DONATE

Monday, June 27, 2016

3 Comments Against Suissa ‘dump Trump’ Article



Ari Bussel is a frequent contributor on my blog. This submission is about three comments to an anti-Trump post in the Jewish Journal by David Suissa. The three comments are pro-Trump. The third comment is penned by Ari Bussel. If you read this blog you are probably aware that I have been in Trump’s corner since Senator Ted Cruz looked at the math, realized he could not secure the GOP nomination and so dropped (or suspended) out of the nomination race. I am a Trumper primarily because the alternative is crooked Hillary, one of the most corrupt American politicians next President Barack Obama and former President Slick-Willie Clinton.

Ari’s submission includes the anti-Trump post entitled “Republicans must dump Trump”. Ari placed the article at the end of the comments, but if you want to know what the three comments are defending against you may wish to scroll down and read the Suissa article first.

JRH 6/27/16
***********************
3 Comments Against Suissa ‘dump Trump’ Article
Republicans must dump Trump

Article By David Suissa
Comments Submitted by Ari Bussel
Originally: Jewish Journal
Sent: 6/26/2016 2:26 PM
Focus: Three Comments to Suissa Article

[COMMENTS] In the order they were written:

1) Lily Steiner (lilily@earthlink.net):

David SHAME ON YOU! Do you not understand who 'We the people' are? Do you have so much disdain for people that do not agree with you? Do you have to be right to the exclusion of the Democratic process? Is your ego so huge that just because you have taken a vendetta to Trump anyone that does not also see it is wrong? Has it ever occurred to you that you may be, perhaps, just a little wrong yourself? Do you care nothing about a free and democratic election? Can you not even entertain that you are one of the elitists causing the problems. Do you not understand that the SILENT MAJORITY, who do not usually even vote, have taken the time and trouble to leave their chairs and couches and go out and show their support for a candidate they can finally support?

I don't know how we have survived almost 8 years of the current leadership, and in fact we have not yet, as he has deeply and widely embedded Islamists into every department and level of government in a way, only someone like Trump can weed out.

But you of all people David, the wonderful father that you are, MUST understand that to raise a family as good and supportive and respectful and dedicated to a father like Trump, especially after 2 failed marriages, that type of father, that type of man cannot even come close to your close minded description of his character. The Trump kids, who grew up in wealth and privilege and the pain of 2 divorces, are exemplary citizens, ALL OF THEM, and totally support and respect their father. Do you in any way question that as their foundation and nurturer he could be anything but a man of solid values and integrity? You've raised many kids, you know the challenges, and how they turned out could only be a testament to his moral fiber.

All men have egos, and Trumps main challenge is that he is not a smooth charismatic speaker. So yes, you elitists will jump on media extracted sound bites that paint him so negatively, but take the time to see the substance of his 'straight from the hip, unfiltered' comments and you will not see lines of insulted workers of all backgrounds waiting to add their stories of the despicable boss they had, you will find stories and comments of a man that treated everyone fairly and equally.

When the media tried to show how awful he was to women, you had those same women come out and support him, showing the media, the folks you are supporting, to be totally biased with a lack of integrity to the truth. Now you, David, join them too! 

You have created the most shameful column you have ever written. You besmirched the good character of a man who doesn't need the power or aggravation or home or airplane that come with this office. Trump is running because he really does want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT again. With all the votes on the ground and support of all the We The People, not acknowledging him as the Republican Candidate shows you to have a TOTAL DISREGARD for the democracy we enjoy. I respect your disapproval of Trump, even though it does diminish you in my eyes, but I respect your right to your opinion. Your suggestion that we overthrow the democratic process because you feel you are smarter than the rest of us, is just plain ego on your part, far more vulgar than anything you describe in Trump.

2) Paul Schnee (sch290@hotmail.com):

During the last 12 months nobody has won any money betting against Donald Trump. As I understand it the gravamen of Mr. Suissa's argument is that some method should be found to deny the will of the primary voters either before or at the Republican convention in July. This suggestion would have been more beneficially applied to Obama's candidacy in 2008. Had it been successful the likelihood of a populist Trump candidacy, which seems to horrify Mr. Suissa even more than the 8 mirthless, poisonous and treacherous years of Obama's presidency, would have been remote. Denying the will of the people is a conceit of the political elite as Prime Minister Cameron just discovered on Thursday.

Those conservatives and Republicans who will not support Donald Trump because they imagine themselves to be too politically pure, too morally superior, too well educated and too sophisticated because they consider Trump to be an unprincipled quasi-liberal vulgarian are committing a costly form of sanctimony which will hand over America and the Supreme Court to a political party which has abandoned Israel, supports the hate-group, Black Lives Matter, and whose members have moved so far to the left they would be unable to see the center if they were standing on top of a ladder looking through a pair of binoculars.

3) Ari Bussel (bussel@me.com):

Dear David,

Good writing evokes emotions and transfers the piece from the writer to the reader.

I am not going to say you are misguided, wrong or otherwise delusional.  I have read at least two lengthy comments to that effect.  Quite on the contrary, I immensely enjoyed, as always, reading your column.  The comments show that people read your column and that what you write affects them, sufficiently to drive them to engage in a discussion with you and/or with the piece.

I wonder, and you might too, of all the very many columns you have written this year, is that the single most “profound” or “comment-enticing” one.  Time will tell.  And your readers may think differently than you (each holds a different column of a writer as “most memorable”).

I would say, though, that had your “Dump Trump" been published a few weeks ago, it would have been timely, suggestive and thought-provoking.  As it is now, it is stale, outdated and plain sour.

The current timing is similar to all those Britons who, moments after the final Brexit results were announced, started calling for another vote, and will likely demand another and another … until their vote is the one that prevails!  Two million, three million and the count is rising.  But how many of them voted to separate in the first place?

