People are complaining that the case (Gabby Petito) captivated the nation because of the slain woman’s skin color. It is her skin color that makes interracial relationships with black men and white women so magnetic. It could also be behind her fiancés alleged rage over her cell phone use. She is a 21 year old woman and it is not far fetched that she may have not been faithful.
In any case, this case also reveals how white supremacists stay on code. Look at the pictures they show of this white male suspect and can you imagine if he was black? They would not be showing affectionate pictures of him and her together like they are doing right now.
This is white supremacy on code and how the media controls the white narrative. Its a simple code. Never show white men in comprising positions. If the alleged criminal is a…
View original post 113 more words
Rabbi Akiba was a great sage of the second century who was executed by the Romans for teaching Torah at a time when the Romans had forbidden it. Akiba, or his father Joseph, was a convert to Judaism. But Akiba is known as Akiba ben Joseph the convert. Was Akiba, or his father Joseph, the convert? In Hebrew it is not clear. I offer a Midrash to explain why Akiba’s father was called Joseph the convert:
A new report is raising questions about the accuracy of coronavirus death statistics, suggesting that the number of deaths from COVID-19 reported in the United States might be inflated.
Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson spoke with Brenda Bock, the coroner of Grand County, Colorado, in the most recent episode of her syndicated newsmagazine program “Full Measure,” which aired Sunday. In the program, coroners explained that the state was listing fatalities caused by gunshot wounds and vehicle crashes as deaths from the coronavirus.
Attkisson opened the segment by noting that on Thanksgiving Day last year, a man named Lucias Reilly shot and his wife, Kristin, in the head before turning his gun on himself. Both of their deaths were listed as being caused by the coronavirus, not a fatal shooting.
While Bock had ruled the Reillys’ causes of death as a homicide and suicide, she told Attkisson that “the very next day it showed up on the state website as COVID deaths.”
“I questioned that immediately because I had not even signed off the death certificates yet and the state was already reporting them as COVID deaths,” she said.
Bock alleged that someone ran the Reillys’ names through a database, which showed that they had tested positive for coronavirus within 28 days of their death. Coronavirus was recorded as their cause of death even though Bock had concluded otherwise.
Attkisson asked Bock, “If we look at the death certificates for the murder-suicide case, what will it say about COVID?” Bock responded by saying, “Nothing, absolutely nothing. I paid a forensic pathologist to do the autopsies on those two cases. And nowhere is COVID mentioned on those death certificates.”
Within a week of the murder-suicide, Bock discovered that according to the state’s coronavirus database, Grand County had recorded two additional coronavirus deaths. Upon further investigation, she realized that “two of them were actually still alive, and yet they were counting them.”
Bock recalled that when “she called them on it,” state officials described the error as a “typo” and stressed that “they just got put in there by accident.” Attkisson also talked to Dr. James Caruso, the chief medical examiner and coroner for Colorado’s capital and largest city, Denver.
Legal experts are puzzled by why the Tax Court of Canada prevented a Jewish judge from presiding for several months in cases involving members of the Islamic faith rather than removing him entirely from the bench until allegations against him were resolved.
It is more puzzling that Judge David Spiro would be subjected to the humiliating and severe measure of being barred from presiding over cases involving Muslims, suggesting that there is far more involved in this story than meets the eye. The suggestion of temporarily removing him from the bench altogether until resolution of the “allegations” is even more jarring.
According to Newswire, the “allegations of misconduct against Spiro” reportedly involve his efforts to oppose the hiring of a highly questionable academic on the faculty of law at the University of Toronto:
It was alleged that Spiro used his influence as an alumnus and major donor to try to block the university’s faculty of law from offering a job to Valentina Azarova, an international law practitioner who has written widely on Israel-Palestinian affairs.
Azarova’s record shows that she takes “a severely critical view of Israel’s actions vis-à-vis the Palestinians.” It is telling that she is supported by the organization Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJMPE), an aggressive promoter of the BDS Movement. The Canadian Jewish advocacy group, B’nai Brith, referenced Azarova as “essentially antisemitic.” B’nai Brith petitioned Canadian government ministers to deny a work permit for the German professor “if she is accepted to the position of director of the International Human Rights Program (IHRP) at the University of Toronto. Azarova is blatantly biased against Israel, B’nai Brith argued.”
It is thus easy to see why Judge Spiro would have concerns about Azarova. But to accuse him of indiscretion, misconduct and abuse of his influence is absurd. All potential hires anywhere are discussed by any number of individuals who influence the hiring process. It is unreasonable to expect Spiro to be voiceless.
It has become ubiquitous globally to attempt to silence those who offend Islam, offend Muslims, or get in the way of certain agendas.
Circulating criticisms of Judge Spiro’s influence in the hiring process of Azarova also conveniently omit the fact that there were other highly qualified Canadians vying for the same job.
