Thursday, June 2, 2016

Socialist Failures...Again...Same Players Align Against Israel



Connecting these dots is easy:







Margaret Thatcher was right when she famously warned that the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.

To be sure, we already had proof from Greece, France, the Soviet Union, Brazil, and many other places. But it’s still nice to have another piece of evidence that big government eventually produces very dire results.

Even the New York Times feels the need to report on the mayhem in Venezuela.
“The courts? Closed most days. The bureau to start a business? Same thing. The public defender’s office? That’s been converted into a food bank for government employees. Step by step, Venezuela has been shutting down. … Venezuela keeps drifting further into uncharted territory. … that is only the start of the country’s woes. Electricity and water are being rationed, and huge areas of the country have spent months with little of either. … the Mexican company that bottles Coke in the country, has even said it was halting production of sugary soft drinks because it was running out of sugar.”

While it’s amusing to dissect the verbal gymnastics of the New York Times, it’s even more fun to observe the dour reaction of Bernie Sanders when asked about the issue.
The folks at Newsbusters have the video, and here’s the relevant transcript if your stomach’s not strong enough to actually watch the Vermont Senator on screen.





Huh, the guy’s been waxing poetic about the glories of socialism and big government his entire life, so much so that he reportedly was kicked out of a Marxist commune for being too much of a blowhard, but now he’s suddenly so “focused” on his campaign that he can’t comment on the biggest story about socialism since the fall of the Berlin Wall?!?


Yeah, right.
Too bad the reporter didn’t ask the logical follow-up question: “So what makes you think the policies that have failed in Venezuela will work in the United States?”

Heck, I would like some journalist to present my two-part challenge for leftists and see if anyone can name a single successful statist jurisdiction.


Though I’m guessing many would inaccurately claim Sweden or Denmark, even those two nations got rich first and then adopted big government.
P.S. Interestingly, the Washington Post does not appear to be as reflexively left wing as the NYT.




“… one of the worst crises of governance Latin America has seen in modern times. The country’s collapsing economy, soaring crime … Mr. Maduro … inherited the mess created by the late Hugo Chávez and then greatly worsened it … Venezuelans are furious about endemic shortages, triple-digit inflation and a poverty rate that exceeds that of 1999, when the Chavista movement first came to power. … That Mr. Maduro … threatens violence probably is a reflection … of the regime’s deep-seated criminality. Two of the president’s nephews are being held in New York on drug-trafficking charges, and U.S. authorities are reportedly investigating numerous other senior figures, including the current president of the National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello, who is considered the regime’s second most powerful official.”


To be sure, the Post editorial doesn’t explicitly tie the wretched conditions in Venezuela to left-wing policy, but at least there’s no ambiguity about the fact that Maduro is a bad guy.
Now if we can get the Post to cease being reflexively supportive of statism in the United States, that will be real progress.
P.P.S. Yes, socialism breeds misery, but it also generates some clever humor. More examples here, here, here, and here.





[It always reminds me of this picture:]







Bernie Sanders started out by running against Wall Street. These days he’s running against Israel.
Running against Wall Street was hard. The Sanders campaign had to produce actual numbers. Americans were shocked to learn the higher taxes they would be facing in the People’s Republic of Bernie. Prominent economists on the left and the right tore his economic plans to shreds. The Sandernistas responded by touting the support of the country’s most prominent Marxist economist, the son of the Rosenberg Stalinist atom bomb traitors and an instructor at Chemeketa Community College.
Bashing Israel is a lot easier and appeals to the same conspiratorial bigoted contingent of the left.
And the facts don’t matter. 