You admit that “Love him or hate him, the man has earned his delegates.”  You do not question the process; you simply do not like the results. Thus, you call to tailor new regulations, just so that we can change what is truly rightfully earned and fait accompli.

You care not that you undermine the integrity of the process, and that is exactly how Democrats today behave; as if they are the owners of the process, and the process must therefore fit itself to them.

You advocate somewhat similar to Ehud Barak’s call, at present time in Israel, for a “rebellion” or an “uprising” or anything of the sort, simply because he does not like the current government and/or because he is desperate seeing the “Left,” of which he is a part, evaporating to non-existence.  [I wonder what would happen if I were to use the same about the sitting President of the United States.  “Ousting” or “Rising Against” or anything similar, and I might find myself - in a best case scenario - in a jail cell, keys thrown to oblivion.]

You further suggest to Republican leaders to take the long view, the high road and to set an example.  You say, inter alia:

Republican leaders must say to America, "We have decided that Donald Trump is so far out of line that we can't in good conscience support him. Even if we have to bear the wrath of his supporters, divide our party and forfeit the election, we will encourage delegates to go in another direction." 

Since when did party leaders - Democrats or Republicans - do the right thing?  They care about one thing, and one thing only - perpetuating the status quo:  immense power and wealth, corruption and politics all concentrated in their hands.

Out of necessity - like the Israelites at the Red Sea, with the Egyptians fast approaching - Republican leaders finally understood the demand of (everyday) Republicans - we, the (simple) people, those who have a single, legitimate vote - and internalized the call to stop “Washington Politics.”  Further they understood (not so much by choice, but by sheer and overwhelming reality) that if the party is to survive, they must unite and reflect the people; not the comforts of the status quo where they rule and “let the people be damned!”  Thus you call for them to do the right thing; they have already done so.

In Biblical times, Nachshon jumped into the raging waters.  In current day Washingtonian politics, it was the Speaker of the House who was last remaining at the edge of the cliff, refusing to jump to save the institution, the party and himself.  He had no choice but to finally relent as well.

Once Paul Ryan announced he will vote together the entire party behind its presumptive nominee, the last fort of opposition to the New Reality has fallen.  Had your column appeared until that moment, it would be a wonderful, thought-provoking, reality-questioning piece.  

But as it was published after that tipping point, it is nothing but a lamentation of a sore loser; and I know you are not.

Imagine a similar column published moments after the Berlin Wall was toppled on 11/9/1989 or at the time President Reagan said, on 6/12/1987, “Tear Down This Wall!”  Timing - all the difference in the world.

DJT might be a narcissist, but what is new under the sun?  Are we not completing eight years under another similar narcissist (“it is my way, and only my way!”), simply from the other side of the aisle?  The difference is that with one we had to undergo eight long years of subjugating everything we hold dear (from the Constitution, tumbled under his feet, to the medical care we used to get to anything else that was “life in America” before BHO) to him, and you seem to be afraid of the next four years of “narcissism break[ing] loose.”

Anything - either Clinton or Trump - will be better than what we have endured thus far.  As a Republican all my life, and for the sake of America, I hope it will be DJT.  My vote will be for him.

Always,

Ari Bussel

+++
From the Jewish Journal

Republicans must dump Trump
By David Suissa


It's bad enough when a narcissist is so full of himself that even a defeat can't humble him. Win or lose, he's always right. Imagine, then, what happens when an extreme narcissist starts to win, and wins big. All narcissism breaks loose. He goes from being drunk on his greatness to being totally plastered.

This is what is happening to Donald Trump.

He has passed the drunken phase. His stunning victories in the Republican primaries, his endless media exposure and his raucous rallies have become like cocaine-heroin speedballs to the part of his brain that triggers his ego. Blinded by self-love, he has doubled down on his offensiveness and recklessness. 

His critics inside the Republican party say, "What did you expect? This is who Trump is." But I think it's worse than that.

What we're seeing now is Trump becoming more and more Trumpish, a man so hypnotized by his own success that he can't see himself unraveling (with a 70 percent disapproval rating). He can hire and fire advisers, but it won't help, because he can't help himself.

If Trump pulls off a miracle and wins the White House, we will have an unhinged leader of the free world, intoxicated by his greatness, prone to even more recklessness. 

But even if he loses, which is more likely, we will still have to brave another few months of Trumpian bile. Come November, there won't be anyone left to offend. We will all need a National Detox Day.

Among the many fallouts of this cringe-inducing year is how Trump's crassness has overshadowed some genuine grievances among his working-class voters. Many of them feel, rightfully, that the economic recovery has left them behind and the Washington establishment has ignored them.

Some Trump voters also are tired of seeing their country getting ripped off, whether by a badly run war in Iraq that squandered $3 trillion, a badly negotiated nuclear deal that empowered a terror-sponsoring Iran, or unfair trade agreements that have cost American jobs.

The great GOP tragedy of 2016 is that it was a vulgar and divisive circus clown who figured out how to tap into many of those grievances.

In the beginning, many of us saw the Trump phenomenon as a harmless and amusing sideshow. Now, we see it is contaminating a party -- and a nation.

That's why Republicans must do everything they can to dump the Trumpster.

This is no longer about partisan politics; it's about defending the honor of our country. As Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said recently, "There'll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary."

With their convention only a month away, for Republicans that time is now. Trump's beyond-the-pale behavior justifies looking for every possible angle in the playbook to allow delegates to nominate another candidate.

Yes, it'll be messy, but as John Fund writes in National Review Online, there are expert opinions in support of freeing up the delegates:

"Curly Haugland, a member of both the Republican National Committee and the convention's Rules Committee, has co-authored with Sean Parnell a persuasive mini-book, 'Unbound: The Conscience of a Republican Delegate,' to make the case that delegates to the GOP convention are free to vote their conscience."

Denying Trump the nomination is a long shot, to be sure. Love him or hate him, the man has earned his delegates. Still, this is one of those torturous moments when one imperative overrides another. If there is a legitimate way to replace Trump with another candidate, it must be tried. 

