage and horror for a while. Attempts to trivialize the Holocaust persist. The growing desire in many Europeans to forget about those events could even be making trivializing the Holocaust a success.
Another attempt is to slander Israel. If falsely accusing it of being a criminal state; and Israeli Jews of being unacceptable; and Israeli leaders of having dark plans, then Europeans can see themselves as less criminal and allow themselves to feel less guilt.[2]
Slandering Israel in Europe is also effective because, although it comes from both extremes, it mostly comes from the "left."[3]
The "left" portrays itself as "anti-fascist"; anyone who does not agree with their views must therefore be a fascist.
They describe Palestinian Arabs as victims, which they are – but not because of Israel. No Palestinians are now governed by Israelis, only Arabs. Israel forcibly evacuated all the Jews from Gaza in 2005, so it could be, for the Palestinians, a "Singapore on the Mediterranean." Israelis left greenhouses in perfect condition for them, so the Palestinians could start out with a solid economy. The Palestinians destroyed the greenhouses within hours. Hamas threw Fatah members off the tops of buildings until Fatah ran away. Hamas now rules Gaza in a unity government with Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority. Support for Abbas's Fatah is support for Hamas.
But many Europeans – even now, faced with the same terror attacks Israel has faced for years -- do not let such facts get in their way. Never mind that the Palestinians had built secret death-tunnels for surprise attacks to kidnap and murder Jewish civilians Never mind that the Palestinians continually call for the death -- not just of Israelis -- but of Jews. Never mind that Palestinians rejected every partition, land or peace offer, granting them 98% of what they asked, since 1947. Many Europeans still describe Israeli Jews as fascist torturers, sometimes comparable to the Nazis.[4]
Slandering Israel is effective in Europe today because there has been a shift in its population. Millions of Muslim migrants have come there. Now they are European citizens. Even if many originally came to Europe seeking economic opportunity, they are often defined by Europeans as victims of racism and oppression. So, the thinking goes, if you are a victim of racism and oppression, how can you be racist yourself?
Many Muslims have been indoctrinated from childhood to hate Israel, hate the Jews and hate the West.[5] This view is helped along by genocidal Islamic texts; the Palestinian media, both Hamas and Fatah; the international media, who only accept articles that have an anti-Israeli angle, and European-funded, non-governmental organizations which pretend to defend "human rights" but instead are dedicated to the political agenda: trying to dismantle Israel.
European governments and the European Union each year spend hundreds of million of euros– transparency and accountability rigorously kept hidden -- for the political agenda of trying to bring Israel to its knees, diplomatically and economically. This international agenda is spurred on with the encouragement of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC], composed of 56 states plus "Palestine," and which makes up the largest bloc at the deeply corrupt United Nations.
In Europe today, slandering Israel is widely conveyed by European Muslims, and if a political leader or journalist does not agree with what they say, he must be a racist.
Hatred of Israel so permeates the European atmosphere that almost no journalists or political leaders -- with the exception of a courageous few, who are immediately and harshly punished -- seem prepared to confront it in a way that might actually bear results.
A few years ago, attacks against Jews in Europe could be violent, but rarely led to assassinations. But all this started to change in 2006, when a group in Paris kidnapped and tortured a young Jew, Ilan Halimi, for three weeks before finally killing him. In 2012, the man who attacked the Jewish school in Toulouse also wanted to kill Jews, and did. The man who attacked the Brussels Jewish Museum in 2014 wanted to kill Jews, and did. He did. The man who entered kosher supermarket in Paris on January 9 wanted to kill Jews, and did. The man who attacked a synagogue in Copenhagen on February 14 wanted to kill Jews; perhaps to his disappointment, he killed only one.
In response to the attacks, 1,000 extremely praiseworthy Muslims in Norway, in solidarity with the Jews, formed a "ring of peace" around the main synagogue in Oslo. "We do not want individuals to define what Islam is for the rest of us," said one of the demonstration's organizers, Zeeshan Abdullah. But more attacks in Europe will follow.
European populations remain passive and inert. They reacted in Paris on January 11 mostly because famous cartoonists were killed two days earlier than the attack on the kosher store. Had it been only Jews that were killed, there probably would have been no crowd reaction at all. There were no crowds after the Toulouse or Brussels killings. There was also, before the Muslim ring in Copenhagen, a small crowd reaction after the murder there – most likely because the killer had also attacked a meeting on free speech.
World leaders link arms at the Paris anti-terror rally on January 11, 2014. Guy Millière writes that had it been only Jews that were been killed, there probably would have been no rally at all. (Image source: RT video screenshot)
Israeli leaders, deciphering the situation, have for years denounced the rising anti-Israel atmosphere in Europe, and accurately predicted what the violent consequences would be.
Israel's Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has repeated that at least now there is a Jewish state where Jews can live freely.
More than 60,000 Jews have left Europe during the past decade, and thousands are still leaving.
While there were 9.8 million Jews in Europe in 1939, there are now 1.4 million: 0.2% of the population.
There are now 44 million Muslims in Europe. The number of those who are radicalized is on the rise, and the number who hate Israel and Jews is high.
Seventy years after Auschwitz, a Europe without Jews now seems a possibility.

[1] Manfred Gerstenfeld, Demonizing Israel and the Jews, RVP Publishers, 2013.
[2] Gabriel Schoenfeld, The Return of Anti-Semitism, Encounter Books, 2005
[3] Robert Wistrich, From Ambivalence to Betrayal: The Left, the Jews, and Israel, University of Nebraska Press, 2012.
[4] Robert Wistrich, op.cit.
[5] Christopher Caldwell, Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West, Anchor Books, 2010.

