Europe’s Jews Flee: Why Netanyahu’s Call for Exodus Was Needed

“Jews have been murdered again on European soil only because they were Jews, and this wave of terrorist attacks – including murderous anti-Semitic attacks – is expected to continue […] But we say to Jews, to our brothers and sisters: Israel is your home. We are preparing and calling for the absorption of mass immigration from Europe. I would like to tell all European Jews and all Jews wherever they are: Israel is the home of every Jew.” – Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 15, 2015.

Last Sunday, in the wake of the murder of a Jewish man by an Islamic radical at a Synagogue in Denmark and the desecration of a Jewish cemetery in France, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for the mass migration of European Jews to Israel and unveiled a $46 million (USD) plan to assist in the migration of Jews from France, Belgium, and Ukraine.

Bibi’s words are important not only because of what they actually call for, but because of their effect. When the Israeli Prime Minister (or any major Jewish leader) calls for Jews to leave Europe, it is a censure on Europe. Just look how the French and other leaders have responded: they are going out of their way to demonstrate solidarity with and care for Jews. I am not going to say that I am thrilled with French President François Hollande’s response (“I will not just let what was said in Israel pass, leading people to believe that Jews no longer have a place in Europe and in France in particular.”) because he attacked Bibi’s words rather than the desecrators and murderer, but nonetheless visited the cemetery, and that is an important symbolic gesture for Jews. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that France would protect French Jews from “Islamo-fascism.” It is huge for a leader to acknowledge that and actually use the phrase “Islamo-fascism” (take note President Obama) and he went on to add, “A Jew who leaves France is a piece of France that is gone,”. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said “We are glad and thankful that there is Jewish life in Germany again. And we would like to continue living well together with the Jews who are in Germany today.” Denmark’s Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said, “My message is that all of Denmark feels with you. This is not the Denmark we want. We want a Denmark where people freely can choose one’s religion.” This kind of desperate rhetoric is directly forced by Bibi’s words. Just by saying what he said, he has advanced the safety of Jews around the world.

Continue reading “Europe’s Jews Flee: Why Netanyahu’s Call for Exodus Was Needed”


Off Target: The Senate’s Report on Torture Failed Americans

There are many problems with the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA Enhanced Interrogations (EITs). Many of these problems have been duly noted in various periodicals over the past several months or so. These problems being, but not limited to, the lack of bipartisan effort to flesh out the truth behind EITs, the lack of investigative measures taken by the committee, most notably not interviewing key CIA leaders, and many other problematic issues.

As many have come forward with their concerns, from former intelligence officials, to political leaders, to pundits, all seem to miss the main problem with the report; that it focuses on the wrong question: Were EITs an effective and a useful means of obtaining information? Not only does the committee’s report fail to objectively dissect this question, it grossly frames the debate away from the real question the public should consider: Do EITs uphold moral, legal, and ethical standards as a means to an end? This SHOULD be the main question when parsing this subject. Why is the public allowing itself to be distracted by a subordinate question that misframes the debate, and why are certain leaders instigating partisan smoke and mirror tactics when considering the topic of EITs from a legal and ethical perspective?

The main reason is because humans struggle to weigh certain lives against others, (at least societies that tend to uphold moral and ethical standards do). If given the decision to save 10 lives in exchange for one, humans will most always struggle to decide on the best course of action when confronted with such a conundrum. Senate leaders do not want to tackle such ethical dilemmas, because they view it as a political loser, and would rather mislead and frame the debate in a manner that is convulted clouded in false reporting absent of the facts members of the IC would prefer to put forward professionaly and responsibly.

Continue reading “Off Target: The Senate’s Report on Torture Failed Americans”

8 Interpreted Quotes from the State of the Union Address

President Obama delivered the annual State of the Union Address last Tuesday, and as one might expect of any SOTU: it was rife with hyperbolized claims of accomplishments, and subtle jabs at the opposition party, one witty line of which, reminded the Chamber of his campaign victories and seems to have sufficiently satisfied his base aside from the rest of his speech.