Republican leaders must say to America, "We have decided that Donald Trump is so far out of line that we can't in good conscience support him. Even if we have to bear the wrath of his supporters, divide our party and forfeit the election, we will encourage delegates to go in another direction." 

Politicians and operatives inside the GOP who have mocked and criticized Trump but are nevertheless supporting him are simply proving his point about the cronyism of the political class. The only way they can salvage their integrity is to throw themselves at the mercy of principle and work to replace him.

This would be good not only for America -- in the long run, it also would be good for the Republican Party.

"There will always be other Trumps until Republicans decide to make defeating Trumpism a cause, even if that means short-term losses," former Democratic speechwriter Jon Favreau writes on The Ringer website. "If the party does not become more welcoming and inclusive, young people and other voters will tune it out."

Donald Trump is too narcissistic to learn from his experience, either in victory or in failure. The Republican Party cannot afford to become like him.

To read this article online, visit jewishjournal.com.
__________________________
Edited by John R. Houk
As you might relate, there were some typos in the comments – something we all do when placing comments ourselves. I used spellcheck to edit.


Sunday, June 26, 2016

Prophecy Update End Time Signs 6/26/16

I’m a Christian Right kind-of-guy that believes current events are a part of the signs of the times. Prophecy Update has put out a roughly eleven-minute video showing current events around the world in just last few days. Come soon Lord Jesus!

*****************


Published on Jun 26, 2016

A fast paced highlight and review of the major news stories and headlines that relate to Bible Prophecy and the End Times.

History shows Trump is right to build a border wall, says historian Tim Newark



Did you know that history shows that walls ultimately are ineffective in keeping armed invaders out of nations? HOWEVER, history also shows that walls are very EFFECTIVE in keeping unwanted – as in alien – migrants out of nations. Historian Tim Newark (at time of post website down used cache link) lays out the details.

**********************
History shows Trump is right to build a border wall, says historian Tim Newark

OF ALL presidential candidate Donald Trump’s plans for reviving the fortunes of the USA, the one that has attracted the most scorn and criticism is building a wall between the US and Mexico.


PUBLISHED: 08:29, Fri, May 27, 2016 | UPDATED: 09:09, Fri, May 27, 2016


But is he crazy or do walls serve a useful purpose in an age of failing states and mass migration? And if walls work then shouldn’t we have some in Europe? As we hear that net migration into the UK is back to record figures maybe it’s time to start getting those brickies busy.

I’ve just come back from China and walked a section of its famous Great Wall.
Snaking over mountains for hundreds of miles, it is an impressive building achievement as everyone knows but what is a little surprising is that sections of it are short, sometimes just 15ft tall.

An angry warrior with a ladder could easily climb over it. The same is true if you visit sections of Hadrian’s Wall in Northumberland. But that’s not the point.

These ancient walls weren’t built to stop a few fearless tribesmen but to halt a problem all too familiar to us today: mass migration.

Chinese and Roman emperors invested vast fortunes in creating an obstacle to halt huge crowds of economic migrants travelling in wagons and on horseback and funnel them through fortified checkpoints.


You definitely can’t heave a wagon over the Great Wall of China. But is there a place for old-fashioned walls in a high-tech age? The Israelis certainly think so. Their Green Line Wall runs for 430 miles in the West Bank and has dramatically cut the number of suicide bombings and assaults by Palestinian terrorists.

In Northern Ireland Peace Walls have successfully countered inter-communal violence between Protestants and Catholics.

In Europe it is true that since the collapse of the Berlin Wall Europeans have been busy dismantling barriers and until recently you could travel for hundreds of miles across eastern and central Europe without encountering any barbed wire or checkpoints. Such were the joys of the passport-free Schengen Area, claimed the EU, but that has all changed with the eruption of mass migration from the Middle East and North Africa.

When German Chancellor Angela Merkel invited hundreds of thousands of migrants to her country she forgot to ask the permission of the smaller countries they had to march through to reach Germany. She assumed they could be forced to agree after the fact.




But the Austrians said “No!” They ignored the diktats of the EU and erected their own secure fences to stop the flow of immigrants as did other neighbouring countries, including Hungary, Serbia and most importantly Macedonia.

These physical obstacles backed up by security forces stopped the flow dead – so much so that Greece complained of having to host thousands of migrants stuck on their territory.

Such has been the destabilising effect of hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants entering strongly Christian countries that Austria this week just narrowly avoided voting in the first far-Right head of state in Europe since 1945.

Unless the EU gets a grip of the situation and starts erecting more effective barriers along the southern borders of Europe then European populations will start voting for ever more extreme leaders. That firm barrier should also mean naval vessels in the Mediterranean that return migrants to their points of departure, not just rescue and help them claim asylum in Europe.


Spain already has an autonomous enclave in Morocco at Ceuta and the EU could fund more such walled secure areas along the North African coast where intercepted migrants could be housed and ultimately returned to their own countries or safer neighbouring states.

The flow needs to be reversed for the good of their own countries otherwise the drain of minds and talents will leave homelands the poorer for it.

Anyone who has recently travelled to France by ferry or train will have noticed the increasingly fortified character of Calais where fences have helped reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into Britain. This is our Great Wall and – with or without Brexit – we need it to remain tall and strong and if necessary extend it.

Immigration has made Britain, the USA and Europe rich and dynamic but it needs to be managed and controlled. Americans know that and many Latinos, who have lived and worked legally for years in the US, agree with Mr Trump and his determination to build a wall along its Mexican border.


There already are short sections of fences and walls along the border and Trump simply proposes to link them all up. He says he will get Mexicans to pay for it by increasing fees on visas and border crossing cards. A tax on wire money transfers by Mexican immigrant workers via companies such as Western Union might also raise funds.