Friday, February 27, 2015

Actor Leonard Nimoy Dies at 83

Jewish Actor Leonard Nimoy, who won fans worldwide for his generations-spanning role as the pointy-eared half-human half-Vulcan Spock in the "Star Trek" television and film franchise, died Friday at age 83, AFP reported.
Nimoy, who suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, died at his home in Los Angeles. His wife, Susan Bay Nimoy, confirmed the death to the New York Times.
He was born in Boston on March 26, 1931, to Yiddish-speaking Orthodox Jewish immigrants from Iziaslav, Soviet Union, in what is now Ukraine.
Nimoy left for Hollywood at the age of 18, winning a sprinkling of small parts in 1950s television series.
In 1966, he was cast in his greatest role as the ever-logical Spock, in the television show "Star Trek." Aboard the spaceship USS Enterprise, science officer Spock and its crew ventured around the galaxy exploring new worlds in death-defying odysseys.
Spock was the cool counterpoint to hot-headed Captain James T. Kirk, played by William Shatner, and the even-tempered sparring partner of ship doctor Leonard "Bones" McCoy, played by DeForest Kelley.
The three had ratings-boosting chemistry that sustained "Star Trek" during its initial four-year run.
The character of Spock would be resurrected for several feature films after "Star Trek" snowballed into a cultural phenomenon in the 70s and 80s, making Spock's Vulcan salute and salutation "live long and prosper" -- a touchstone of the science-fiction world.
Nimoy would later reveal he based the hand gesture on his childhood memories of the way the kohanim would hold their hand when giving the priestly blessings..
In addition to acting, Nimoy was an accomplished director. He directed two of the Star Trek films including one of the most well received, "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home." Nimoy also directed 1987 box-office hit "3 Men and a Baby" starring Tom Selleck.
In 1975, he authored the book "I am Not Spock" attempting to open up space between himself and the character that had so captured people's imaginations.
While "Star Trek" fever built, Nimoy starred alongside Donald Sutherland and Jeff Goldblum in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" in 1978, and then alongside Ingrid Bergman in 1982's "A Woman Called Golda", a movie based on the biography of former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir.
Nimoy would eventually embrace his role as an authority figure in the sci-fi world. He wrote a rebuttal to his earlier memoir in "I am Spock" in 1995.
Nimoy had two children with his first wife, and was married to his second wife Susan since 1989.
He built off his sci-fi and Spock fame for the rest of his career, lending his voice to documentaries, video games and television shows.
He sold "Live Long and Prosper" apparel, and waved the Vulcan salute at "Star Trek" conventions.
He returned to "Star Trek" and an older version of his Spock character in the franchise's reboot directed by J.J Abrams in 2009 and in a 2013 sequel.

UK: Nigel Farage On Target to Win Commons Seat in May

By Donna Rachel Edmunds 

Nigel Farage is on track to win a seat in the House of Commons in May. A new poll has revealed that he currently enjoys an 11 percent lead over the Labour Party, whilst the Tory incumbents will be pushed into third place. This is the first poll to name the candidates in the questions. Previous polls from Survation and Lord Ashcroft in South Thanet, where the Ukip leader is standing, have put Farage behind. Lord Ashcroft polled in the constituency last November, predicting the Conservatives to hold the seat by taking 33 percent against Ukip’s 32 percent, with Labour trailing on 26 percent.
But the new poll by Survation has revealed the full effect of the “Farage Factor” – the name recognition that will help to boost the leader’s election bid. Yesterday’s results showed Ukip taking a commanding lead, with 38.6 percent of the vote. Labour were second on 27.6 percent, and the Conservatives one point behind on 26.6 percent, despite winning the seat in 2010 with a majority of over 7,600.
Ukip is often derided as being a party for the elderly, but the party will take cheer from results showing that a very healthy 43 percent of 35-54 year olds are planning to vote for Mr Farage.
The poll also shows what Ukip have long claimed: that their support is coming from all sides. One in three former Conservative voters are now planning to vote Ukip, as are one in three former Liberal Democrat voters. One in five Labour supporters plan to give the party their backing.
Farage’s campaign to take South Thanet is being masterminded by Chris Bruni-Lowe, the same campaigner who led Ukip to victory in both the Clacton and Rochester and Strood by-elections.
Ukip expert Matthew Goodwin, writing for the Times Red Box has described the strategy as “professional, targeted and rooted in grassroots engagement.” He explained that it hinges on Farage “consciously avoiding the ‘pop star politician’ routine” by attending regular events within the constituency whilst eschewing media coverage. “His message -’use me to give Thanet a powerful voice in Westminster’- is clearly resonating,” Goodwin said.
Goodwin is also of the opinion that the Conservatives have made a strategic error in their choice of candidate in South Thanet, picking ex-Ukipper Craig MacKinlay to try to out-Ukip the Ukip leader.
“Is Craig MacKinlay likely to attract floating moderate Conservatives? No. Will anti-Farage Labour voters turn to an ex-Ukipper? No. I see no way back for the Conservative Party in Thanet South, who may well conclude that are better placed containing the spread of Ukip in other nearby seats, such as Thanet North [sic], Gravesham and Sittingbourne and Sheppey,” Goodwin said.
Farage took time out from his campaigning schedule this week to appear at the CPAC conference in Washington, the first foreign leader to do so, where he told delegates “I accept that I’m a foreigner, and I don’t want to meddle. But if the Republican Party is going to win the next presidential election, I think the Republican Party needs to get the kind of people voting for it that were voting for it 30 years ago.
“Reagan Democrats — people that worked hard, people who were patriotic people, who aspired and wanted to get on. I don’t think, at the moment, the Republican Party is attracting those kinds of people.”

Why do Soldiers have to Protect my Newspaper?

