When Great Institutions Lie

So long as institutions pay no price for the exploitation of their name by agenda-driven members, they will not rein in their members.

Front Page Magazine, by Caroline Glick, Sept. 8, 2017:

Over the past week, two major US institutions have produced studies that discredit their names and reputations as credible organizations. Their actions are important in and of themselves. But they also point to a disturbing trend in the US in which the credibility of important American institutions is being undermined from within by their members who pursue narrow partisan or ideological agendas in the name of their institutions.

The political implications of this larger trend were clearly in evidence in the 2016 presidential election. From a larger, long-term sociological perspective, if the current trend is not reversed the implications for American society will likely be long lasting and deeply destructive.

The first study was produced by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. It dealt with the Obama administration’s policies regarding the war in Syria and specifically the acts of mass murder undertaken by the Assad regime. Authored by Cameron Hudson, a former Obama administration national security official who now serves as the director of the museum’s Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, the report absolved the Obama administration of all responsibility of the bloodbath in Syria.

As reported by Tablet magazine, the paper argued that “a variety of factors, which were more or less fixed, made it very difficult from the beginning for the US government to take effective action to prevent atrocities in Syria.”

The paper’s claim was based on “computational modeling and game theory methods, as well as interviews with experts and policy-makers.” It argued that had then-president Barack Obama not ignored his own redline and actually responded with force to the regime’s 2013 chemical weapons attack at Ghouta, it wouldn’t have made a difference.

In the last months of the Obama administration, Obama appointed several of his loyalists, including his deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, to positions on the board of the Holocaust Memorial Museum. Rhodes was one of the architects of Obama’s Syria policy.

After sections of the report were released to Tablet and the report was posted on the museum’s website, its findings were angrily rejected by prominent Jewish communal leaders and human rights activists.

For instance, literary critic Leon Wieseltier told Tablet, “The first thing I have to say is: Shame on the Holocaust Museum.”

He added, “If I had the time I would gin up a parody version of this that will give us the computational- modeling algorithmic counterfactual analysis of [then-US assistant secretary of war] John J. McCloy’s decision not to bomb the Auschwitz ovens in 1944. I’m sure we could concoct the f***ing algorithm for that, too.”

Wieseltier was exactly right. A mathematical model is based on inputs and outputs. If you input specific data, you will get specific consequences. From an academic perspective, the study’s findings are worthless.

In the wake of the firestorm the report provoked, the museum pulled the study from its website and canceled its scheduled formal presentation on September 11.

But the damage that the Holocaust Memorial Museum did to its reputation by producing and publishing a transparently false, politically motivated report is not something that can be mitigated by pulling it from its website.

As some of the Jewish communal leaders who spoke to Tablet suggested, the Holocaust Memorial Museum diminished its moral authority as an institution by publishing a report clearly produced to rewrite recent history in a manner that absolved the Obama administration of all responsibility for the mass murder in Syria.

While distressing, the impact of the Holocaust Memorial Museum’s action is limited to a historical falsehood. The goal of the second study published this week by an esteemed institution is to distort and indeed block discussion about a problem that is ongoing.

This week, Stanford University’s Research Group in Education and Jewish Studies published a report which purports to show that there is no significant antisemitism on US college campuses and that Jewish students do not feel threatened by antisemitism.

The Stanford’s conclusions fly in the face of a massive body of data, collected by researchers over the past decade, which all show the opposite to be the case. If the Stanford study is believed, it will discredit the work of hundreds of professional researchers and academics, journalists and Jewish and academic leaders throughout the US.

But that’s the thing of it. The Stanford study is utter nonsense.

As the researchers, led by Associate Professor of Education of Jewish Studies Ari Kelman, made clear in their report, their study is the product of interviews with a deliberately chosen, nonrepresentative group of 66 Jewish students from five California campuses who are not involved in Jewish life.

The researchers said that they deliberately chose only Jews who aren’t involved in Jewish life on campus, since they make up the majority of Jewish students on campuses. The researchers claimed that reports on campus antisemitism are generally distorted, because they generally highlight the views of the minority of students who deeply involved in Jewish life at their universities. Their views, the researchers said, are different from the views of Jews who aren’t involved.

There is certainly a valid argument to be made for researching the views of uninvolved Jewish students about antisemitism on campus. But the researchers didn’t do that. They didn’t survey a random, and therefore statistically meaningful sample of uninvolved Jews.