Trump is hitching his political future to this grand project because walls send out a powerful international message.

They say we value the peace and security of our citizens and, though guests are welcome, they must enter legally and abide by our rules.

That’s why the Chinese and Roman emperors built theirs and Trump wants to build his.

Europe needs to learn the lessons of history and start constructing our own Great Wall.

____________________
Copyright ©2016 Express Newspapers. "Daily Express" is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.


Friday, June 24, 2016

The Ideology of ISIS

Intro Michel Wyss’ ‘The Ideology of ISIS
Edited by John R. Houk
Intro date: 6/24/16

I found a very interesting PDF written by Michel Wyss circa 2015 while he was attending the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy located in Israel. I took it upon myself to convert the PDF into a Word document in order to cross post Mr. Wyss’ analysis of ISIS.



Michel Wyss Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy photo

There is not much accessible info on Michel Wyss but what I did find shows him to be a very interesting young man. Apparently his native language is German yet proficiently speaks English and French. He claims to have a lesser knowledge of Hebrew and Arabic but still uses the descriptive word “proficiency” when adding them to his language skills. He has gone to school in Europe, Israel and the USA to develop his expertise. Wyss’ last entry at LinkedIn (2015-16) shows has moved beyond student to an expert researcher:

Ragonis Scholarship for 2015/2016

Ragonis Foundation, International Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), and the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC)

July 2015

Recipient of an initial grant for a research proposal on Iranian Proxy Warfare in the Middle East (research to be conducted within a year).

"Promoting Research in Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security

The International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) and the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC), are pleased to announce an annual scholarships awarding to promote research in counter-terrorism and homeland security.

The scholarships will be given in memory of Architect, Major Eyal Ragonis z"l, for his military and civilian accomplishments. The scholarships'​ aim is to promote research in counter-terrorism and homeland security by IDC Herzliya students as well as IDF soldiers and officers."



Michel Wyss LinkedIn photo

Now I share this to demonstrate that Michel Wyss is well qualified to make the insightful analysis he has made about ISIS.

I don’t know if this was Michel Wyss’ intention, but his essay brings a bit of understanding how Multicultural Leftists seem to be way more supportive of Islamic ideology than they should be.

Enjoy the read.

JRH 6/24/16
*********************
The Ideology of ISIS

By Michel Wyss
January 1, 2015
PDF version located: Academia.edu

Introduction


This research paper examines the ideology of the Salafi-Jihadist organization ISIS (also known as Islamic State, ISIL, Daesh). It offers a brief description of the Salafi-Jihad doctrine and discusses the four core functions of ideology and how they apply in the case of ISIS. It further describes how the ideology of ISIS shares many similarities with modern ideologies, in particular Marxism-Leninism, and examines what distinguishes it from other ideologies, mainly its incorporation of religious motifs. Finally, the paper concludes by arguing that the Salafi-jihad ideology of ISIS is a synthesis of the characteristics of modern ideologies and a very particular interpretation of Islam and discussing some of the ensuing counter-terror policy implications.

Defining Salafi-jihad ideology


According to Drake, ideologies are “the beliefs, values, principles, and objectives - however ill-defined or tenuous - by which a group defines its distinctive political identity and aims” (Drake 1998, pp. 54-55). More to the point, ideologies are “links between thoughts, beliefs and myths on the one hand, and action on the other hand” (Moghadam, 2008, p. 14).

The ideology of ISIS can be described as “Salafi-Jihad” (cf. Moghadam, 2008) or “jihadist-

Salafism”, the combination of “respect for the sacred texts in their most literal form [with] an absolute commitment to jihad” (Kepel, 2002, p. 220). In its essence, Salafi-Jihad contends that the Muslim world is suffering from a conspiracy by the West and as a response, it advocates the return to the practices and beliefs of the first three generation of Muslims, the salaf al-salih (pious ancestors), by means of violent jihad; the latter characteristic distinguishing jihadists from non-violent Salafists engaging in dawa (the call to Islam) which are essentially non-violent proselytizing activities (cf. Moghadam, 2008/2009).

The core functions of ideology


Modern ideologies fulfill four core functions: They raise awareness, diagnose the situation, form identity, and formulate a remedy (Moghadam, 2008). All of them can be applied to the ideology of ISIS: True to its Salafi-Jihadi creed, the organization alleges that the Muslim world is in a sorry state. ISIS statements cite Quranic verses that describe the pre-Islamic Arabs as the "[most] miserable nation, [fewest] in numbers and [the most] divided" (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014) and their propaganda videos refer to the purported humiliation and suffering Muslims have to endure in the lands of the “infidels” (kuffar) (cf. Eye of IS, 2014). According to the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the reason for this predicament lies in a conspiracy by the “Jews”, “Crusaders” and their Arab “apostate” allies (Van Ostayen, 2014). Al-Baghdadi also praises its soldiers as “heroes of Jihad […] who defy humiliation and injustice […] and will never abandon fighting”, even if “only one soldier of them remained” (ibid.). Hence, ISIS attempts to instill in its adherents a new identity that offers belonging to a supranational entity, which can offer comfort and security, for recent converts who feel experience an identity crisis, but also to those who feel disoriented by modernity (Moghadam, 2008). Indeed, many Western foreign fighters of ISIS are often recent converts (cf. Kohlmann/Alkhouri, 2014). Finally, Al-Baghdadi, the self-declared caliph and “leader of the believers” (amir al-mu’minin), rules that every Muslim has the obligation to wage violent jihad in order to defeat the infidels (Van Ostayen, 2014). This obligation is known in the Salafi-Jihad doctrine as fard ayn (individual duty) (Moghadam, 2008/09).