By Giulio Meotti 

The next issues of the monthly magazine of the Jewish community in Berlin, the Judisches Berlin, will be delivered to subscribers in an anonymous envelope without any written identification. "We decided to do it, despite the considerable additional costs, to reduce the likelihood of hostility towards our more than ten thousand members" said the spokesman of the newspaper Ilan Kiesling to the newspaper Tagesspiegel. Frightened by the number of terrorist threats and the alarms, many readers had already called to unsubscribe.
Henryk Broder, one of the most famous pens of German journalism, the Jewish intellectual and columnist at Die Welt after a long experience at Der Spiegel, interprets the decision of the magazine as a sign of capitulation. "The Jews of Europe do not want to take their destiny into their own hands, they love to be protected, but that they do not understand that this is the same of being persecuted,"
Broder told me. "Nor do I believe the reassuring words that come from European leaders on anti-Semitism, such as Manuel Valls and Angela Merkel. It is a lie, they are afraid of the Muslim population in Europe. What we are witnessing is not the rebirth of Jewish life in Germany and Europe, but the end of an experiment. It is over. There is no life after death".
Since January 15, the French army’s “Opération Sentinelle” has protected 722 Jewish schools and synagogues in France. The army has reported 371 incidents perpetrated against the soldiers standing guard in front of the protected sites. What would have happened to the Jews without the soldiers standing in front of their temples and schools?
Meanwhile, in Sweden a radio asked the Israeli ambassador if Jews are not the cause of anti-Semitism.
Post-Holocaust Europe is a dead tree and Jewish life is possible only in Eretz Yisrael. Only in Israel every Jewish man, woman and child can live in freedom with dignity, respect and pride.
Yesterday, a friend told me that about 400 Italian Jews have already left for Israel and hundreds are preparing the necessary documents. My first reaction was one of sadness and loss.
Then I looked at the soldiers who have just been deployed in front of my newspaper's offices. First they adopted bulletproof vests. Then they began to patrol with machine guns.
I understood that the writing is on the wall. For the Jews - and for me.

American Blogger Who Spoke Against Extremism Hacked to Death in Bangladesh

By Nick Hallett 

A Bangladeshi-American blogger who spoke out against religious extremism has been hacked to death in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Avijit Roy was found in a pool of blood last night after he was attacked by a gang armed with cleavers, who also critically injured his wife, Rafida Ahmed. The couple, who usually live in the US, had attended a book fair in Bangladesh before they were set upon. Mr Roy died at the scene, while Mrs Ahmed is currently in a critical condition in hospital. No one has been arrested, although a group calling themselves Ansar Bangla 7 have claimed responsibility. They said Roy “was the target because of his crime against Islam”.
The Daily Mail reports that Roy was a naturalised US citizen who was a prominent opponent religious intolerance. He had founded a Bengali-language blog, Mukto-mona (Free Mind) that espoused atheism and scientific inquiry. Roy wrote last month that atheism was a “rational concept to oppose any unscientific and irrational belief.”
Baki Billah, a friend of Roy, said that Roy had earlier been threatened for his writing. “He was a free thinker. He was Hindu but he was not only a strong voice against Islamic fanatics but also equally against other religious fanatics.
“We are saddened. We don’t know what the government will do to find the killers. We want justice.”
Although Islam is the official religion of Bangladesh, the country is governed by secular laws based on British common law, and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has said she will not tolerate religious extremism.
A number of similar attacks have previously taken place in the country. In 2013, blogger Ahmed Rajib Haider was killed outside his home in Dhaka after also speaking out against religious extremism.
In 2004, writer and university lecturer Humayun Azad was seriously injured while returning from the same book fair as Roy.
Taslima Nasreen, another blogger who received death threats in the 1990s wrote on her blog: “Avijit Roy has been killed the way other free thinker writers were killed in Bangladesh. No free thinker is safe in Bangladesh.”

ISIS: Pro-Palestinians in Europe Actually Sleeper ISIS Cells

Pro-Palestinian rallies and groups are being used to aid the rise of Islamic State (ISIS) in Europe, according to a book the group released this month - united under the front of "bringing down Zionsim."
The book, Black Flags from Rome, encourages European Muslims to rise up and aid ISIS from within, according to a report on the PJ Media website - and notes that terror cells have already been formed.
“There were small armies of the Islamic State within every country of Europe by late 2014, and the intelligence agencies didn’t even know about it!” the book exclaims.
“If you have ever been at a pro-Palestine / anti-Israel protest, you will see many activists who are not even Muslims who are supportive of what Muslims are calling for (the fall of Zionism)," it continues. "It is most likely here that connections between Muslims and Left-wing activists will be made, and a portion from them will realize that protests are not effective, and that armed combat is the alternative."
Such “recruits” being lured to ISIS due to frustration over their lives “will give intelligence, share weapons and do undercover work for the Muslims to pave the way for the conquest of Rome," the book also predicts.
The text also gives detailed instructions on building Molotov cocktails, beginning local "turf wars" to aid in the process of Islamist land-grabbing, and consolidating extremist groups to build armies.
The point, it says, is to lead to an armed takeover of Europe - and it presents a highly intricate plan that includes battling local mob bosses to storm Rome, with the aid of such widely available planning tools as Google Earth. It predicts a defeat of a Russia-Iran alliance and the Italian army for an ISIS takeover of Italy by 2020.
The plans surface amid a rising tide of anti-Semitism in general, with a recent study demonstrating that attacks against Jews have risen 383% worldwide since 2013, including a 436% hate crime hike in Europe.
Pro-Palestinian protests were common - and, often, violent - throughout the European Union during summer 2014, in the course of Operation Protective Edge in Gaza.