What comes next is atrocious:
Chief justice of the Tax Court, Eugene Rossiter, informed the Canadian Judicial Council, a regulatory body for judges, of measures taken in response to a number of allegations of misconduct against Spiro in connection with a proposed hiring at the University of Toronto.
Remarkably, Judge Spiro’s legitimate concern about Azarova — that she would likely fan the flames of campus antisemitism — was translated into accusations of his being “biased” (a demeaning label for a judge) and exhibiting “misconduct” (discrediting to any judge).
Notice that the word “biased” isn’t used to describe Azarova.
Consequences were swift for Judge Spiro:
Rossiter wrote that “all files assigned to Justice Spiro would be reviewed by the associate chief justice of the Tax Court” and that Spiro would “recuse himself immediately from any file at any time in which it appeared to him that either the counsel, representative of any litigant or a litigant is a Muslim or is of the Islamic faith.” Rossiter said that the decision was made to “allow for any concerns related to the potential perceived bias from Justice Spiro to be removed.”
Perceived? By whom? It starts with Queen’s Law Professor Leslie Green. According to Law Times News:
Green made the complaint after reading media reports that Spiro had allegedly pressured Dean of Law Edward Iacobucci to reverse a job offer made to an academic because of her scholarship related to Israel’s human rights abuses against Palestinians.
It is apparent where Green stands on the Israel-Palestinian issue.
It is curious that it is not only Judge Spiro who has sparked allegations of bias against Muslims at a federal institution over the Palestinian issue. So has the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), which has been accused of “prejudice” against Muslim Charities, which was found to be funneling money to Hamas.
Keep in mind that once a Muslim charity is flagged by the CRA, and its charitable status is revoked or the group is penalized in some fashion by CRA, entering an appeals process is an option. The first layer of external appeal, which can well result in overriding the CRA, is via the Tax Court of Canada (TCC) — the same court where Judge Spiro presides. The TCC hears appeal cases when all avenues have been exhausted.
The process of appeal first calls for a “Notice of Objection” to be sent to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). A review of this Notice results in a “reassessment, a confirmation or a determination.” Then, if the dispute remains unsettled, it goes to the TCC.
Near the end of last month, a Muslim charity called Human Concern International (HCI) went to the TCC to fight the findings of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), which prohibited it from issuing tax receipts after “an audit by the agency’s charities directorate that flagged concerns about six initiatives.” Specifics were unreported.
According to the Government of Canada webpage on “Appealing Income Tax Act Assessments and Notices in respect of Registered Charities to the Tax Court of Canada”…
If you do not agree with our decision on your objection concerning a notice of suspension, an assessment of taxes or an assessment of penalties, issued under Part V of the Income Tax Act, you can appeal to the Tax Court of Canada.
The full process of appeal against the CRA’s rulings was pursued by HCI: 1. objecting through the revenue agency’s internal administrative appeal process. 2. going to the federal Tax Court to delay suspensions by the CRA, which resulted in the federal Tax Court judge ruling against providing a stay of the suspension, and 3. going to the Federal Court of Appeals, where HCI’s case is now being reviewed.
The Tax Court has the power to override CRA penalties after reviewing a case — again, the same court that Judge David Spiro presides in, except now, Spiro has been stripped of presiding over any case involving anyone from the Islamic faith.
It is common knowledge that many Muslim charities in America have been discovered to be linked to terrorism. View a list HERE. Many of those have offshoots in Canada.
Aside from Spiro raising the ire of some academics, the media and some of his own colleagues over his concerns about Valentina Azarova, one must remember that separately, fierce efforts have been underway in Canada to stop the audits of Muslim charities, calling such audits “prejudiced.”
Back in June, the news broke that “more than 130 groups call on Canada to stop ‘prejudiced audits’ of Muslim charities.” The vast majority of them are Muslim groups. Among the others are recognized anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) advocates, such as Canadians For Justice and Peace in the Middle East and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. See the list HERE.
Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) Spokesperson Pamela Tourigny has defended the fairness of the CRA process, stating to the Non Profit Times that “the CRA does not select registered charities for audit based on any particular faith or denomination.”
The article goes on to explain how selections for audits are made. Tourigny further states:
When audits find non-compliance, the charity is first given an opportunity to correct the non-compliance issues before sanctions or revocations are issued.
A warning about the implications of what may be coming next: In July, an “emergency national summit on Islamophobia” took place. Before that Summit, the National Council of Canadian Muslims (formerly CAIR-CAN) released 61 recommendations for every level of government to fight “Islamophobia.”
Then at the Summit, Prime Minister Trudeau accused Revenue Canada of taking aim at Muslims. He stated:
From the (Canada Revenue Agency) to security agencies, institutions should support people, not target them.
At that same Summit, Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier agreed “to ask the taxpayers’ ombudsperson, François Boileau, for a systemic review of the concerns,” ostensibly about Muslim charities being discriminated against and picked on.