Bernie Sanders lied and claimed that Israel had killed 10,000 innocent people in Gaza. That statement was false in every possible way. As Mary McCarthy said of Lillian Hellman, “every word… is a lie including the ‘and’ and ‘the’.” But the Sanders base, which had gleefully eaten up his conspiracy theories about Goldman Sachs, loved every minute of it. 
Like the Manchurian Candidate’s Senator Iselin, Senator Sanders gleefully threw around false numbers in the fashion of a cheap bigoted demagogue knowing that the resulting debate would not be about whether Israel had killed innocent people in Gaza, but how many innocent people it had killed in Gaza. 
But with each defeat, Bernie Sanders pandered even harder to his anti-Semitic left-wing base. In Arizona, he had a member of the Students for Justice in Palestine hate group standing next to him on stage. SJP has become notorious for its publication of anti-Semitic materials and harassment of Jewish students on campus. He lost Arizona, 57% to 39%. After his slander of Israel, he lost New York 58% to 42%. Trailing in the race for the nomination, he is doubling down on his war on the Jewish State.

Bernie Sanders has a long history of pandering to anti-Semitic leftists. He endorsed Jesse Jackson despite his Hymietown slur. He has campaigned with Harry Belafonte, who had claimed that "Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich" and Spike Lee who had responded to criticism of anti-Semitic stereotypes in his movies by saying that he “couldn’t make an anti-Semitic film” because Jews run Hollywood.  He met with Sharpton who had jeered, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.” Sanders had nothing to pin back and happily came.
Now he’s pushing some of his favorite haters of Israel in on the Democratic Party’s platform drafting committee. 
The Sanders Democratic dream team includes Cornel West, who flirted with 9/11 Trutherism and is an opponent of Israel, and James Zogby, who had defended Hamas and Hezbollah. West claimed that anti-Semitic hate group leader Louis Farrakhan “always pushes me in a powerful way.” Farrakhan had claimed that “Satanic Jews… control everything and everybody.” That’s certainly powerful. 
Zogby had referred to Israel as Nazis, compared the Lebanon War to the Holocaust and described Iran’s anti-Semitic Hezbollah terrorists as "the Lebanese armed resistance." The boss of this “Lebanese armed resistance” has stated that, “If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

Bernie Sanders supporters are the only group of backers for any of the candidates in the race who are more likely to support the terrorists over Israel. And as Sanders has focused more on bashing Israel, their bigotry is only likely to grow. 





West doesn’t even pretend, as do some left-wing “peace” groups, to be opposing Israeli policy in order to save it from itself. He makes the simpler case that occupation is unconscionable oppression and that until Israel abandons it, Israel deserves to be treated like apartheid South Africa — anathematized, cut off, made to bleed morally and economically. The Sanders appointees wish to bend the Democratic platform to encourage such diminishment unless Israel redeems itself by liberating Palestine.
This is an unusual argument for a Democratic platform committee, largely because it is logically and morally perverse. Israel did in fact follow such high-minded advice in 2005: It terminated its occupation and evacuated Gaza. That earned it (temporary) praise from the West. And from the Palestinians? Not peace, not reconciliation, not normal relations but a decade of unrelenting terrorism and war.
Israel is now being asked — pressured — to repeat that same disaster on the West Bank. That would bring the terror war, quite fatally, to the very heart of Israel — Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Ben Gurion Airport. Israel is now excoriated for declining that invitation to national suicide.
The millennials who worship him and pack his rallies haven’t lived through — and don’t know — the history of Israel’s half-century of peace offers. They don’t know of the multiple times Israel has offered to divide the land with an independent Palestinian state and been rebuffed.
Sanders hasn’t lifted a finger to tell them. The lovable old guy with the big crowds and no chance at the nomination is hardly taken seriously (except by Hillary Clinton, whose inability to put him away reveals daily her profound political weakness). But when he makes platform appointees that show he does take certain things quite seriously, like undermining the U.S.-Israeli relationship, you might want to reconsider your equanimity about the magical mystery tour. It looks like Woodstock, but there is steel inside the psychedelic glove.