They went to great length to ensure that the “uninvolved” Jewish students were their sort of “uninvolved” Jewish students. As they wrote, “We screened students with respect to their activities in order to determine whether or not they fit our general criteria so as to minimize those with vastly different definitions of ‘involvement’ than ours.”

Armed with their painstakingly selected, nonrepresentative 66 Jewish students, Kelman and his team concluded that all the researchers who have conducted statistically relevant studies of Jewish students on US university campuses are wrong. There isn’t a problem with antisemitism on campus. All the Jewish students the researchers spoke with felt perfectly safe on their campuses as Jews.

This academically worthless finding, published under the Stanford University letterhead, would be bad enough. But the fact is that this finding is the least sinister aspect of the study.

The real purpose of the “study” was to use this deliberately selected group of students to shut down debate on the most prevalent and fastest growing form of antisemitism on campuses: anti-Zionism.

The survey found that their interlocutors “reject the conflation of Jewish and Israel.”

“They chafe at [the] assumption that they, as Jews, necessarily support Israeli policies. They object to the accusation that American Jews are responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, and they express similar discomforts with the expectation that all Jews should be Zionists.”

At the same time, they really don’t like Israel much at all. The survey’s Jewish students “struggle with Israel,” whose actions “generally often contradict their own political values.”

Here we begin to see the ideological purpose of the pseudo-academic Stanford study.

First things first. The uninvolved students who think that Israel’s actions “generally often contradict their own political values” told Kelman and his colleagues that they are offended by “the accusation that American Jews are responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.”

And this makes sense because that accusation is self-evidently a form of antisemitism. Like antisemites who accuse Jews of killing Jesus, antisemites on campuses is ascribe responsibility for the alleged “crimes” of the Jewish state to American Jewish students in California.

So by “chafing” at the allegation, the students his researchers deliberately selected acknowledged that they are offended by antisemitism.

But then, helpfully, they agreed with the researchers that antisemitism isn’t antisemitism.

The study went on to explain that its student correspondents have been intimidated into silence by the “tone of campus political activism in general, and around Israel and Palestine specifically.”

That tone, they said, is “severe, divisive and alienating,” and the students wish to avoid paying “the social costs” of involvement.

So a study involving a deliberately selected, nonrepresentative sample of Jewish students who acknowledge that they don’t think much of Israel still found that the atmosphere of the debate about Israel is so wretched that Jews who might otherwise have wished to participate are too scared to speak their minds.

Somehow, the researchers managed to ignore this obvious finding. Instead of paying attention to the elephant in the room, Kelman and his team pretended the elephant was a dishwasher.

They concluded the problem isn’t the antisemites.

Kelman told Tablet that in addition to being “turned off” by people who blame them for Israel – that is, antisemites, “they’re similarly turned off by the assumptions of people in the Jewish community that all Jews will get behind the actions of the State of Israel.”

In other words, the antisemitism of the students who accuse them of responsibility for Israel’s policies because they are Jews is just as bad as the attempts by pro-Israel students to get them involved in defending Israel – a place Kelman’s deliberately unrepresentative sample doesn’t care for very much.

By conflating pro-Israel Jews and antisemitic Israel- bashers, the Stanford researchers give cover for continued antisemitism on campus.

As they explain things in the name of their unrepresentative Jewish students, attacking Jews as Jews is just part of a legitimate, if alienating, debate about Israel where Israel’s defenders are as bad as its opponents.

Students who call for Israel’s annihilation and demand that Jews not defend Israel’s right to exist, are not antisemites for wanting to kill more than 6 million Israeli Jews and attacking anyone who doesn’t share their genocidal view. They are just partisans in a legitimate debate.

BDS supporters who wish to wage economic and cultural war on Israel and Israeli Jews just because Israel exists aren’t antisemites. They are just advocates of a legitimate policy preference.

Anti-Israel activists who attack any American Jews who profess support for Zionism aren’t antisemites. They, like pro-Israel students, are just engaging in an unpleasant but entirely legitimate debate.

By publishing their findings under Stanford’s name, Kelman and his associates are using Stanford’s brand to give credence to their pseudo-academic research whose transparent and pernicious goal is to end public debate about antisemitism on college campuses while keeping Jewish students intimidated into silence.