Austria Passes Reforms to 1912 Islam Law

By Soeren Kern
The new law, which the Austrian government says could serve as a model for the rest of Europe, seeks to reduce outside meddling by prohibiting foreign funding for mosques, imams and Muslim organizations in Austria. It also stresses that Austrian law must take precedence over Islamic Sharia law for Muslims living in the country.
The Turkish government has expressed outrage at the financing ban, which it says amounts to "Islamophobia."
"Countries cannot have their own version of Islam. Islam is universal and its sources are clear. ... [E]fforts taken by state leaders to create a version of Islam that is particular to their own countries are futile." — Mehmet Görmez, Head of Turkey's Religious Affairs Directorate.
The massive demographic and religious shift underway in Austria, traditionally a Roman Catholic country, appears irreversible. In Vienna, Muslim students already outnumber Catholic students at middle and secondary schools and are on the verge of overtaking Catholics in elementary schools.
At the same, time Austria has emerged as a major base for radical Islam.
The Austrian parliament has approved controversial reforms to the country's century-old Islam Law (Islamgesetz), governing the status of Muslims in the country.
The new law, which was passed on February 25, is aimed at integrating Muslims and fighting Islamic radicalism by promoting an "Islam with an Austrian character."
Among other changes, the new law seeks to reduce outside meddling by prohibiting foreign funding for mosques, imams and Muslim organizations in Austria. It also stresses that Austrian law must take precedence over Islamic Sharia law for Muslims living in the country.
The Austrian government says the new law is a milestone and could serve as a model for the rest of Europe. But Muslim groups say it is discriminatory and have vowed to challenge it in court.
The new law overhauls the original Islam Law, which dates back to 1912. The original law was passed in order to help integrate Muslim soldiers into the Habsburg Imperial Army after the Austro-Hungarian Empire annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908. The law recognized Islam as an official religion in Austria, and allowed Muslims to practice their religion in accordance with the laws of the state.
After the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed in the aftermath of World War I, the number of Muslims in Austria was reduced to just a few hundred people. After World War II, however, Austria's Muslim population increased rapidly with the arrival of "guest workers" from Turkey and the Balkans in the 1960s, and refugees from Bosnia in the 1990s.
According to data compiled by the University of Vienna, the Muslim population in Austria now exceeds 574,000 (or roughly 7% of the total population), up from an estimated 340,000 (or 4.25%) in 2001 and 150,000 (or 2%) in 1990.
The massive demographic and religious shift underway in Austria, traditionally a Roman Catholic country, appears irreversible. In Vienna, where the Muslim population now exceeds 12.5%, Muslim students already outnumber Catholic students at middle and secondary schools. Muslim students are also on the verge of overtaking Catholics in Viennese elementary schools.
At the same time, Austria has emerged as a major base for radical Islam. A recent report by Austria's Agency for State Protection and Counterterrorism (BVT) warned of the "exploding radicalization of the Salafist scene in Austria." Salafism is an anti-Western ideology that seeks to impose Islamic sharia law.
Due to its geographic location, Austria has also become a central hub for European jihadists seeking to fight in Syria. In addition to being a transit point for foreigners going to fight with the Islamic State, at least 190 Austrian citizens have become jihadists in Syria and Iraq.
In an interview with Austrian Public Radio Ö1-Morgenjournal, Austria's Minister for Integration and Foreign Affairs, Sebastian Kurz, said the rapid rise of Islam in Austria has rendered the old Islam Law obsolete. A new law is needed, he said, to stipulate more clearly the rights and responsibilities of Muslims living in the country.
The new law (nine-page text in German here) regulates at least a dozen separate issues, including relatively non-controversial matters such as Muslim holidays, Muslim cemeteries, Muslim dietary practices and the activities of Muslim clergy in hospitals, prisons and the army. In this respect, the government has met all of the demands put forth by Muslim groups in the country.
The new law, however, goes far beyond what Muslims had wanted. For example, the law seeks to prevent the growth of a parallel Islamic society in Austria by regulating mosques and the training of imams, who will now be required to be proficient in German. The new law also requires Muslim organizations and groups to terminate the employment of clerics who have criminal records or who "pose a threat to public safety, order, health and morals or the rights and freedoms of others."
More significantly, Paragraph 6.2 of the law seeks to limit the religious and political influence of foreign governments within the Austrian Muslim community by prohibiting foreign countries -- presumably Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states -- from financing Islamic centers and mosques in Austria.
The new restrictions -- including an employment ban for foreign clerics in Austria as of March 31, 2016 -- would apply especially to Turkey: 60 of the 300 Muslim clerics working in Austria are Turkish civil servants whose salaries are being paid for by the Turkish government's Religious Affairs Directorate, the Diyanet.
In an interview with the BBC, Kurz said the reforms were a "milestone" for Austria and were aimed at preventing certain Muslim countries from using financial means to exert "political influence." He said:
"What we want is to reduce the political influence and control from abroad and we want to give Islam the chance to develop freely within our society and in line with our common European values."
The Turkish government has expressed outrage at the financing ban, which it says amounts to "Islamophobia." The head of the Diyanet, Mehmet Görmez, said it was a "huge mistake" that would throw Austria's tradition of tolerance towards Islam "back 100 years." He added:
"Countries come together from time to time on the grounds of security concerns and try to construct a version of Islam peculiar to their own countries, rather than increase the freedoms that would lead to unity and remove obstacles before the religious education and services, and make an effort to remove anti-Islamic sentiments and Islamophobia.
"Countries cannot have their own version of Islam. Islam is universal and its sources are clear. Therefore, religion is not a matter of engineering. I would like to restate that efforts taken by state leaders to create a version of Islam that is particular to their own countries are futile."
Mehmet Görmez (left), head of the Turkish government's Religious Affairs Directorate, denounced Austria's new law and said that Austria should instead "make an effort to remove anti-Islamic sentiments and Islamophobia." Johann Rädler (right), speaking for the Austrian People's Party, said the law "guarantees Muslims more rights, and on the other hand it serves to counteract undesirable developments."
For many, however, the most contentious part of the law involves Paragraph 4.2, which states that Muslim organizations "must have a positive attitude toward society and state" or be shut down. According to the government, this formulation makes it clear that Austrian civil law has priority over Islamic Sharia law. Muslim groups say this is unfair because it casts a "veil of general suspicion" over the entire community.
Kurz has defended the clause: "In Austria there must be no contradiction between being a self-conscious Austrian, while at the same time also being a devout Muslim. That was always the intention behind this law."
Some say the law does not go far enough. The leader of the anti-immigration Freedom Party of Austria, Heinz-Christian Strache, says that the law is full of loopholes will be difficult if not impossible to enforce. He also expressed dismay that the law does not include a ban on minarets and burkas.
A spokesperson for the Austrian People's Party, Johann Rädler, said the law is the result of compromises that were made on both sides. He added:
"The goal of this law is to promote an Islam with an Austrian character, without being patronizing and without being dependent upon contributions from abroad. On the one hand, this law guarantees Muslims more rights, and on the other hand it serves to counteract undesirable developments."