The modern roots of the ISIS doctrine


Even though ISIS advocates establishing a society mimicking the times of Prophet Muhammad and that is based on a strictly literal interpretation of Quran and Sunna purified from any religious innovation such as the incorporation of rationality (Haykel, 2007), its Salafi-Jihad doctrine is very much a product of modernity and shares many traits with other modern ideologies, especially revolutionary socialist ones such as Marxism-Leninism (Rabasa et al., 2006). Like Marxism-Leninism, Salafi-Jihad exhibits an internationalist outlook with a complete disregard for the borders of countries that are envisioned as part of the Islamic caliphate. ISIS’s breaching of the border between Iraq and Syria, which was lauded by its propagandists as “the end of Sykes-Picot”, exemplifies this (Black, 2014). Both Marxism-Leninism and the Salafi-Jihad are essentially universal, with the establishment of the caliphate, a goal shared by all Salafi-Jihad organizations (Byman, 2013), being “the religious equivalent of Marx’s Communist utopia” as Steven Holmes puts it (from Moghadam, 2008, p.

15). Both Marxism-Leninism and ISIS claim to be inspired by a quest for “justice”, a theme that is regularly mentioned in ISIS statements, for example calling its adherents as “fighting against injustice” (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014; Van Ostayen, 2014).

More to the point, both ideologies divide the world into two irreconcilable camps; capitalists and the proletariat in the case of Marxism-Leninism, whereas Salafi-jihad insists on the dichotomy of Muslim believers on one hand and infidels and Muslim apostates (which are not considered “real” Muslims) on the other. Insisting on the unbridgeable difference between the in- and the out-group is an important feature of ideologies; the latter is perceived not only as different but also as opposed and even hostile to the former and hence becomes a legitimate target (Drake, 1998; Moghadam, 2008). Baghdadi’s audio message from November 2014 serves as a case in point. In it he sets forth a priority list of ISIS’s targets, beginning with rafidah (a derogatory term for Shiites), followed by the tawagith (the Arab “apostate” regimes) and finally the West (Van Ostayen, 2014). He justifies violence against these enemies with their alleged enmity against Islam, or rather what ISIS perceives to be Islamic (ibid.).

Ideological groups demand from their adherents a great amount of commitment and loyalty (Moghadam, 2008). Individual members have to submit completely to their doctrines. ISIS is no exception in this regard. The group is said to have killed in less than two months at least 120 foreign fighters who wanted leave to Syria/Iraq and return home (Tufft, 2014).

The role of religion


While ISIS and the Salafi-Jihad doctrine in general share many similarities with modern secular ideologies, they also exhibit certain features that distinguish them from them, mainly through their incorporation of religion. Salafi-Jihad refer to themselves and their enemies in religious terms, they frame their strategies and goals as being religious in nature, and they use their very particular interpretation of religious sources such as the Quran and Sunna as a justification for acts of violence (Moghadam, 2008). Baghdadi’s audio message may again serve as an example. He refers to ISIS fighters repeatedly in religious terms, calling them

“heroes of Jihad”, “lions of tawhid” (the oneness of god) or “people of wala w’al barah”

(allegiance and disavowal, the exemplification of Salafi-Jihad’s “with us or against us”-mentality). Similarly, he labels ISIS’s enemies as “Jews”, “Crusaders”, “infidels”, and “apostates” (Van Osstayen, 2014).

As mentioned above, the Salafi-Jihad doctrine frames waging violent Jihad as fard ayn, and Baghdadi claims this to be the individual duty of each and every Muslim (ibid.). According to him, this is the only way to defy humiliation and suffering and to restore the glory of Islam. In particular, and the Quranic ban on self-murder notwithstanding, Salafi-jihadists promote suicide attacks as “martyrdom operations” (cf. Moghadam, 2008/09), reframing them as permissible sacrifices for the sake of Allah (fisabillah), and they believe that for this very reason, their eventual victory is inevitable (Hafez, 2007). ISIS makes sure to praise its suicide bombers and urges others to follow in their footsteps (Bell, 2014). Some of its propaganda videos depict suicide attacks from multiple angles while anasheeds (religious vocal chants) praise the attackers sacrifice for Allah (ertyanna, 2014).

Finally, ISIS, like other Salafi-Jihadi groups, selectively cites religious sources to justify their violence (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014; Van Ostayen, 2014). This justification is especially important when it comes to violence against other Muslims. Salafi-Jihadists vindicate their violence by declaring the targeted Muslims to be apostates, a process that is known as takfir.

Whereas Al Qaeda has used takfir to justify its fight against the moderate Arab regimes but has refrained from the “most extreme takfiri approach” (Byman, 2014, p. 458), ISIS has embraced it in a way that is reminiscent of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria (Zelin, 2014) and was accused by a high-ranking Al Qaeda official – who was later assassinated, allegedly by ISIS – of “too much takfir” (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014a).

Conclusion: The ISIS doctrine as a synthesis of modern ideology and a particular

interpretation of Islam


As was shown above, the Salafi-Jihad doctrine of ISIS exhibits the traits of any modern ideologies such as drawing a sharp distinction between its adherents and those who oppose it (essentially everyone who does not completely agree with it), but additionally incorporates a set of religious themes based upon its distinct interpretation of Islam emphasizing violent struggle against the “infidels”. Hence, it needs to be understood as a religious ideology (Moghadam, 2008).


This entails certain counter-terror policy implications: On one hand, combating ISIS and Salafi-Jihad in general has to be understood as fighting against an ideology, and not a whole religion (ibid.). On the other hand, taking into account the religious themes of this particular ideology demands that security agencies not only have to deal with ISIS itself and its members but also with organizations, in particular in the West, which disseminate the same ideology without being violent themselves or breaking the law. Finally, the fact that ISIS, like any other group adhering to ideologies, chooses to ignore any information that contradicts its doctrine, should be used against the organization. As Moghadam rightly argues, it needs to be pointed out that groups like ISIS and other Salafi-Jihad adherents, who claim to defend

Muslims, first and foremost engage in killing Muslims themselves (Moghadam, 2008).