There is a great deal of disturbing evidence that proves how damaging these baseless accusations against Canada’s institutions are. United Press International reported findings about the Muslim Association of Canada and IRFAN-Canada in 2015:
The Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), one of the largest Muslim organizations in the country, is being accused of funneling money to designated terrorist organization IRFAN-Canada. A Canadian police raid found that MAC gave $296,514 to IRFAN-Canada between 2001 and 2010, according to The Toronto Sun.
The Toronto Sun headline is no longer online, but here’s a screenshot…
The Muslim Association of Canada is a self-described Muslim Brotherhood-tied group. See screenshot and more HERE.
A year earlier, Revenue Canada concluded this about IRFAN:
IRFAN-Canada is a not for profit organization operating in Canada. Between 2005 and 2009, IRFAN-Canada transferred approximately $14.6 million worth of resources to various organizations associated with HAMAS, a listed terrorist entity under the Criminal Code.
The terrorist designation was made under the Conservative Stephen Harper government.
IRFAN engaged in the full appeals process against Revenue Canada, as outlined earlier. The appeal was still in progress when it was last reviewed in 2018. IRFAN has also applied to federal court to have its terrorist designation removed, and it will likely succeed under the Trudeau government. In the meantime, IRFAN is actually getting taxpayer funds — along with the National Council of Canadian Muslims — to help the Trudeau government impose its “anti-Islamophobia” M-103 measures on Canadians, which include “monitoring citizens for compliance” and training law enforcement to recognize online and offline “hate.”
In conclusion, there is no clear evidence in any public reports of bias by Judge Spiro with regards to Valentina Azarova, let alone “misconduct.” Prudence, yes. Bias, no.
Canadian universities do not need to hire pro-Palestinian propagandists from abroad to teach students all about a fictional Israeli “occupation,” while leaving out the Palestinian jihadist narrative; nor do they need to aid in the facilitation of campus hatred against Jewish students that erupts particularly aggressively whenever Israel levies retaliatory strikes to protect its citizens against rocket fire from Gaza. The University of Toronto (U of T) already has enough of a “festering antisemitism” problem.
Likewise, the CRA is not biased or prejudiced in exercising its due diligence regarding Muslim charities, but has been prudent, despite escalating pressures that amount to exonerating Muslims regardless of the evidence. There is an established problem with Muslim charities funneling money to aid and abet jihadist activities in the Palestinian territories.
Pro-Palestinian and BDS supporters will continue to scream “bias,” “discrimination,” and “Islamophobia” at every turn in order to facilitate their ambitions; while “progressives” in the media, in positions of political leadership, and now, evidently, at the Canadian Tax Court, continue to aid and shield them. The claim that “legal experts are puzzled by why the Tax Court of Canada prevented a Jewish judge from presiding for several months in cases involving members of the Islamic faith rather than removing him entirely” is wrongheaded and exaggerated. It all depends on which legal experts one consults. Let’s hope that Judge Spiro — now a target of antisemitism and embroiled in a political brouhaha — will be fully restored to his duties. The courts need him more than ever, and owe Canadians some restored confidence in a system hijacked by special interest groups. Canadian institutions need to be restored to being fully equitable systems, not strong-armed into favoring Muslims above everyone else.
In the meantime, the blatant antisemitism displayed toward Judge Spiro needs to be publicly addressed.
‘Mandating a system that denies Canadian’s access to certain services that are arbitrarily defined as nonessential by the government creates a slippery slope, and sets a dangerous descent into a medical dictatorship,’ notes Justice Centre staff lawyer Henna Parmar.
TORONTO, Canada (Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms) – The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has issued a legal warning letter to the Ontario Government on behalf of four clients demanding the vaccine passport mandate be revoked immediately.
The law requires Ontarians as young as 12 to provide proof of two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccination as of September 22, 2021 or be denied access to a wide range of businesses and organizations, including field trips to city facilities. The Justice Centre has notified the Province that it will file a legal action should Ontario fail to halt its unconstitutional discrimination against those who have not yet chosen to receive the experimental vaccines.
Since the vaccine passport has been announced, the Justice Centre has received hundreds of emails from Ontarians concerned about loss of employment, loss of ability to worship, and denial of access to restaurants, bars, gyms, sporting events, meeting and event spaces, and more, unless they show proof of their confidential medical status of vaccination.
Ontario’s Ministry of Health has stated that the government will only recognize two medical exemptions for vaccine passports: one for those who are allergic to an ingredient in the vaccine, with verification provided by an allergist, and another for those who experienced myocarditis or pericarditis after the first dose of a vaccine. There has been no provision for exemptions based on religion and creed, both protected grounds under the Charter and Human Rights Act.