US President Barack Obama once again displayed his anti-Israel sentiment on Wednesday after he renewed a presidential waiver that would delay the relocation of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem for another six months, Haaretz reported.
“Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995”, read the memorandum directed to US Secretary of State John Kerry. “I hereby determine that it is necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United States, to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act.” 
Voted on by a supermajority, Congress passed The Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act in 1995. The bill stated that “the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.” But a woven caveat allows for a president to postpone the move, for six-monthly periods, in the interests of national security.
Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama have all issued such waivers at each possible interval ever since.
Obama’s most recent decision to delay the move brings with it yet another sigh of exasperation for many of his pro-Israel supporters who had no doubt been inspired by the president’s 2008 campaign during which Obama referred to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, saying “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” 
The next time the waiver comes up for review, in December of this year, Obama will be weeks away from stepping down as President. The decision whether to employ the Act, however, will still be in his hands at that time.
Continuing the rhetoric employed by American politicians looking to secure the Jewish vote, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has gone on record expressing his intentions to follow through with the Jerusalem Embassy Act. During his address to AIPAC attendees in March, Trump assured his audience that he would meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “immediately” and “move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem” should he win the election.




When Barack Obama speaks to the public, it is very rare that he does so without a specific purpose in mind.  So why is he urging Americans “to be prepared for a disaster” all of a sudden?  On May 31, Obama took time out of his extremely busy schedule to deliver an address at the FEMA National Response Coordination Center in Washington.  During his speech, he stressed that every American is responsible for preparing for disasters, and that includes “having an evacuation plan” and “having a fully stocked disaster supply kit”.  These are basic steps that I have been encouraging people to do for years, but if they won’t listen to me, perhaps they will listen to the man currently residing in the White House.  The following excerpt from Obama’s speech comes directly from the official White House website…
One of the things that we have learned over the course of the last seven and a half years is that government plays a vital role, but it is every citizen’s responsibility to be prepared for a disaster.  And that means taking proactive steps, like having an evacuation plan, having a fully stocked disaster supply kit.  If your local authorities ask you to evacuate, you have to do it. Don’t wait.

This speech was timed to coincide with the beginning of the hurricane season, although hurricanes have not posed much of a threat lately.
In fact, a major hurricane has not made landfall in the United States for 127 straight months.
But without a doubt, we all need to be preparing for disaster.  Hurricanes can create a short-term emergency that can last for a few days, but there are other threats that could create a major emergency that could potentially last for an extended period of time.  That list of potential threats includes a major volcanic eruption, a natural or engineered pandemic, a west coast earthquake, a New Madrid earthquake, a tsunami on either the east or west coasts, a meteor impact, Islamic terror, war, an EMP burst that takes down the power grid, cyberwarfare, economic collapse, and civil unrest resulting in the imposition of martial law.


One more thing that I found particularly noteworthy about Obama’s speech was that he said that there is now “a FEMA app” that can direct you to the nearest “FEMA shelter” in the event of a major emergency.
If you need information about how to put together an evacuation plan, how to put together a disaster preparedness kit, as Craig said, we’ve got an app for everything now.  We have a FEMA app in English and in Spanish to help you prepare your family for a disaster.  You can update the National Weather Service alerts.  You can get safety tips for more than 20 kinds of hazards.  It provides you directions to nearby shelters.

Could you envision yourself and your family having to take refuge in a “FEMA shelter” someday?




In 2006, Pastor John Hagee founded Christians United for Israel (CUFI) with hopes of disseminating to the masses pro-Israel programming that would “not be conversionary in any sense of the word”. Since then, CUFI has become America’s largest pro-Israel organization with over 3 million members.
With anti-Semitic sentiments and physical attacks increasing worldwide, CUFI is now spreading its wings to the United Kingdom (UK). “Last year, with 1,000 Christians in attendance, we launched CUFI UK,” Des Starritt, executive director for CUFI UK, told Breaking Israel News. “In this short time, we have gained a lot of traction, reaching thousands of people each week through emails, print and on social media.”
CUFI’s goals include education and advocacy in which churches, ministries and individuals can support Israel in matters related to Biblical issues. At the 2015 launch, Pastor Hagee emphasized the biblical mandate to fight anti-Semitism by quoting the book of Isaiah.