Bibliography

Bell, S. (2014, June 16). Canadian ISIS member’s online ‘wake up call’ urges muslims to follow example of calgary suicide bomber. National Post, Retrieved from http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/16/canadian-isis-members-online-wake-up-call-urges-muslims-to-follow-example-of-calgary-suicide-bomber/

Byman, D. (2013). Fighting Salafi-jihadist Insurgencies: How much does religion really matter? Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36(5), 353-371.

Byman, D. (2014). Buddies or burdens? Understanding the Al Qaeda relationship with its affiliate organizations. Security Studies, 23(3), 431-470.

Drake, C. J. M. (1998). The role of ideology in terrorists’ target selection. Terrorism and Political Violence, 10(2), 53-85.

ertyanna. (2014). Isis filmed two suicide attacks by car. Retrieved December 31, 2014, from http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da6_1393495276&use_old_player=0

Eye of IS. (2014). Islamic state caliphate eid greetings from the land of khilafah 720p.

Retrieved December 30, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuZ7oGptwb8

Hafez, M. M. (2007). Martyrdom mythology in Iraq: How jihadists frame suicide terrorism in videos and biographies. Terrorism and Political Violence, 19(1), 95-115.

Haykel, B. (2009). On the nature of Salafi thought and action. In R. Meijer (Ed.), Global Salafism: Islam's new religious movement (pp. 33-57). Columbia: Columbia University Press.

Kepel, G. (2002). Jihad: The trail of political Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kohlmann, E. & Alkouri, L. (2014). Profiles of foreign fighters in Syria & Iraq. CTC Sentinel, 7(9), 1-5.

Moghadam, A. (2008). The salafi-jihad as a religious ideology. CTC Sentinel, 1(3), 14-16.

Moghadam, A. (2008/09). Motives for martyrdom: Al qaeda, salafi jihad, and the spread of suicide attacks. International Security, 33(3), 46-78.

Rabasa, A.; Chalk, P.; Cragin, K.; Daly, S. A.; Gregg, H. S.; Karasik, T. W.; et al. (2006).

Beyond Al-Waeda. Part 1. The Global Jihadist movement (No. MG-429). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

SITE Intelligence Group. (2014).  ISIS spokesman declares caliphate, rebrands group as

“Islamic state”. Retrieved December 30, 2014, from https://news.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/isis-spokesman-declares-caliphate-rebrands-group-as-islamic-state.html

SITE Intelligence Group. (2014a). Message attributed to zawahiri's arbiter in syria gives advice to ISIL. Retrieved December 20, 2014, from http://ent.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/message-attributed-to-zawahiri-s-arbiter-in-syria-gives-advice-to-isil.html

Tufft, B. (2014, December 29, 2014). Isis 'executes up to 200 fighters' for trying to flee jihad and return home. The Independent, Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-executes-at-least-120-fighters-for-trying-to-flee-and-go-home-9947805.html

Van Ostayen, P. (2014, November 14, 2014). Audio message by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - even if the disbelievers despise such. Message posted to https://pietervanostaeyen.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/audio-message-by-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-even-if-the-disbelievers-despise-such/

Zelin, A. Y. (2014). Al-Qaeda disaffiliates with the Islamic state of Iraq and Al-Sham (Policy Alert. Washington: Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Retrieved from http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/al-qaeda-disaffiliates-with-the-islamic-state-of-iraq-and-al-sham

________________________
Wikipedia has a bit more detail about IDC Herzliya located in Israel:

The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (Hebrewהמרכז הבינתחומי הרצליה‎‎Ha-Merkaz ha-Bentehumi Hertseliyya; abbreviated IDC Herzliya) is a private, not-for-profit, and nonsectarian, research university in Israel founded in 1994 by Uriel Reichman.[1] It is located at Herzliya, in the Tel Aviv District, and is classified as an independent non-budgeted academic institution.[2]

IDC Herzliya has 8,000 students currently enrolled for undergraduate and graduate degrees, including 2,000 international students from 86 countries around the world.

In 2014 the IDC Herzliya was ranked the most successful academic start-up institution in Israel and outside of the United States, ranking first in Israel and twenty one in the world.[3] In the same year IDC law graduates achieved the highest passing rate at the national bar examination of all Israeli academic institutions.[4] Moreover, the IDC Herzliya has been ranked first of 66 Israeli academic institutions in terms of student satisfaction for four consecutive years.[5] In addition, the IDC Herzliya has been the only academic institution in the world who has won the international Jean Pictet International Humanitarian Law competition, organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross, in consecutive years, winning it twice in 2010 and 2011.[6]

READ THE REST (Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 8 June 2016, at 13:45.)


Thursday, June 23, 2016

Trump Speech Shows Real Crooked Hillary



John R. Houk
© June 23, 2016

I was browsing the Google+ communities that I belong to and came across a 41-minute speech of Donald Trump. The speech was hugely anti-Hillary and smacked around like a crooked ragged doll. For all of Hillary’s half-truth innuendos and outright lies campaigning against Trump, the anti-Hillary speech was a tour de force of triumph. Trump exposed every bit of the hypocrisy that Hillary has been tossing like dried cow-pies at the presumptive GOP nominee for POTUS. Essentially Trump’s speech rebuttals forced Hillary to slip on some wet slimy cow-pies which she also found on her face after ground impact.

I had a slight problem with two points of Trumps speech:

1)    Inviting disgruntled Sanders voters to vote for Trump for real change against establishment politics.

2)    Highlighting Trump’s stand against the U.S. invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush’s direction.