However, he also made some vague references to the state of political and social discourse during his Presidency and seemed to blame his critics for their ‘rashness’ and ‘cynicism’, while touting his policies, many of which backfired on him, as the wise way to move forward. The following is my humble attempt to dissect some of his statements in the hope of providing a clearer picture about what was said:

1. “The shadow of crisis has past…”

What he means here is that he is, again, brushing the numerous crises that have plagued his administration, under the rug without providing the American people with answers: Solyndra, Benghazi, the VA, Fast and Furious, inaction on Syria and ISIL, subpoenaing journalists, Healthcare.Gov, GSA, IRS, and so on and so on… He has ‘turned the page’ without letting people read it.

2. “Will we approach the world fearful and reactive, dragged into costly conflicts that strain our military and set back our standing? Or will we lead wisely, using all elements of our power to defeat new threats and protect our planet?”

Here, Obama proclaims that we will be hesitant to act, which will allow evil to spread without America in the way, because it’s not our job to deal with it. It took the USA months to act on ISIL while thousands were raped, tortured, and murdered. It’s not reactionary to want a swift response to ISIL, it’s the decent thing to do. It doesn’t take a deep analysis to figure out that they are the bad guy. However, it takes immeasurable levels of moral equivocation not to act against them when we can.

Continue reading “8 Interpreted Quotes from the State of the Union Address”

Liberals Should Not Get a Free Pass to Be Racist.

Gov. Bobby Jindal

The other day, Arsalan Iftikhar, an American international human rights lawyer, went on MSNBC to discuss Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s comments about Muslim ‘no-go zones’ in Europe. He remarked “I think Gov. Jindal is protesting a bit too much, he might be trying to, you know, scrub some of the brown off of his skin as he runs to the right in a Republican presidential exploratory bid.”

This is absolutely disgusting. For some reason, some liberals think that because they have created a narrative of the ‘anti-minority right wing’, they have a free pass to be racist, because they can’t possibly…be racist. This is the exact kind of attack that we have seen over and over again on non-white conservatives who choose to espouse non-liberal views. How dare they!!!!

Continue reading “Liberals Should Not Get a Free Pass to Be Racist.”

Convenient Ogres

In a debate of ideas, it’s almost irresistible for the left to throw in “Sarah Palin” as a shining example of everything that is wrong with this country, the conservative movement, or the Republican Party. Six years into a new presidency, it’s still “George W. Bush’s fault” when the economy or U.S. foreign policy isn’t up to par, and America’s motivation for just about anything is “oil”.

I have a theorem called “the rule of 5”. On Facebook, any conservative post made usually only takes about 5 comments from liberals before Fox News is somehow roped into the argument—no matter how unrelated.

To the left, these straw man arguments are conveniently-made ogres.

They are used because they are banners that are easy for the left to rally behind. The left has characterized each of these with a narrative that is so pervasive and unquestionably held, that the truth becomes shrouded. Lobbing a reference to one of these entities into any conversation becomes a tactic of distraction that largely works because the right doesn’t spend enough time deconstructing these narratives.

Let’s consider them, briefly.

Ask anyone what the problem is with Sarah Palin, and the “tolerant” and “pro-woman” left will usually offer an argument that equates to ‘she’s dumb’. Consider Chris Matthew’s comments on MSNBC or Huff Post’s perpetuation of the insult.

In an interview with Katie Couric, Palin didn’t answer a condescending question about which news outlets she read. And why would she? When running for President, any side or brand you publicly favor will inevitably lead to those who favor another brand losing favor with you, which means fewer votes. I wouldn’t have answered that question either.

How about seeing Russia from her house? Fact check any leftist who tries to use this argument. According to Snopes, “interviewer Charles Gibson asked her what insight she had gained from living so close to Russia, and she responded: ‘They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.’” The left’s version of Palin’s answer comes from their own mockery of her on Saturday Night Live, yet that distinction is conveniently forgotten.

Continue reading “Convenient Ogres”