Whereas the Holocaust Memorial Museum was rightly excoriated for its willingness to have its institution hijacked for narrow partisan ends that distort the historical record, media reports of the Stanford pseudo-study have been respectful. This is deeply troubling. So long as institutions pay no price for the exploitation of their name by agenda- driven members, they will not rein in their members. And over time, the American public’s faith in its national institutions will continue to diminish, to the detriment of the US as a whole.

Also see:

Dr. Sebastian Gorka to Astroturf Protesters: You Are ‘Victims of Fake News’

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Adelle Nazarian and Edwin Mora, april 25, 2017:

GEORGETOWN, DC – An astroturf protest campaign targeted Donald Trump’s national security adviser Dr. Sebastian Gorka Monday, who appeared on a panel on cyber security at Georgetown University. Gorka branded the protesters “victims of fake news.”

Approximately 20 protesters gathered inside the hall where the event was held with signs falsely accusing Gorka of being a Nazi, a war criminal, and a fascist.

At the prestigious foreign policy event, Gorka discussed a variety of topics relevant to foreign policy and national security scholars. His remarks focused primarily on personal experiences in dealing with fake news and the manipulation of facts by the mainstream media:

“Eight out of ten times, I can read something written in the daily paper about an event that occurred the night before, and it is literally 180 degrees incorrect,” said Gorka in his remarks to the crowded room. “It is totally contrary to what happened inside the building 80 percent of the time. That’s something that has opened my eyes to the lack of true investigative journalism.”

He labeled “the idea that a 22-year-old with access to Google is a journalist” as “problematic” and noted his view that the days of classic investigative journalism, which required in-depth research, “are behind us.”

Gorka discussed his parents’ experiences fleeing both Nazis and Communists in his native Hungary and how biased journalists have manipulated the facts of his early life to create the impression that Gorka himself is a member of the Nazi and Communist organizations he fled.

Gorka is not a member of a Nazi organization and has never pledged loyalty to any such organization.

The media accusations claim a pin Gorka wears to remind him of his parents’ struggle against communists and fascists ties him to these illicit groups. When he was eight years old, Gorka’s father was awarded a medal that is associated with a military order, the ‘Hungarian Order of Heroes, Vitezi Rend,’ created after the First World War. An anti-Communist organization gave it to him, recognizing him for his resistance to fascists and Communist dictatorship.

On Monday, he explained once again the story behind the pin he wears:

My parents died 14 years ago, and in their memory, for what they suffered under the Nazis and the Communists — my father tortured in the basement of Andrássy út 60 (the secret police headquarters of the fascists first and then the Communists)–I wear that medal to remember their suffering and their resistance. And today, because I work for somebody named Donald J. Trump, that fact is used as part of a fake news propaganda campaign that brought those people in the back of the room, sadly, to a point where they are the victims of fake news.

Gorka also confronted the leftist protesters about their signs calling him an antisemite and fascist. Two of the female students wore hijabs, and one man wore garments traditionally worn by observant Jews. He tied the Jewish prayer shawl (known as Talis) over his shoulders like it was a fashionable scarf:

Every single person holding a placard to protest my parents and myself, I challenge you now: Go away and look at everything I have said an written the last 46 years of my life and find one sentence that is antisemitic or that is anti-Israeli. Because you won’t find it. You’ll find the opposite. My book Defeating Jihad, everything I’ve said on the conference circuit–in Tel Aviv, in Jerusalem–tells you why I’m in this administration. Because this is one of the most pro-Israeli administrations in U.S. history. I’m sorry for you. You are the victims of fake news. But I’ll leave with this: I do what I do because I’ve learned that there is a connective tissue between Nazis, Communists, and Jihadists; they are all the same because they are all totalitarians. And if you perpetuate fake news, you are helping the bad guys.

Gorka cited a case study from the end of the Cold War by National Defense University’s Active Members Working Group as a model on how to identify and combat fake news during the Soviet era:

He explained how this group had “as its mandate, from the highest levels in the Reagan administration, the mission to identify Soviet propaganda, illuminate its sources, and destroy it from the inside to show just how much the message was a lie.” He suggested this group’s case study could be used to similarly combat fake news propagated over social media through mediums like Telegram and Twitter.

In conclusion, Gorka said:

What we are witnessing today–whether it’s RT, whether its ISIS tweets, Telegram–none of it is new. The platforms may be new, but the concepts of propaganda, dezinformatsiyaMaskirovka, none of these are true. They are just being packaged in new and far more effective ways. And this administration, with our allies and partners, including Israel, intends to take it very, very seriously. Thank you.