In the case of inviting disgruntled Sanders voters onto the Trump although potentially helpful for election is ideologically dangerous. Bernie Sanders is an avowed Socialist which means a big dose of taking everyone’s and redistributing it to people who are undeserving able bodies workmen who didn’t earn the money. Obama is a discreet Socialist/Marxist and Hillary follows that path of redistribution clandestinely as well. BUT Bernie (actually to his credit for truthfulness) forget the traditional Dem Party fooling American voters, let’s just be honest and tell that the Dems want to transform America into a failed faux-utopia. AND SANDERS VOTERS ABSOLUTELY BUY INTO THE MYTH OF UTOPIAN SOCIALISM! If Trump welcomes Sanders voters he may want to do that with a pro-Capitalist caveat.

As to invading Iraq, I then believed and still believe it was important to rid the world of the real Butcher of Baghdad in Saddam Hussein. Saddam was despotic dictator that terrorized his populace with equal opportunity. The Shia Muslims and the Kurdish Sunni Muslims were targets of often bloody oppression. And any Sunni Muslims that were not a part of Saddam’s Arab tribalistic affiliation faced his venom at any hint of backbone against the dictator’s regime. And there was the continuous threat against Israel that included sending scud rockets to Israel in the first Iraq war against American allies and the USA. Also let’s not forget at least two Saddam’s sons who marched around lawlessly even kidnapping women off the street to rape them. I might be wrong, but it seems the least persecuted group under Saddam Hussein were the indigenous Christian population. However, I have no doubts the Iraqi Christians had their share of Saddam persecution just not on the level of the rest of Iraqis and certainly not on the level Christians are currently experiencing under ISIS control.

It is my opinion that the big mistake with GW’s invasion of Iraq was the attempt to nation build Iraq as a single nation under the same ethnic-religious divides that existed from British creation right through the horrific regime of Saddam Hussein. The nation building would probably worked if Iraq was divided into at least three independent nations roughly along the lines of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds.

I understand the geopolitical reasons as to why GW didn’t divide Iraq up. Those reasons largely were the probability the huge Shia population would have become at least a dominion of Iran. And neither Turkey (our ally at the time) nor Iran (troublesome U.S. enemy) were too fond of an independent Kurdish nation since both those nations had significant Kurdish citizens also persecuted by Turkey and Iran.

American Leftists like to use the hindsight that no nuclear material was found in Iraq capable of making nukes. AND YET the Dems read the same Intelligence reports the Bush Administration read and signed-off on invading Iraq’s crazy Saddam. There are some legitimate reports that Russian Spetsnaz forces clandestinely transferred the usable WMD material Assad’s Syria (See Also HERE) and it is absolutely proven that U.S. naval vessels shipped yellowcake (See Also HERE) from uranium to Canada for reasons or purposes I’m currently unaware of. So it is understandable that American Intelligence erred on the side of inflating Saddam’s nuke capabilities. Saddam was so crazy that even a hint of the possibility of a nuke potential should have been good enough to remove the Butcher of Baghdad. ANYWAY, Hillary thought so as well (See Also HERE). She voted for invasion with the same Intelligence reports.

So, below is the full anti-Hillary speech from Donald Trump giving us a clue that he won’t lay down for the Left like Mitt Romney did and I’m following that with a FrontPageMag article showing the Trump speech closer to reality than the stench protruding from Hillary’s lips.

JRH 6/23/16 (Hat Tip: Josh S 6/22/16 - 4:57 PM - United We Stand G+ Community)
********************


Published on Jun 22, 2016

Wednesday, June 22, 2016: Full replay of Donald Trump's anti-Hillary Clinton speech at Trump SoHo in New York City.

Full Speech: Donald Trump Delivers Anti-Hillary Clinton Speech in NYC (6-22-16)

+++
LIAR, LIAR PANTSUIT ON FIRE
And with Donald Trump's renewed focus, is the comeuppance of economically illiterate "Crooked Hillary" at hand?

June 23, 2016

Editor’s note: Credit goes to Dr. Bob Shillman for the title of this article.

Hillary Clinton's bizarre claim that billionaire businessman Donald Trump will cause a recession if elected to the presidency was overshadowed yesterday as Trump took deadly aim at the pathological liar's horrifying public service track record.

For her part, Clinton glibly dismissed Trump.

"As I said yesterday in Ohio, Donald Trump offers no real solutions for the economic challenges we face," Clinton said in a speech to the faithful in Raleigh, N.C. "He just continues to spout reckless ideas that will run up our debt and cause another economic crash."

Around the same time, Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, laid into "Crooked Hillary" with a vigor and focus that Americans haven't seen for a while. Trump's speech, in which he accurately described Clinton as a "world-class liar," was very well received and is making left-wing pundits nervous -- for good reason.

Unlike Trump's address, Clinton's speech was a carefully constructed alternate reality held together by a tissue of leftist lies. Clinton's oration was an economically illiterate catalog of hoary Marxist clichés, or as Dr. Bob Shillman quipped, "liar, liar, pantsuit on fire."

Clinton offered a vague outline of her disastrous socialistic economic agenda, largely a continuation of President Obama's anti-growth policies and tainted as it is by a focus on so-called social justice objectives at the expense of economic growth and individual rights.

She spoke nonsensically of "growth that’s strong, fair, and lasting ... that reduces inequality, increases upward mobility, that reaches into every corner of our country." To keep her union thugs happy, Clinton vowed to "say no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership," and no to the "assault on the right to organize and bargain collectively."

Ignoring the fact that she served front and center in a radically left-wing administration that over the last nearly seven and a half years has presided over the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression, Clinton promised "to make this economy work for everybody ... building it from the ground up, from every home and every community, all the way to Washington."

Leftists like Hillary enjoy anthropomorphizing inanimate objects and abstract concepts because they can't win policy arguments on the merits. They prefer fabricating monsters they can slay.

Guns and gas-guzzling SUVs "kill" people, they routinely claim as if machines were sentient, volitional beings. To them the U.S. Constitution is a "living document" that changes with the times. And like their cousins the Keynesians, they treat the economy like a circus animal that can be manipulated and taught tricks, instead of as the product of billions of individual decisions made every day by producers and consumers.