For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not keep quiet. Isaiah 62:1

“A Night to Honor Israel” has been held annually in hundreds of American cities since 1981. The event began when Pastor Hagee organized a one-time celebration to counter anti-Israel rhetoric in America after Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, an act that Pastor Hagee saw as Israel protecting the world. Following the announcement of his plans, Pastor Hagee received death threats and bomb threats to the venue.



More Isolation For The U.S., As China Spends $1 Trillion On 'Silk Road' To Surpass U.S. On World Stage




China Spends $1 Trillion on ‘New Silk Road’ to Surpass US on World Stage


Beijing looks to garner international favor through a massive investment effort in Europe and Asia.

China is now nearly three years into Xi Jinping’s cooperative development strategy with European partners known as “One Belt, One Road,” or the “New Silk Road.” The plan is part of China’s push to leverage their economic potential to maximize geopolitical influence.

The plan has two parts – the land-based Silk Road Economic Belt and the oceangoing Maritime Silk Road.

The land-based project includes countries situated along the original Silk Road through Central Asia, West Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, and calls for greater integration with the hopes of developing a cohesive economic zone.

The complimentary Maritime Silk Road Initiative expands the project through several contiguous bodies of water, including the South China Sea, the South Pacific Ocean, and the Indian Ocean, as a means to blunt US inroads into China’s regional economic hegemony.  

The centerpiece of the project is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), a corollary to the US-backed World Bank, that provides China an outlet to influence regional policy while granting European investors opportunities for investment.

In its first years, over $200 billion of infrastructure projects have been planned for construction and another $1 trillion in projects are on the horizon, dwarfing US foreign investment by several orders of magnitude.

A proliferation of economic prosperity to purchase political goodwill is not novel, as many compare the Chinese effort to the post-World War II Marshall Plan, an enormous investment effort into Europe ostensibly to prevent the continent from becoming communist and becoming a satellite region in the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence.
More recently, China has employed a similar strategy in Africa, leading many of the continent’s countries to support Beijing’s positions in the United Nations and, in Afghanistan, to garner Kabul’s support for China’s territorial positions in the South China Sea dispute.

As the US continues to expend resources to maintain its sphere of influence in the West by bankrolling NATO, despite growing economic deficits, regional advances by China leave Washington scrambling.

As part of the effort to counter Chinese influence, US President Barack Obama spent last week on a tour of Asia, offering concessions to Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang in the form of eliminating a five-decade arms embargo and bowing to Japan’s Shinzo Abe while apologizing for the atomic holocaust visited upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

On Thursday, Radio Sputnik sat down with New York University professor Ann Lee, an expert in China’s economic relations, to discuss Beijing’s ongoing moves to checkmate Washington on the global stage.

​"China is using its influence as a means to an end, which is political influence, but that is the long game," explained Lee. "China is following what the US did with the Marshall Plan, which was an economic measure to boost Europe’s economic activity, but it was also a means to an end to prevent Europe from falling into Communism and Russia’s sphere of influence politically, and so this has a lot of precedence and China is basically following in the same footsteps."

Lee explained that the US and Europe are engaging in financial statecraft throughout the world, citing IMF and World Bank loans that require recipient countries to agree to terms that include opening up their financial markets, adopting certain governing principles, and adhering to human rights standards.

Lee suggested that Europe has a lot to be gained by the arrangement, given the continent’s stagnating economy and the desire to explore emerging markets.
"China is offering a way for Europe to reach these markets, so for both sides it is a win-win, and it is fair to say that both sides would only engage in these negotiations if they see benefits to themselves," said Lee.



EU Softening Stance Towards Russia: 'Diplomatic Breakthrough' - Will This Leave The U.S. Isolated?