None of the few demonstrators congregated would talk to Breitbart News when Edwin Mora asked them to share their position on camera. Mora worked with Gorka during the latter’s tenure as Breitbart News’s National Security editor. Instead, the protesters shared a document accusing Breitbart News of perpetrating fake news.

No protesters responded to Gorka’s request to verbally defend their protest before the panel.

Follow Adelle and Edwin on Twitter @AdelleNaz and @EdwinMora83

Also see:

The UN’s ‘violent extremism’ scam: What to say when ‘radical Islamic terror’ is too scary

FILE -- Sept. 21, 2009: The United Nations headquarters in New York. (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)

FILE — Sept. 21, 2009: The United Nations headquarters in New York. (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)

Fox News, by Anne Bayefsky, Feb. 11, 2016:

There is a dangerous scam gaining traction at the United Nations, backstopped by the White House. It’s called “violent extremism.”  Given the U.N.’s long and undistinguished history of being unable to define terrorism, and an American president who chokes on the words “radical Islamic terrorism,” pledges to combat “violent extremism” have become all the rage.

It turns out that the terminological fast one is a lethal diplomatic dance that needs to be deconstructed, and quickly.

In 1999, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) adopted an “anti-terrorism” treaty stating that “armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination…shall not be considered a terrorist crime.”

In practice, that means it is open season on all Israelis, as well as Americans and Europeans who get in the way.  Each of the 56 Islamic states, and what the UN labels the “State of Palestine,” is a party to this treaty.

The September 11 terror attacks then launched a growth industry in U.N. counter-terrorism chit-chat and paraphernalia.

Year-after-year, Islamic states have prevented the adoption of a UN Comprehensive Convention Against Terrorism by refusing to abandon their claim that certain targets are exempt.

In 2001 the U.N. Security Council created the Counter-Terrorism Committee. But it is unable to name a state sponsor of terrorism. In fact, from 2002 to 2003, Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism, was a member.

In 2005 the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, once chaired by Colonel Qaddafi’s Libya, created the U.N. expert on “the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism” – as if countering terror is not about protecting human rights.

In 2006 the General Assembly adopted a Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.  It manages to cast terrorists as victims.  “Pillar Number One” starts by worrying about “conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism.” “Youth unemployment,” for instance, purportedly results in “the subsequent sense of victimization that propels extremism and the recruitment of terrorists.”

In 2011 the UN established the Counter-Terrorism Center – at the initiative of Saudi Arabia.  The Saudis threw $100 million at the venture and became chair of the “Advisory Board.”  Saudi financing of radical charities and “academic” exercises around the world are somehow left out of Center events on investigating and prosecuting terror financing.

Integral to the-best-defense-is-a-good-offence routine, has been the constant unsubstantiated allegation of an “Islamophobia” pandemic.

For the first decade of the 21st century, the Islamophobia charge was hurled in UN resolutions on the “defamation” of Islam or the “defamation of religion.” Defamation meant the freedoms of human beings should be trumped by the “rights” of “religion.”

In 2009 “defamation” was repackaged by the General Assembly as “human rights and cultural diversity.”  Ever since, the over 100 countries of the “Non-aligned movement” vote against Western states and demand the freedoms of human beings be trumped by “cultural diversity.” And that’s cultural diversity Iran-style. In December 2015, the UN resolution praised Tehran’s Centre for Human Rights and Cultural Diversity – the brainchild of former Iranian President and well-known human rights aficionado Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In the last six weeks alone, Islamic states have staged two UN meetings focusing on “Islamophobia and inclusive societies,” and “countering xenophobia.”  Two weeks ago, the servile Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon couldn’t mention “antisemitism” on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz without connecting it to “anti-Muslim bigotry.”

Of course, the Islamophobia drumbeat skips right over the xenophobia, antisemitism, and exclusivity that is endemic – and officially-sanctioned – in Islamic states.

This is the substrate from which Ban Ki-moon has now manufactured a “Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism.”  Introduced in January, the General Assembly is meeting on February 12, 2016 to push the plan forward.

After one mention of “ISIL, Al-Qaida and Boko Haram,” the Plan insists that violent extremism “does not arise in a vacuum. Narratives of grievance, actual or perceived injustice…become attractive.” “It is critical that in responding to this threat,” stresses the Plan, that states be stopped from “overreacting.”  Topping “conditions conducive to violent extremism” is “lack of socioeconomic opportunities.”