Clinton dredged up one of the Left's favorite and most insidious talking points, declaring "it is way past time for us to guarantee equal pay for women."

The fanciful claim that women earn less than men will probably never die because it is essential to the Left's narrative that America is inherently unfair. Of course comparing men's wages to women's wages is like comparing apples to oranges. Women pull in less money because they tend to opt for more humanities and fewer science and math majors in college. Owing to family and child-rearing obligations, women as a group also tend not to work the long hours that men work.

Critiquing President Obama's claim that women earn just 77 cents for every dollar men earn, the Manhattan Institute's Diana Furchtgott-Roth wrote in 2013 that the 77-cent figure "is bogus because it averages all full-time women, no matter what education and profession, with all full-time men."

"Unmarried childless women's salaries, however, often exceed men's," she wrote. "In a comparison of unmarried and childless men and women between the ages of 35 and 43, women earn more: 108 cents on a man's dollar."

The feminist fabulist continued spinning yarns.

"Excessive inequalities such as we have today reduces economic growth," Clinton said, pretending she likes the market economy. "Markets work best when all the stakeholders share in the benefits," she said, paying homage to candidate Obama's mantra that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

"There are great ideas out there," Clinton said. "And we are going to be partners in a big, bold effort to increase economic growth and distribute it more fairly, to build that economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top." The "Wall Street corporations and the super rich," also known as her most ardent supporters, must be made to "pay their fair share of taxes."

She promised to "make college debt-free for all" and to "rewrite the rules so more companies share profits with their employers and few ship profits and jobs overseas."

Clinton defended the international cash-for-future-presidential-favors trading platform known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. She belittled Trump for highlighting the corruption endemic to the enterprise that is primarily devoted to enriching the Clinton family.

Trump is trying "to distract us" by "attacking a philanthropic foundation that saves and improves lives around the world," she said with a straight face. "It's no surprise he doesn't understand these things."

The Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore dismantled what he called Clinton's "Twilight Zone" grab bag of proposals. A related speech Hillary gave the previous day "was vacant of ANY ideas at all about how to help the economy. The left's idea cupboard is entirely empty. "

Moore mocked her claim that here "in America we pay our bills," a reference to what he called "Trump's sensible idea of refinancing out debt to lock in historically low interest rates." The Obama administration in which Clinton served has generated some $8 trillion of new debt, which is hardly "paying the bills."

"It's passing them on to the next generation," Moore wrote.

Clinton's claim that Trump doesn't understand the new economy and job creation, is "a bold claim since Donald Trump is a highly successful businessman who actually has created thousands of jobs, while Hillary has gotten rich off of... politics."

Moore continued:

"The class warfare theme ran throughout the speech, and yet this presents Hillary with another uncomfortable problem. Obama has raised the minimum wage, he already did spend $830 billion on infrastructure stimulus spending, and he has taxed the bejesus out of the rich. And the result wasn't more equality and a resurgent middle class, but an angry and worried worker class that hasn't seen a pay raise in 15 years and with household incomes in the last seven years that have fallen behind inflation. Some 95 million Americans aren't working and the poverty rate is still hellishly high."


Clinton "is selling the American voters sand in the desert: four more years of stay the course economic bromides at a time when two out of three voters say that the U.S. is on the wrong, not the right track."

Trump fired back at Hillary yesterday, hitting her hard enough that Clinton worshippers are getting anxious.

Slate's Michelle Goldberg lamented that the tide may be turning against the Benghazi bungler Trump paints as a corrupt, money-grubbing, political hack. Crestfallen, the diehard leftist called Trump's Wednesday speech on Clinton's record dishonest and demagogic but "terrifyingly effective" and "probably the most unnervingly effective" speech the man has ever given.

"In a momentary display of discipline, he read from a teleprompter with virtually no ad-libbing, avoiding digs at Bill Clinton’s infidelity or conspiracy theories about Vince Foster’s suicide," speaking "for 40 minutes without saying anything overtly sexist." Instead, he took aim at "Clinton’s most-serious weaknesses, describing her as a venal tool of the establishment."

“Hillary Clinton gave China millions of our best jobs and effectively let China completely rebuild itself,” Trump said. “In return, Hillary Clinton got rich!” He added, “She gets rich making you poor,” and declared her possibly “the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.”

Goldberg treated Trump's address as brilliant performance art in which he "interwove truth and falsehood into a plausible-seeming picture meant to reinforce listeners' underlying beliefs."

Pretending her readers were complete idiots ignorant of Hillary's history, Goldberg wheeled out Washington establishment yes man David Gergen to denounce what he called Trump's "slanderous speech." On CNN an animated Gergen made a fool of himself by castigating Trump for relying on the exhaustively documented allegations of graft and corruption in Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, by acclaimed best-selling author Peter Schweizer.

Regurgitating the self-serving nonsense peddled by leftist slander shop Media Matters for America, the "conservative misinformation" monitor that Hillary herself takes credit for founding, Gergen said that the "book has been basically discredited."

Not so. In fact, the New York TimesNew YorkerWashington PostWall Street JournalPolitico, Bloomberg, Reuters, ABC News, and CBS News have all confirmed several key details in Clinton Cash, investigative reporter Matthew Boyle points out.

Gergen added, "I'm sorry, at this level, you can't slander somebody."

Why Gergen has attained such prominence at this level in the Washington punditocracy is unclear.

What is clear is that he seems to know nothing about the Clinton family and has been asleep throughout Barack Obama's Saul Alinsky-inspired presidency.
____________________________
Trump Speech Shows Real Crooked Hillary
John R. Houk
© June 23, 2016
___________________________
LIAR, LIAR PANTSUIT ON FIRE


Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."

© COPYRIGHT 2016, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

About FRONTPAGE MAG 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites.  The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.

DiscoverTheNetworks.com, launched in 2005, is the largest publicly accessible database defining READ THE REST