Government Takeover of the Internet Begins

By Arnold Ahlert 

 In a vote along party lines, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved what amounts to a government takeover of the Internet. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and his fellow Democrats, Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel, approved placing the Internet under Title II regulations. They will reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, and regulate Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like utility companies, or “common carriers,” rather than “information services” that remain outside the agency’s regulatory power. Republican commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly dissented, with Pai explaining that net neutrality is “a solution that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist.”
The arrogance of Wheeler and his allies has been evident for some time. The 332-page proposal they approved was never made available to the public or Congress prior to the vote, even as Wheeler ignored pleas by Pai and O’Rielly to do so. “We respectfully request that FCC leadership immediately release the 332-page Internet regulation plan publicly and allow the American people a reasonable period of not less than 30 days to carefully study it,” they said in a statement released Monday.
Wheeler also ignored a similar request Wednesday to testify before the House Oversight Committee, eliciting condemnation from Committee Chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI). “So long as the chairman continues to insist on secrecy, we will continue calling for more transparency and accountability at the commission,” Chaffetz and Upton said in a statement. “Chairman Wheeler and the FCC are not above Congress.”
Maybe not, but once again Republicans have made it clear they don’t have the stomach for a fight. Despite being virtually assured of yesterday’s outcome, they quietly surrenderedabandoning plans to come up with legislation that would have blocked this power grab. Even worse, they blamed their impotency on Democrats. “The Democrats have been pushed away from negotiating with us,” Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) insisted. He also accused the Obama administration and FCC officials of convincing Democrats not to talk to his party about any proposed legislation until after the vote had transpired.
Thune acknowledged the transparently obvious reality that after-the-fact legislation would be difficult to engender. “It gets more complicated, in my opinion,” he said. “That is what I told Democrats. Yes, you can wait until the 26th, but you are going to lose critical mass that I think is necessary to help with an alternative once the FCC acts.”
Thune is emblematic of a Republican party delusional enough to believe the party of expanding government would vote to limit that expansion, while he and his fellow GOPers have missed another opportunity to put a bill on Obama’s desk. While it is certain Obama would veto any measures to rein in the FCC, given his statement last November advocating net neutrality, Republicans apparently remain maddeningly unwilling to recognize the long-term political advantages of further defining the president as the constitutionally-challenged statist he truly is. Even their supposed investigations into whether the Obama improperly influenced the FCC’s net-neutrality proposal remain in limbo. Once again as it is with immigration, Republicans believe the appearance of a fight is tantamount to having one.
The implications of this decision are more far-reaching than most Americans might imagine. On Wednesday Thune warned that the FCC’s move could make it harder to prevent authoritarian regimes like Russia and China from exercising increasing control over the Internet, using the United Nations’ International Telecommunications Union (ITU) as their vehicle. The U.S. has consistently argued that the Internet is not a “telecommunication service” and therefore outside of the authority of the ITU. “How do you prevent ITU involvement when you’re pushing to reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act, and is everyone aware of that inherent contradiction?” Thune asked prior to the FCC vote. David Gross, a partner at the law firm Wiley Rein, and former ambassador to the ITU during the George W. Bush administration, agreed. He insisted the contradiction would undoubtedly make the job of my successors “much more complicated.”
Larry Strickling, the Commerce Department’s assistant secretary for communications and information disagreed, insisting Thune’s warning was not as “stark” as his description suggested. And while he admitted that China and Russia are actively seeking more Internet control through the U.N., there is no contradiction between net neutrality and opposing such power grabs. “I fundamentally don’t think this will change matters going forward,” Strickling said. “The United States is opposed to intergovernmental resolution to these Internet issues. We will remain opposed to that.”
Really? Then why did the Obama administration relinquish control of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) that manages Internet infrastructure to the so-called “global community” last March? Prior to that relinquishment the U.S. had always played the principal role in maintaining the master database for domain names, the assignment of Internet protocol addresses and other critical Web functions known as the the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Under the previous contract that expires next September, nations could only suppress Internet content, not the registration of domain names. If those parameters change, domain name registry could be censored under the auspices of protecting one’s national sovereignty.
The ICANN Board of Directors insists any changes in the status quo will be approved by a “multi-stakeholder community” consisting of both private and government entities, but who’s kidding whom? How many private entities would be willing to go toe-to-toe with Vladimir Putin if he decided to institute another Internet blackout similar to the one he inflicted on a number of Internet sites in the Russian Federation prior to secession vote in Crimea?
Immediately following yesterday’s vote, Wheeler tried to diffuse criticism. “No one, whether government or corporate, should control free and open access to the Internet,” he declared. “The Internet is too important to allow broadband providers to make the rules,” adding it was nonsense to characterize this effort as a secret plan to regulate the Internet. “This plan is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech,” he insisted.
Quite simply, that is a lie. Title II is a series of requirements imposed by government on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that prevent them from blocking or throttling applications and websites, and charging them for prioritized access to consumers. It also allows the FCC to impose fines on companies found to be employing “unreasonable” business practices—as defined by the FCC itself. And while the agency promises it won’t impose price controls, Title II allows it to do so. In short, net neutrality is nothing less than the Obama administration’s determination to impose “social justice” on private companies because it would be “unfair” for them to treat some customers (read less profitable) less favorably other customers (read more profitable).
There is little doubt the pernicious assumption underlying this effort is that Internet accessibility is a “right” rather than a privilege. A right that demands a radical egalitarian imposition of government controls, preventing companies from deciding who their most valuable customers are. It would be akin to the Obama administration demanding that every car manufactured in the United States be “no better or worse” than an Chevrolet Impala, because those who had the wherewithal to purchase a Lexus would get a car with better acceleration, thereby undermining Americans’ “equal access” to a thruway.
Moreover, despite everything this administration, Democrats and their leftist media allies might say, the Internet has been a triumph of innovation and expansion for decades without the kind of limitations the FCC is now imposing. And that, in and of itself, is the genuine reality that grates against progressive instincts: there must be no such brilliance and innovation that remains beyond the yoke of government, lest the “greater good,” as it is defined by those very same statists, be so transparently threatened.
That mindset is illuminated in a column written by net neutrality advocate Malkia Cyril, founder and executive director of the Oakland-based Center for Media Justice. It is entitled, “Only net neutrality can protect the internet from becoming like TV: white, middle-class and exclusive.” And like the reliable progressive she is, Cyril can’t resist framing the net neutrality issue in those oh-so familiar terms. “If we lose that vote, the most democratic communications platform the world has ever seen could become more like cable TV, a fairly scary place that reproduces the economic gaps and racial hierarchies of the offline world,” she laments. She goes on to insist that “equal representation in a digital economy and 21st century democracy demands net neutrality protections.”
Is there anything more typically progressive than a system of governance that imposes “demands” on the risk-taking, hard work and innovations of others?
In her remarks, Commissioner Clyburn said the “framers” of America’s Constitution “would be pleased” with the FCC’s plan. Really? A plan kept completely secret until after it was voted on? One that imposes government controls where there were none before? Commissioner O’Rielly was far more accurate. “I see no need for net neutrality rules,” he said, adding that the FCC’s decision amounted to a “monumental and unlawful power grab.”
Next stop, the courts. The most recent decision on net neutrality was the DC Circuit Court ruling on Verizon v. FCC, vacating a de facto effort to impose net neutrality. The effort failed precisely because ISPs were not defined as common carriers and remained beyond the FCC’s power to regulate them. Yesterday’s vote changes that equation, but ISPs will litigate on the basis that the ruling constitutes dangerous government overreach. It is an overreach made possible by an out-of-control administration, and its Democrat allies—both of whom are being aided and abetted by a deer-in-the-headlights Republican Party. Whether liberty itself can survive such a toxic mix remains to be seen.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Obama Sending 'Anti-Israel' Powers, Rice to AIPAC