Here we go again. The bigots, fanatics and killers are allegedly driven by our annoying insistence on fighting back – which the Plan astonishingly calls “the cycle of insecurity and armed conflict.”

As per usual in U.N. negotiations, the Obama administration has jumped on board while Islamic states are holding out for greater elaboration of their grievances and even more “nothing to do with religion or Islam” clauses.

The U.N.’s idea of a win-win is an illusory “global partnership to confront this menace” that allows states to define violent extremism any which way they want:  “This Plan of Action pursues a practical approach to preventing violent extremism, without venturing to address questions of definition.”

Only U.N. con-artists could present refusing to identify a problem as the most practical way to solve it.

More practically speaking, the latest Palestinian terror wave began by pumping bullets into a young mom and dad in front of their little kids for the crime of being Jews living and breathing on Arab-claimed land. In U.N. terminology, Eitam and Naama Henkin were “extremist settlers.”

So to all you extremist lovers of liberty: beware the violent extremists in U.N. clothing, and the morally-challenged commanders in chief bringing up the rear.

Anne Bayefsky is director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. Follow her on Twitter @AnneBayefsky.

FIGHTING ISLAMICIZATION AND ANTISEMITISM IN AMERICA

IMG_0667-640x480Breitbart, by ADELLE NAZARIAN, Sep. 8, 2015:

LOS ANGELES, California — A new form of antisemitism is taking place in America’s public schools via textbooks, activists say.

They are spearheading a nationwide movement to thwart the Islamic indoctrination of America’s youth. Their efforts started in Williamson County, Tennessee when a concerned mother contacted Proclaiming Justice to the Nations (PJTN) founder and President Lori Cordoza-Moore in response to several troubling passages in her son’s textbook.

PJTN was established in 2001 in response to 911. Three years later, it evolved into a task force to challenge the unconstitutionality of textbooks being used in public schools nationwide that contain passages teaching kids to be anti-American, antisemitic and “anti Judeo-Christian” through what activists say is Islamic indoctrination.

This past Tuesday, the David Horowitz Freedom Center hosted an event at the Luxe Hotel in Los Angeles where Cordoza-Moore, who also serves as a Special Envoy to the U.N. for the World Council of Independent Christian Churches, and Bill Becker, who is the CEO and general counsel for Freedom X, addressed a sold-out crowd detailing their efforts. (Freedom X is a 501(c)(3) dedicated to preserving religious freedom of expression.)

The concerned Tennessee mother said her son came home from his ninth grade high school one day and challenged the Bible’s statement that the Jews have the legitimate right to the land of Israel, after reading a public school-issued school text book by the Pearson publishing company–the same company behind Common Core standards.

“The quote she found basically legitimized Palestinians blowing themselves up in a Jerusalem restaurant because they were waging a war against Israeli government policies and army actions,” she said. “And sometimes distinguishing terrorism from political violence can be difficult.” The 2001Sbarro pizzeria bombing, to which she referred, was part of a series of coordinated Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israel known as the Second Intifada.

Following an extensive PR blitz and placing massive pressure on Pearson to remove the historically inaccurate passages or face failure, Pearson texts were successfully removed from the Tennessee school district and a change in protocol for publicly-funded schools also took place.

Cordoza-Moore’s efforts have now expanded nationwide, and her group educates media professionals and Christians around the globe about the dangers of this “new antisemitism,” providing them with tools to use to apply pressure and bring about change.

Becker compared what’s happening in American public schools to indoctrination under Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany. “Education in the Third Reich served to indoctrinate students with the nationalist-socialist world view. Antisemitism was the overwhelming topic in every Nazi-era, German school curriculum.” Becker explained that the publication company that was responsible for publishing picture-books while Hitler was in power “demonstrated that antisemitism was taught to children before they were six, seven and eight-years-old.”

Additionally, teachers were required to teach children racial theory. “For the German people, racial theory meant the ‘Jewish problem.’” Part of this manual on the “Jewish problem,” he explained, maintained that German children had “an inborn aversion to Jews.” Becker said public schools are teaching children a skewed version of Islam:

Kids today are learning that Islam is a good religion, Christianity is a bad religion, Judaism is a bad religion, and we need to be tolerant to Islam. Forget about Christians and Jews; they are the antagonists. That’s what they are being taught, along with homosexuality being good and heterosexuality being bad.