Sooner or later the EU had to take a more pragmatic approach towards Russia and the so-called sanctions haven't served to benefit anyone. In what looks like a breakthrough indeed, it looks like the EU may be departing from the U.S. policy of attempting to punish and isolate Russia. If this trend continues, the U.S. will be the ones isolated in the ongoing efforts to demonize Russia:









European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has agreed to attend an event in Russia in June, a Commission spokeswoman announced on May 30, in a move that may stir debate on the EU's fraught relations with Moscow. «President Juncker has been invited and plans to participate in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on 16 June», the spokeswoman stated. «He will use this opportunity to convey to the Russian leadership as well as to a wider audience the EU's perspective regarding the current state of EU-Russia relations», she added.

The annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum will be held on June 16-18. This year’s topic is «Capitalizing on the New Global Economic Reality». 

The annual event brings together politicians, business leaders and think tankers. This time Hungary’s Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, Greece’s Tourism Minister Elena Kountoura, former French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine and Europe’s former Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson are on the guest list. Major US investors will take part in the forum.

According to our information, the leading investors will attend the Russian forum. American companies will be among them. The policy of ignoring the forum has failed. Interested companies, in any case, will attend and no one will hinder them», said Russian Embassy in Washington spokesman Grigory Zasypkin.

Several countries – including the UK and the US as well as some Baltic and Central European nations – have privately expressed unease that Juncker’s participation in the event would bolster the Russian position at a decisive moment of the sanctions debate.

Those who oppose the anti-Russian sanctions point out that they have proven politically ineffective and economically harmful for both Russia and European countries.

Some EU countries, including France and Italy, have pushed for more engagement with Moscow and even called for the lifting of the punitive measures.



For instance, France’s Senate will debate a draft resolution calling for the easing and gradual lifting of anti-Russia sanctions on June 8. The authors of the resolution also stressed that the policy of sanctions is no longer viable. The French Senators called for the immediate lifting of personal sanctions imposed against Russian MPs and stressed that Moscow remains a strategic partner both for France and Europe. The draft resolution has already been supported by the body’s Committee on European Affairs. «Deteriorating relations between Russia and the EU are only causing regret. We believe that gradual easing of sanctions imposed against Russia is necessary, particularly in the field of economy», said Yves Pozzo di Borgo and Simon Sutour, the two senators who introduced the draft resolution.


On April 28, a similar resolution was passed by the French Assembly, which is the lower house of the French Parliament.
On May 19, a council in Italy’s northeastern Veneto region has adopted a resolution recognizing Crimea as part of Russia and urging the Italian government and the EU to lift sanctions.
On May 25, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said that Budapest is set to stand against the automatic extension of sanctions imposed on Moscow by the European Union, after he met with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in Hungary’s capital
«We are aware that resistance in the EU to extending the sanctions towards Russia has increased», said German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
According to the latest estimates by the German-Russian Chamber of Commerce (AHK), two-thirds of the 134 German companies working in Russia said they have suffered from the sanctions. 

Unnamed diplomatic sources told American magazine Politico, the US fear Juncker’s visit would strengthen Russian President Vladimir Putin’s position before a crucial decision on renewing the restrictive measures.


EU member states recognize that the sanctions in question are a divisive issue. The upcoming visit of Jean-Claude Juncker shows that the existing unity is fragile. Russia’s economy is on the way to full recovery and European companies will miss out on taking advantage.

Russia can buy most goods produced in the EU from elsewhere. There is a growing realization in Europe that sanctions have failed and reality dictates different approaches. The decision of the President of the European Commission to visit Russia before the EU summit (June 28-29) proves this fact. No doubt his presence at the forum will be a major breakthrough in the Russia-EU relationship.