US President Barack Obama is sending National Security Advisor Susan Rice and UN Ambassador Samantha Power to address the AIPAC convention next week.
The two are “widely seen as among the most anti-Israel members” of Obama's administration, according to, which says the decision to send them is “a further slap in the face” by Obama.
Rice caused a stir earlier this week when she told interviewer Charlie Rose that the decision by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to address a special joint session of Congress – after being invited by republican House Speaker John Boehner – was “destructive” to the fabric of US-Israel relations.
Power said, in 2002, that the US should send troops to impose peace between Israelis and Palestinians – although she later took back this statement.
President Obama addressed the AIPAC in 2012, but no high level administration officials addressed the 2013 conference. Breitbart notes that in 2010, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the AIPAC conference in the midst of a heated dispute with Israel over housing in Ramat Shlomo, in northern Jerusalem. Some conference attendees chose not to attend her speech.
AIPAC supports bipartisan legislation sponsored by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) to expand sanctions against Iran if that nuclear talks fail. Obama has promised to veto this bill – but it may prove to have a veto-proof majority. Netanyahu will also be speaking to the AIPAC conference, and his address to Congress is likely intended to create this veto-proof majority.

Thatcher Considered Taking Over BBC After ‘Treacherous’ Falklands Coverage

By Andre Walker 

Margaret Thatcher considered taking over the BBC as a result of the corporation’s coverage of the 1982 Falklands war. As Prime Minister she considered the reporting to be “treacherous”, and put her Deputy under pressure to invoke emergency powers enabling the government to control output.
The claims came in a new book about the BBC, and the Daily Mail reports the protocols Thatcher wanted to use are there to “protect Britain’s national interests and the morale of the country and the troops”. Both her and Denis were said to be furious over a Panorama episode which gave a platform to anti-war figures. The programme also gave the impression senior military commanders were against the war.
The book says: “Whitelaw wanted to ‘let them get it off their chests’. Whitelaw was under immense pressure, however, to use the power that Government’s possessed under the Corporation’s Charter to take it over and to direct what it broadcast. These powers existed to cover the transition to war in a nuclear attack. Whitelaw saw the blood-letting as a last-ditch attempt to protect the BBC from something far worse: government control.”
Paul Osborne from the Thatcherite pressure group, Conservative Way Forward, told Breitbart London: “This story shows just how important Margaret Thatcher was to the history of this country. She was constantly under fire from left wing elements in the BBC and the Trade Union movement.
“We should all salute a woman who was willing to do whatever it took to make this country great again. The left was full of people who did not want us to stand up to Argentine bullies over the Falklands, but they were proved wrong.”
After the war was over Denis told journalists: “I will never forget it. How could the bloody BBC question the integrity of the military? I was livid with rage and have hated them since that day.” In the end the powers were not used but Thatcher remained sceptical about the BBC until her death in 2013.