Cordoza-Moore said that some of the textbooks being used in American schools actually violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution because they tend to favor the establishment of the religion of Islam over all others.

“It is our moral responsibility to defend our Jewish brethren and stand in support of Israel,” she said, explaining it is “Israel’s historical, archeological, legal, and biblical rights to an ancient homeland.”

This past February, Breitbart News published a story about Islamic indoctrination being taught in Los Angeles public schools.

Female Suicide Bombers

Mayhem at the site of the Sbarro suicide bombing in 2001. Photo Source: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-friends-account-from-minutes-before-the-sbarros-bombing/

Mayhem at the site of the Sbarro suicide bombing in 2001. Photo Source: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-friends-account-from-minutes-before-the-sbarros-bombing/

By  Rachel Molschky:

It’s no phenomenon. A large number of suicide bombers are women. Though Islamic women have very few rights other than the right to get arrested for adultery after getting raped, the right to receive a beating by their husbands, fathers or brothers, or the right to be murdered in an honor killing for “suspiciously” talking on the phone, becoming “too Westernized,” or getting an education, one right their male counterparts freely grant them is the right to become suicide bombers. Yes, Muslim women are free to blow themselves up along with as many innocent victims as possible.  And they do.

In 2001, The High Islamic Council in Saudi Arabia issued a fatwa in order to motivate more women to become suicide bombers. In 2002, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, once the spiritual leader of Hezbollah and responsible for the 1983 Beirut bombing which killed 241 American and 58 French servicemen, gave his blessing not only for suicide bombings in general, but also to the equality of women in this venture. Known to be against honor killings and domestic abuse against women, and therefore applauded for his stance on women’s rights, even in the Western media, his view of women as equals extended to those who contribute to Allah’s cause by blowing themselves up: “It is true that Islam has not asked women to carry out jihad, but it permits them to take part if the necessities dictate that women should carry out regular military operations or suicide operations.” The fact that this man was revered for his support of women just goes to show the media is desperate to find anything to paint Muslims in a good light.

The former Hamas spiritual leader, Sheikh Yassin, and Egypt’s Yusuf al-Qaradawi were also evidently pioneers in the fight for Muslim women’s rights, as both have encouraged women to commit the heinous act of suicide bombing, and doing whatever they have to do in order to get the job done. That includes not wearing a hijab, not getting their husbands’ permission or having a male escort. It is all ok because it is for Allah.

One motivation is the glory they’ll receive in the afterlife. Murdering innocent people, even children, is celebrated in the Muslim culture if they think it will further Islam. And they become immortalized after streets, schools and other things are named after them. In her book Female Suicide Bombers,author Debra D. Zedalis writes, “there are ‘religious, nationalistic, economic, social and personal rewards’ for suicide bombers… religion offers the moral justification for committing seemingly immoral acts. Nationalistic fanatics court suicide bombers and use rhetoric to stir up feelings of patriotism, hatred of the enemy, and a profound sense of victimization.”

Zedalis goes on to explain the financial rewards given to the families of the bombers and the reason why women are now vital to this form of Muslim terrorism: the enhanced media attention it brings. There seems to be a greater shock value when the perpetrator was female, and more women desire this role of Shahida, a female “martyr.” Killing innocent people is their form of martyrdom.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

The Alarming Rise of Campus Anti-Semitism

Screen-Shot-2013-12-15-at-3.17.47-PM

Recently, the president of San Francisco State’s General Union of Palestine Students, Mohammad G. Hammad, posted a picture of himself with a knife, writing: “I seriously cannot get over how much I love this blade. It is the sharpest thing I own and cuts through everything like butter and just holding it makes me want to stab an Israeli soldier.”

By Joseph Klein:

Anti-Semitism on U.S. college campuses is growing at an alarming rate. It has escalated to the point that Jewish students on campuses have been physically attacked or threatened for peacefully demonstrating their support of Israel.  Events demonizing Jews and even glorifying the murderers of Jews, in the guise of anti-Israel rhetoric, are tolerated by campus administrators despite the hostile environment such events create for Jewish students who are open about their beliefs in support of the Jewish state.