Wednesday, June 1, 2016

ISIS Faces Major Assaults On Two Fronts, NATO Ready To Respond To 'Assertive' Russia, Twitter Users Revolt Against 'Orwellian' EU



Islamic State faces major assaults on two fronts in Iraq, Syria


Islamic State insurgents faced major assaults on two fronts in both Iraq and Syria on Wednesday in what could prove to be some of the biggest operations to roll back their caliphate since they proclaimed it in 2014.
In Syria, U.S.-backed militia with thousands of Arab and Kurdish fighters were reported to have captured villages near the strategically-important Turkish border after launching a major operation to cut off Islamic State's last access route to the outside world.
In Iraq, Prime Minister Haider Abadi ordered his troops to slow an advance at the gates of Falluja, Islamic State's closest redoubt to the capital Baghdad, to limit harm to civilians, two days after the army poured into rural areas on the city's outskirts.
Both operations are unfolding with the support of a U.S.-led coalition that has been targeting the ultra-hardline Sunni Muslim militants, who proclaimed a caliphate to rule over all Muslims from territory in the two neighboring countries.
The Syrian operation includes American special forces operating in advisory roles on the ground. In Iraq, the U.S.-led coalition has provided air support to government forces who are also assisted by Iranian-backed Shi'ite militia.
While there is no indication that the two advances were deliberately timed to coincide, they show how a variety of enemies of Islamic State have been mobilizing in recent months in what Washington and other world powers hope will be a decisive year of battle to destroy the group's pseudo-state.
The Syrian operation, which began on Tuesday after weeks of preparations, aims to drive Islamic State from the last stretch of the frontier with Turkey it controls.
"It's significant in that it's their last remaining funnel" to Europe, a U.S. military official told Reuters. Islamic State has used the border for years to receive material and recruits from the outside world, and, more recently, to send militants back to Europe to carry out attacks.
An 80-km stretch of terrain north of the town of Manbij is the only part of the Turkish frontier still accessible to the militants after advances by Kurdish fighters and President Bashar al-Assad's government elsewhere.
The assault is being carried out by an alliance known as the Syria Democratic Forces (SDF), which is composed of a powerful Kurdish militia called the YPG, and Arab combatants that have allied themselves with it.

Falluja has been a bastion of the Sunni Muslim insurgency against both the Shi'ite-led Baghdad government and U.S. troops, who fought the biggest battles of their 2003-2011 occupation there. Islamic State fighters, also known as ISIS, ISIL or Daesh, raised their flag in the city in 2014 before sweeping through Iraq's north and west.
Abadi first announced plans to assault Falluja 10 days ago. But with 50,000 civilians still believed trapped inside the city, the United Nations has warned that militants are holding hundreds of families in the center as human shields.






Russian airstrikes have severely damaged oil facilities controlled by the terrorist group Daesh, also known as IS/Islamic State, in Syria's al-Hasakah Province, according to the Russian military.

"The Su-34 struck an oil refinery, situated on territory controlled by Daesh near the village of Ras al-Ain, in al-Hasakah province," reads a bulletin posted to the website of the Russian Ministry of Defense.

The strikes caused a large fire to break out in the factory.


On Tuesday, Russian Su-34s destroyed a series of oil production facilities near Raqqa, the terrorist groups self-proclaimed capital and an alleged waypoint for illegal oil making its way into Turkey.










NATO confirmed its intention to rotate groups of troops through Central and Eastern Europe to ward off fears about Russia, its secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, said in Warsaw on Tuesday, while stressing the alliance doesn’t want a “new Cold War” with Moscow.

Stoltenberg was in the Polish capital to make preparations for the July NATO summit, which will tackle the issue of how to allocate alliance forces to better protect new member countries worried about the security threat posed by Russia.

“We see a more assertive Russia, intimidating its neighbors and changing borders by force,” Stoltenberg said at a joint press conference with Polish Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz.

The Polish minister confirmed that Poland and the Baltic states would host four rotating battalions and that he talked with Stoltenberg about permanently stationing weapons stores in Poland, “which is crucially important for us and strengthens our sense of security.”


Speaking later at Warsaw University, the NATO chief said: “Our military planners have put forward proposals for several battalions in different countries in the region. We are now discussing the exact numbers and the exact locations. And we will take those decisions at the summit in Warsaw. This enhanced forward presence, combined with the ability to deploy NATO forces quickly, will send a clear message. An attack on Poland — or any other ally — will trigger a response from the entire alliance.”