How gun control is causing another European Holocaust

By Pedro Gonzales  

When Adolph Hitler got into power, he confiscated all the guns owned by Jewish people.  Then, once they were defenseless, he sent them all to concentration camps.  Now, in 2015, Jews are being slaughtered again because of their religion.  And because of strict gun control laws in Europe, they are once again defenseless.
Here in Denmark, handguns and semiautomatic rifles are all but banned. Hunting rifles are legally available only to those with squeaky-clean backgrounds who have passed a rigorous exam covering everything from gun safety to the mating habits of Denmark’s wildlife.
“There’s a book about 1,000 pages thick,” said Tonni Rigby, one of only two licensed firearms dealers in Copenhagen. “You have to know all of it.”
But if you want an illicit assault rifle, “You can find Kalashnikovs for sale near the train station in Brussels,” acknowledged a Brussels-based European Union official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record. “They’re available even to very average criminals.”
Beginning with attacks in the French city of Toulouse in 2012 that left seven people dead, guns have also become the weapon of choice for Islamist terrorists in Europe. In Paris and Copenhagen, the targets were the same: cartoonists, police officers and Jews.
Hussein, who first attacked a cafe and then struck at a synagogue, had a much wider selection to choose from. His primary weapon — an M95 assault rifle that can fire up to 900 rounds a minute — was stolen from the home of a member of the Danish Home Guard in 2013, police say. Hussein probably purchased it illegally, along with two semiautomatic handguns.
Even with the high-profile gun attacks of recent weeks, there’s been no major push in Denmark or elsewhere in Europe to loosen the gun laws. While American firearms advocates preach the necessity of self-defense, the argument holds little sway...
It is very much like the 1930s for Jews in Europe: Jewish businesses smashed, synagogues attacked, Jews killed for being Jewish.  The main difference is that instead of Nazi gangs doing the killing, it is radical Muslims.  Jews are no longer safe in Europe.
They should move to the U.S., Canada, Australia, or Israel.  But if they must stay, they should at least get weapons so they have a chance of defending themselves.
Why should this concern you?  Because if you're living in America, you're next.  President Obama has imported three hundred thousand Iraqi "refugees" and is in the process of importing thousands more Syrian ones.  Most of the refugees are Muslim, and if they are typical of the Muslims of the region, a substantial minority are followers of radical Islam.  As we get more and more of them, America will become less and less safe.
Why do you think Al Shabaab, the Somali radical Muslim terrorist group, made a threat specifically against the Mall of America?  Because Minneapolis, thanks to the policies of George W. Bush, settled thousands of Somali Muslims there, and, as with most groups of Muslims from backwards countries, there's a substantial minority who hate our freedoms and want to kill us. Now consider how the government is trying to enact more and more gun control.  When you look at the two trends together – increased gun control and a larger and larger population of hostile Muslims – you can see why we're only a few years behind Europe.  That's why we always need to be vigilant and protect against the chipping away of our vital Second Amendment rights to be able to defend ourselves, and support pending legislation allowing guns on places like college campuses, to prevent massacres from happening here, too.

UK: Students slam University of Westminster with claim it has been 'infiltrated by extremists'

 Jihadi John was named as Mohammed Emwazi a student who studied computer programming at the University
The University attended by the man believed to be Jihadi John has been accused of allowing extremists to preach there. Jihadi John was today named as Mohammed Emwazi a student who studied computer programming at the University of Westminster. The masked radical is believed to have orchestrated the merciless killing of US journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, American aid worker Peter Kassig, British aid workers Alan Henning and David Haines. University of Westminster students today spoke out over the decision to allow extremists with homophobic and sexist views to speak at the institution. Former students have branded the unmasking of Jihadi John as a "wake-up call" for the higher education establishment – signalling time to crack down on speakers peddling their bigoted views.Tarik Mahri, who reportedly had links to pro-Islamic state group Hizb ut-Tahrir, was elected student union president at the university just two years after Jihadi John graduated. Another student with reported ties to the group, Jamal Achchi, was elected vice-president. Members of the group, which advocates the establishment of an Islamic state, had been accused of violence against non-Muslims. Writing on Twitter, Avinash Tharoor said: "I studied at the University of Westminster, where Mohammed Emwazi studied. "Extremist students and visitors consistently given a platform." "I'd primarily blame the extremists in the student union and the University of Westminster staff allowing them to hold office," he added. The graduate went on: "Discrimination against gays, non-Muslims and moderate Muslims was definitely a recurring issue from the extremists at the University of Westminster. "Please University of Westminster, sort your sh*t out. You have great academic staff and so much potential. "Stop giving [a] platform to ideological extremists." The University has postponed a talk by controversial and anti-gay preacher Sheikh Haitham Al Haddad planned for tonight. A spokesperson for the University of Westminster said the decision was made because of "increased sensitivity and security concerns". "Al Haddad is quite homophobic and came out and said he supports female genital mutilation," claimed second-year law student at Westminster, Naj. The student, who requested to be referred to only by one name, said: "That is the big concern - the speakers who are being invited. "The LGBT society feel displaced - they don't meet within the campus and go to cafes outside the university because they don't feel welcome. "You can support freedom of speech, but at the same time the university needs to create a balance. "The revelations about Jihadi John should be a wake-up call. The university should have done more to crack down on the speakers being invited."A spokesperson for the University of Westminster said: "A Mohammed Emwazi left the University six years ago. "If these allegations are true, we are shocked and sickened by the news. Our thoughts are with the victims and their families. "We have students from 150 countries and their safety is of paramount concern. With other universities in London, we are working to implement the Government’s Prevent strategy to tackle extremism. "We are setting up a dedicated pastoral team to provide advice and support. In the meantime, we urge any students who are concerned to contact the Student Support and Well-being team. "Tonight’s event has been postponed due to increased sensitivity and security concerns."