Title VI of the Civil Rights act of 1964 prohibits various forms of discrimination at federally funded programs, including higher educational institutions, but the Obama administration’s Department of Education has so far refused to enforce it against federally funded universities and colleges that have allowed anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students to go on with relative impunity. For example, in a letter rejecting a complaint that had accused a California state university of allowing a hostile environment for Jewish students to exist on campus, the education department’s Office for Civil Rights wrote: “In the university environment, exposure to such robust and discordant expressions, even when personally offensive and hurtful, is a circumstance that a reasonable student in higher education may experience. In this context, the events that the complainants described do not constitute actionable harassment.”

The same administration that decries even the slightest hint of so-called Islamophobia has treated hate speech and threats against Jewish students, which create a hostile environment for them, as the legitimate exercise of free speech. This double standard is only encouraging more hate and threats directed at Jewish students.

A study of Religious Tolerance on Campus published by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research in December of 2011, entitled “ALONE ON THE QUAD: Understanding Jewish Student Isolation on Campus,” surveyed over 1,400 students in the United States. The Institute, which claims its survey to be one of the largest and most comprehensive of its kind, found that “Over 40% of students confirm Anti-Semitism on their campus.”

“Ample anecdotal evidence suggests that, over the last decade, Jewish college students have faced rising levels of anti-Semitism on campuses across the United States,” the Institute’s report concluded. “[Anti-Israel] divestment campaigns, protests, rallies, guerrilla theater and inflammatory speakers have featured anti-Jewish rhetoric. With insufficient response from administrators, these events have developed into hostile environments, where Jewish students and others have been maligned and threatened.”

Read more at Front Page

 

“Fighting Against Jews To Return Islamic Sex To The World”

18d2a_Seks-Islam-450x337by :

Because Islam. Obviously.

Anti-Semitism is deeply embedded in Islam. It’s so deeply embedded that Muslims can’t seem to discuss anything without blaming the Jews. Apparently they couldn’t even publish a sex guide without filling it with anti-Semitic material.

Unfortunately for the Global Ikhwan which runs the Obedient Wives Club and put out ‘Seks Islam; Perangi Yahudi Untuk Kembalikan Seks Islam Kepada Dunia’ (Islamic Sex; fighting against Jews to return Islamic sex to the world) has had its Anti-Semitic sex guide banned.

Clearly it’s the fault of the Jews. Also women.

With a picture of outlawed Al-Arqam leader, the late Asaari Muhammad, on the cover, the book is intended to be a guide for newlyweds and wives on how to treat their husbands when in bed, Berita Harian says.

At least one chapter in the book carries detailed information on sexual acts.

Spiritual acts anyway.

And she revealed her late husband could perform sex simultaneously with his wives, spiritually. Hatijah writes about seks seren­­-tak (simultaneous sex) but she does not reveal how to do it spiritually.

Who wouldn’t want to read a book advocating “spiritual sex” (a man could “come” spiritually to all his wives simultaneously even though they’re in Ipoh, Kuala Lum­pur, Singapore and Johor)?

Because this is PhD level stuff.

As if reading my thoughts, Dr Azlina Jamaluddin, a dentist and OWC leader, said it was not something a common person could comprehend.

“To you there might be no logic to what we are saying,” Dr Azlina explained. “But when Prophet Noah built an ark on a mountain at that time there was no logic in what he was doing.”

Obviously. Just like there’s no logic in that sentence.

Mohd Rasidi, a male member of the panel, claimed what was taught in the book was “high level” sex. “It is PhD-level,” he said.

“To understand the book,” said Fauziah, “the author of the book herself wants to talk to the media via Skype from Mecca.”

And Hatijah’s voice filled the conference room.

In an exasperated tone, the 57-year-old Malaysian woman based in Saudi Arabia said the club purposely did not sell the book to non-members because the public would not be able to comprehend it.

Strangely enough, I believe her.

Its vice-president Dr Rohaya Mohamad said it was time sexual prowess took a front seat in marriage, beyond that of the traditional “good mother or good cook” roles.

“A good or religious wife should also be good in bed,” she told reporters after the launch of the club’s Malaysian chapter at a golf club here yesterday.

She said a husband who was kept happy in the bedroom would have no reason to stray, seek out prostitutes or indulge in other social vices.

“The family institution is protected and we can curb social ills like prostitution, domestic violence, human trafficking and abandoned babies,” she said, adding that she believed these problems stemmed from unfulfilled sexual needs at home.

Sure. It’s the fault of the women. Because Islam hates women almost as much as it hates Jews.

Read more at Front page 

Video starts about 10 min. in but you can rewind it to the beginning