~ Featuring ~
Slouching Towards Anti-Semitism 
by Arnold Ahlert
Massive Iranian Missile Buildup 
Sparks Fear of ‘Second Holocaust’ 
by Adam Kredo
{ } ~ Iran is undertaking a massive buildup of its ballistic missile program, sparking fears of a "second Holocaust"... amid sensitive international negotiations that could see the Trump administration legitimize Iranian missiles capable of striking Israel, according to multiple sources familiar with ongoing diplomatic talks. As the Trump administration and European allies continue discussions aimed at fixing a range of flaws in the landmark Iran nuclear deal, sources familiar with the progression of these talks say the United States is caving to European demands limiting restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program. While the Trump administration went into the negotiations with a hardline stance on cutting off Iran's ballistic missile program, it appears the United States is moving closer in line with European positions that would only regulate a portion of the missiles... 
Remote-access software 
found on popular voting machines
{ } ~ Despite alleged Russian hacking of the 2016 presidential election, no evidence has been produced showing Moscow’s hackers – or anyone else... being able to remotely access and change votes on any of the 350,000 electronic voting machines used in the U.S. Americans have largely accepted that the machines are safe from hackers because they’ve repeatedly been told the devices are “air-gapped” – isolated from all unsecured networks, including the internet. That is untrue, according to a New York Times Magazine investigation last month that described Election Systems & Software, the largest manufacturer of voting machines, selling hardware with election-management systems pre-installed with remote-access software. The company also is said to have encouraged past purchasers to install the software on machines that did not currently have it so ES&S technicians could do troubleshooting and maintenance without having to be onsite...
The Second Era of No Decision 
by Matthew Continetti
{ } ~ I had to travel to Silicon Valley to be reminded of how much our time resembles the late nineteenth century... Visiting the Stanford campus this week on a Hoover Institution media fellowship, I spoke to professors who view D.C. politics from a distance both critical and geographic. I was startled by how often the Gilded Age came up, unprompted, in my conversations. It was helpful to be reminded that, while the Beltway is obsessed with personalities—Stormy Daniels, Gary Cohn, Robert Mueller, Jared Kushner, and above all Donald Trump—the structural forces that have brought us to this moment are more important and more enduring. Niall Ferguson mentioned a lecture he first delivered in 2016 on the five ingredients of a populist backlash. Recalling the Gilded Age of robber barons, bimetallism, the Panic of 1873, and Yellow Journalism, Ferguson pointed to income inequality, immigration, elite corruption, financial crisis, and demagogues as commonalities between that distant era and our own. In an excellent 2017 presentation, D.C. consultant Bruce Mehlman noted further parallels. Both epochs had massive changes in employment. During the Gilded Age, agricultural jobs disappeared as workers poured into manufacturing. Today, manufacturing jobs go missing as workers enter the service sector. Disruptive technologies and the men who amass fortunes from innovation also define both periods. Then it was Carnegie and steel, Rockefeller and oil, Vanderbilt and railroads. Now it is Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and web search, Jeff Bezos and e-commerce, Mark Zuckerberg and the social network... 
AIPAC has a substantive case to make 
to Dems --- but are they capable of doing so?
by Caroline B. Glick 
{ } ~ AIPAC’s mission to cultivate and maintain bipartisan support for Israel in the United States is an important mission... Unfortunately, the messages AIPAC’s leaders delivered during the organization’s annual policy convention this week in Washington indicate that they are at a loss for how to achieve their mission in the contentious political environment now prevalent in post- liar-nObama America. Their befuddlement is not surprising. For the eight years of Barack liar-nObama’s presidency, AIPAC’s leaders showed a consistent inability to understand the challenges they faced. And since they were unable to understand how or why the liar-nObama administration was undermining AIPAC, they couldn’t protect AIPAC or advance its mission during his tenure in office.  At this week’s AIPAC convention, the message emanating from the speeches AIPAC’s senior leadership delivered was that they still don’t get what happened.  And largely as a consequence, they do not understand the challenges they face as an organization moving forward. And again, since they don’t understand what happened, or what is happening, they are incapable of meeting today’s challenges to AIPAC’s mission in a constructive way...
The Real Foreign Threat to 
Our Elections is Non-Citizen Voters 
by  J. Christian Adams  
{ } ~ PIRRO: "Welcome back to “Justice.” My next guest believes the real uninfluence in our elections has been ignored for years... Jay Christian Adams joins me to explain. Christian, thanks for being us tonight. When our government says illegals don’t vote and they tell us that all the time. Is that a lie?" ADAMS: "It’s certainly not true because I can give name after name after name of foreign citizens in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, California, who have been posting ballots in federal elections. At least the years in federal prison when an illegal registers and votes." 
VIDEO at the site.

Slouching Towards Anti-Semitism 

by Arnold Ahlert:  At the 2012 Democrat Party Convention, the effort to reinstate the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital into the party’s platform was met with a chorus of boos loud enough to completely fluster convention chairman and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. After calling for a vote three times, Villaraigosa simply decided the “ayes” were in the majority — an assertion met with another chorus of boos. An anomalous moment?