Swedish ‘Immigrant Assimilation Guides’ Accused of Recruiting for Islamic State

By Nick Hallett 

The Swedish government has been forced to shut down its “assimilation guide service” after discovering that several of its aides may have been trying to recruit immigrants for Islamic State. The assimilation guides, who were employed by Sweden’s state job agency Arbetsformedlingen, have been accused of taking bribes and making “recruitment attempts to militant fighting groups”, and have all been fired with immediate effect.
The agency’s general director Mikael Sjöberg told Sweden’s Expressen newspaper: “We have received indication that there have been instances of recruitment attempts or contact-making situations related to various militant fighting groups.”
Although Sjöberg declined to name the suspected militant groups the guides had been recruiting for, a source told Expressen that Islamic State could be among them.
The scheme was introduced four years ago to help newly arrived immigrants integrate into Swedish society. The guides worked for private companies which were hired by the government agency. They had been helping an estimated 32,000 people look for work, but officials became suspicious after the number of complaints from job-seekers rose considerably.
They also found evidence of criminal activity including bribes, blackmail, fraud and even possible terror recruitment activity.
Mr Sjöberg said: “It’s to do with loans or gifts, like tablets, mobile phones and sometimes cash, in order to get connected to a specific assistant.”
Last month Sweden’s national intelligence agency Säpo said that at least 100 Swedish nationals were believed to be fighting with Islamist extremists in Iraq and Syria.

Al Jazeera Journos Arrested For Buzzing Eiffel Tower With Drones

By Jordan Schachtel 

Three Al Jazeera journalists were arrested in Paris on Wednesday for illegally flying a drone in the city. French news agencies report that drones have appeared on several occasions in recent days above the Eiffel Tower and other Parisian monuments.
The Al Jazeera employees, all of whom are foreign nationals, were aged 36, 54 and 70, according to reports. Police officials said the employees of the Doha-based company were found flying a drone near the Bois de Boulogne woods in western Paris. Agnes Thibault-Lecuivre, the Paris prosecutor’s office spokeswoman, said the motives of the journalists remain unclear.
Under French law, the journalists can face a maximum prison term of one year and an $85,000 dollar fine.
From Tuesday to Wednesday, police sighted at least one drone in the skies of Paris on five different occasions, all of which took place from 11:30 p.m. to 2 a.m. local time. Another drone was spotted on Monday flying over the U.S. Embassy in Paris.
An Al Jazeera journalist will appear in court next week to face charges, the BBC has reported.
Al Jazeera has come out and claimed that they were filming a report about the “recent mystery drones” over Paris skies. The Qatar network said two of the three men were cleared of charges.
“People should not be worried but vigilant — it’s an issue which is taken very seriously,” government spokesman Stephane Le Foll told reporters.
The Al Jazeera news network has a history rife with controversy and alleged ties to Muslim extremism.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks against America, the network’s headquarters in Doha reportedly put on display silhouettes honoring former Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden. In 2013, dozens of its staff resigned in protest of the network’s “biased coverage,” which allegedly became a PR arm for the Muslim Brotherhood.
“Al Jazeera has abandoned even the semblance of a credible media outlet, and it broadcasts — both within Gaza and outside it, to the world — anti-Semitic incitement, lies provocation and encouragement to terrorists,” Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said of the network’s reporting on Israel’s 50-day war against Palestinian terror group Hamas.
In late January, an internal memo revealed that Al Jazeera’s United States offices banned the use of the words “terrorist,” Jihadist,” Islamist,” and “extremist” from their reporting.


Watch: ISIS Destroys Artifacts in Iraq Museum

The Islamic State group released a video Thursday in which terrorists in Iraq are seen destroying ancient artifacts that included idols, which are prohibited by the Muslim faith, AFP reports.
The five-minute video shows terrorists at the museum in Mosul knocking statues off their plinths and smashing them to pieces with sledgehammers.
In another scene, a jackhammer is used to deface a large Assyrian winged bull at an archeological site in the city, which the Sunni extremist group captured last summer.
"Muslims, these artifacts behind me are idols for people from ancient times who worshipped them instead of God," said a bearded terrorist speaking to the camera.
"The so-called Assyrians, Akkadians and other peoples had gods for the rain, for farming, for war... and they tried to get closer to them with offerings," he goes on.
"The prophet removed and buried the idols in Mecca with his blessed hands," he said, referring to the Muslim prophet Mohammed.
Experts said the items destroyed include original pieces, reconstructed fragments and copies.
They include many pieces from the Assyrian and Parthian eras dating back several centuries before the common era.
Iraq's Assyrians are now a Christian minority who consider themselves to be the region's indigenous people.
Several Assyrian villages were seized by ISIS fighters in neighboring Syria in recent days and at least 220 Assyrians kidnapped in the process.
The jihadists have controlled Mosul, Iraq's second city, since seizing it in a June offensive that saw them conquer large parts of the country.
They have systematically targeted minorities in and around Mosul and destroyed heritage sites, sparking global indignation.