Stoltenberg said NATO isn’t looking for a confrontation with Russia. “We don’t want a new Cold War,” he said. “Our aim is a more positive and a more cooperative relationship with Russia. At the very least, we must work towards a relationship that is more predictable.”

NATO has already enlarged its quick reaction force and added eight new small headquarters in the east of the alliance, he said.







Twitter users are expressing their support for people’s right to use so-called “hate speech” on social media, after the European Union (EU) announced they are working with Facebook and others to censor unwanted online speech within 24 hours.

Yesterday, it was reported that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have “signed up” to a new European Union (EU) “Code of Conduct”, pledging to censor and “criminalise” perceived “illegal online hate speech” as well as “promoting independent counter-narratives” that the EU favours.
Members of the European Parliament were swift to tell Breitbart London that it was “Orwellian,” digital freedom groups pulled out of discussions with the EU, and by the end of the day Index on Censorship, the National Secular Society, the Open Rights Group, and the U.S.-based Free Press all slammed the “Code of Conduct”.
Now, everyday users of the platform Twitter are having their say under the trending hashtag #IStandWithHateSpeech.

The definition of “hate speech” given in the EU document is: “all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin”.
The arguments against it given on Twitter can be roughly divided between those who did not trust the EU to not politicise their definition of “hate speech”, and those who believe that in a free society even the most ugly, offensive speech should be protected –  free speech fundamentalism.
The late Ronald Dworkin, a free speech fundamentalist, philosopher, defender of the 1st Amendment and critic of “hate speech” laws, argued in the wake of the Danish cartoon controversy that people’s right to grossly offend in a multicultural society should always be defended, otherwise the democratic legitimacy of the government was forfeited. He wrote:

“Freedom of speech is not just a special and distinctive emblem of Western culture that might be generously abridged or qualified as a measure of respect for other cultures that reject it, the way a crescent or menorah might be added to a Christian religious display.
“Free speech is a condition of legitimate government. Laws and policies are not legitimate unless they have been adopted through a democratic process, and a process is not democratic if government has prevented anyone from expressing his convictions about what those laws and policies should be.
“Ridicule is a distinct kind of expression; its substance cannot be repackaged in a less offensive rhetorical form without expressing something very different from what was intended. That is why cartoons and other forms of ridicule have for centuries, even when illegal, been among the most important weapons of both noble and wicked political movements.
“… If we expect bigots to accept the verdict of the majority once the majority has spoken, then we must permit them to express their bigotry in the process whose verdict we ask them to respect.
“Whatever multiculturalism means– whatever it means to call for increased “respect” for all citizens and groups – these virtues would be self-defeating if they were thought to justify official censorship.”






 The number of Syrian refugees admitted into the United States jumped to 1,037 during May – an increase of 130 percent over the previous month – but the proportion of Christians among them remains miniscule: two Christians (0.19 percent) compared to 1,035 Muslims.
May’s figure of 1,037 Syrian refugees brings the total number since the beginning of 2016 to 2,099 – compared to 2,192 for the whole of 2015, according to State Department Refugee Processing Center data.
Earlier years since the Syrian civil war began saw much smaller numbers arriving – 20 in 2011 (dated from mid-March); 41 in 2012; 45 in 2013; and 249 in 2014.

Of the 2,099 Syrian refugees admitted so far this year, six (0.28 percent) are Christians, 2,043 (97.3 percent) are Sunni Muslims. The remaining 50 are 17 (0.8 percent) Shi’a, 30 (1.4 percent) other Muslims and 10 (0.47 percent) Yazidis.

Similar proportions are seen in the number of Syrian refugees having arrived in the U.S. since the start of fiscal year 2016: 2,773 in total, comprising 12 (0.4 percent) Christians, 2,703 (97.4 percent) Sunnis, 17 (0.6 percent) Shi’a, 30 (1.1 percent) other Muslims and 10 (0.3 percent) Yazidis.