            Clarifying is more like it. “The California Democratic Party adopted a resolution at their annual convention on Sunday to oppose federal bills intended to thwart the movement to boycott Israel,” The Forward reported on Feb. 28.
            In 1977, Congress passed legislation prohibiting Americans from complying with foreign government-imposed boycotts against nations friendly to the United States. It was supported by the Business Roundtable, American Jewish organizations and Jimmy Carter’s administration. In 2017, Congress sought to update that law with the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, adding international organizations like the United Nations or the EU that might also be inclined to pressure businesses to boycott the Jewish State.
            This effort was aimed at defusing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which has been the radical Left’s favorite pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel platform, with all the attendant assertions of Israeli “occupation” of Palestinian territories included.
            “Radical” is a key word here. In 2016, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 2844. The anti-discrimination law made it clear that California’s government would bar companies that engage in discrimination against any sovereign nation from doing business with the state. Sec. 2. (c) of the law specifically barred discrimination against “the nation and people of Israel.” The State Senate approved the bill by a vote of 34 to 1, and the State Assembly approved it by a vote of 69 to 1.
            Eighteen months later, these same Democrats opposed federal legislation similar to the bill they had passed almost unanimously. Thus, what used to be “radical” leftist politics is now mainstream Democrats Party politics in the Golden State — all the attendant anti-Semitic implications included.
            Is it just Golden State Democrats? The ACLU branded versions of the act making its way through both chambers of Congress as anti-First Amendment, despite the reality that nothing prevents anyone from expressing any opinion about Israel. Yet that was all the necessary cover for Democrats fearful of their increasingly leftist, pro-BDS base. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand withdrew her support for the bill, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth dinky-Warren hedged, insisting, “The boycott is wrong, but I think outlawing protected free speech activity violates our basic Constitution.” Democrat Senators Chris Murphy (CT) and Tammy Duckworth (IL) and Rep. Joe Kennedy (MA) were also vacillating with regard to the legislation.
            And not just that legislation. Last August, Senate Minority Leader Chuck clown-Schumer (D-NY) announced he’d co-sponsor the Taylor Force Act, named after Army veteran Taylor Force, who was murdered by a Palestinian while touring Israel. The act would stop American taxpayers from subsidizing the Palestinian Authority (PA) until it ended its reprehensible habit of providing terrorists freed from prison with a government job and a salary — one that is higher if their crime is more heinous.
          The consummate no-brainer? Four Democrat senators, Chris Murphy (CT), Tom Udall (NM), Jeff Merkley (OR) and Corey Booker (NJ), voted to kill it in committee. And while the bill passed overwhelmingly in the House, it has yet to be voted on in the Senate.
            Why are many Democrats embracing such hostility toward Israel? According to a poll conducted by Nielsen Scarborough, 56% of their constituents back economic sanctions and other get-tough measures against Israel, and 72% believe America unfairly favors Israel over the Palestinians.
            Moreover, a Pew poll released in January reveals that since 2001, the share of Democrats sympathizing more with Israel has declined 11 points, from 38% to 27%. The decline among Democrat Millennials is even more pronounced: Approximately 27% of Millennials now say they are more sympathetic to the Palestinians than Israel, compared to only 9% in 2006.
            The party’s schism is best revealed by the split between supporters of liar-Hillary Clinton and commie-Bernie Sanders. liar-Clinton’s supporters favored Israel over the Palestinians, 47% to 27%. commie-Sanders supporters favored the Palestinians over Israel, 39% to 33%.
            Since commie-Sanders supporters tend to be younger, Democrat politicians are apparently becoming more attuned to their social justice warrior sensibilities. Sensibilities increasingly aligned with the contemptuous notion that Israel is an apartheid state engaged in Palestinian genocide.
            Yet Israel is only part of the dynamic, or perhaps better described as a useful distraction for the increasing levels of progressive-supported anti-Semitism per se. Nothing speaks to this reality better than leftist support for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who once called Judaism a “gutter religion.”
            In a major speech on Feb. 25, Farrakhan remained true to his worldview, asserting that Jews were “the mother and father of apartheid,” and declaring that “when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door.
            CNN’s Jake Tapper sidestepped a media-imposed blackout and covered the speech, noting that despite the “inherent” anti-Semitism  and anti-homosexual comments expressed by Farrakhan, “several leaders of the Women’s March are supporters of Farrakhan and have not condemned him.” He also leveled the same accusation against members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
            The proverbial shoe fits. One of Women’s March organizers was Linda Sarsour, who has long supported Farrakhan. She once insisted “nothing is creepier than Zionism,” and justified terrorism as a response to a “racist, supremacist, violent [Israeli] regime” that views Palestinians as “less than human.
            Another organizer, Tamika Mallory, criticized by Tapper for attending Farrakhan’s rant, was “defended” by Bronx rapper and political activist Mysonne — who insisted Farrakhan was right to blame Jews for the “violence, control, pain and destruction” they have imposed on black people.
            Mallory herself, who received a shout-out from Farrakhan at the rally, posted a number of tweets insisting she was the victim of “bullying.”
          The Congressional Black Caucus? At least seven Democrats — Reps. mad-Maxine Waters (CA), Barbara Lee (CA), Danny Davis (IL), Andre Carson (IN), scum-Keith Ellison (MN), Gregory Meeks (NY) and and Al Green (TX) — have attended meetings with Farrakhan.
            The same Congressional Black Caucus that buried a 2005 photo of Farrakhan with Barack liar-nObama.

 Thus, the paper asserts, the Democrat Party’s “reliable support for Israel looks to be a thing of the past.
          Columnist Dennis Prager is even more assertive, declaring, “The day America abandons Israel will be the beginning of the end of America as we know it.”                  
                                                                                                                                                                      Not America, Mr. Prager. The Democrat Party. One on the verge of a moral meltdown fueled by identity politics, in all their tribalist — and burgeoning anti-Semitic — glory.    ~The Patriot Post 9-slouching-towards-anti-semitism

Views: 17


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service