COVID mRNA vaccination shots are new, with no long-term safety profile, and clinical trials will not be completed until 2023. As such, the COVID shots are experimental. Canadians have the right to informed consent, and the right to be fully informed about the side effects of the COVID vaccine, which has known side effects.
The vaccine manufacturers have stated there is no data on the vaccine’s effects on fertility, or their safety for pregnant women or children. Emerging data unequivocally establishes that the Delta variant spreads freely in the fully vaccinated population, and there are emerging links to miscarriages in pregnant women and a demonstrated risk of heart inflammation in teenage males.
On their face, vaccine passports are an infringement of Canadians’ constitutionally protected rights to freedom of conscience, the right to liberty and security of the person, and the right to be equal before the law. Based on these guarantees, every Canadian has the right to bodily autonomy and to decide what medical procedure to accept or reject. The demand letter asserts that mandatory vaccination for COVID constitutes a significant, unwarranted and profound infringement on the rights of Canadians that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.
“Section 7 of the Charter guarantees the right to liberty and security of the person. Ontarians should not be coerced or pressured by the government into submitting to a medical intervention to which they do not consent. Informed consent and the right to bodily autonomy are two principles that our laws have long protected. It will be a tragedy to see Ontarians, including children, being coerced to take the vaccine, or else be socially marginalized,” says Jorge Pineda, Staff Lawyer at the Justice Centre.
Individuals who have not been vaccinated for a variety of reasons, including religious belief, creed, and medical issues or concerns over serious side effects, will effectively be segregated and marginalized. Their participation in society will become limited to what is deemed “essential” by the government.
“The new mandate will have the effect of segregating individuals and especially young children from mainstream society. Mandating a system that denies Canadian’s access to certain services that are arbitrarily defined as nonessential by the government creates a slippery slope, and sets a dangerous descent into a medical dictatorship,” notes Justice Centre staff lawyer Henna Parmar.
“If we do not put an end to these measures, we will be putting unlimited power in the hands of the government to dictate what medical care we receive, what drugs we take, and what privileges they will allow us that should be fundamental rights,” adds Ms. Parmar.
It happened again yesterday, twice. Reading through comments on a blog post I found this: “I will never trust another doctor again.” I long ago lost count of the number of times I have seen that written. You hear it, too. In private conversations with people they trust, American citizens are heaping contempt on doctors for forcing a narrative on us that had no basis in science.
Many of us, perhaps even the majority, immediately recognized this virus for what it is — a common flu virus maybe engineered to be more contagious if not more fatal but hardly differing substantially from other influenza strains. We have lived with seasonal flu all our lives. We saw no reason to fear it until the medical community, and Anthony Fauci specifically, started telling lies. And once the lies started, they never stopped.
From a trickle — “It’s going to make everyone sick” — to the massive flood of lies about masks, “vaccines,” effective treatments, “We’re all going to die!” and even rigging the numbers to prove those lies, this scam has been one continual government operation. It was exploited to allow for the theft of the 2020 election by means of mail-in ballots. Having accomplished that, its purpose now is to keep the knee of government firmly on the population’s neck.
It seems that our doctors went along with the hoax to a large degree because it put them in the spotlight. Amazingly, almost none of them questioned the lies. They abandoned everything they’d learned in Virology 101 and went full wolf-cry. It worked out well for them. Suddenly they were the focus of attention and their words were hung on breathlessly. They soaked it up, reveled in it, strutted down the halls in their white coats and followed the diktats of D.C. religiously.
Many of them went even further…
They wrote scholarly articles promoting the fairy tale and hectoring us peons on how to behave. Masks and social distancing — laughable advice in the face of reality — became the ironclad rule. They lied, too, in order to promote their own importance. They refused to see patients unmasked, treated the sick in their parking lots, abandoned patients’ follow-up care, delayed needed tests and surgery endlessly, and generally ignored the hell they were putting the rest of us through. Worst of all, they denied us treatment with medications that had been proven effective.
Does the medical community understand that it has sacrificed the trust of Americans, possibly forever? Does it even acknowledge the self-inflicted wounds that will now affect the relationship between doctors and their patients going forward? How do doctors and nurses reclaim the trust of patients? Is that even possible now? Because in the cold light of day it looks like they were either stupid or malevolent [most deaths could have been prevented, so their actions possibly killed millions]. Given that they’re supposed to be educated people, malevolent appears to be the more likely. And that is terrifying, when you consider they now want to inject every last one of us with an unproven substance that may be causing more illness than the virus itself and they are willing to destroy our lives and job to make that happen.
Was this the goal all along?
Americans have been suspicious of the COVID narrative from the get-go. Time has proven them right. Having come from a long line of doctors and nurses, I am appalled at how the medical community has promoted COVID and continues to do so in the face of proof they’re lying. Considering the number of times I’ve heard, “I’ll never trust another doctor again” I believe we’ve reached a watershed moment with respect to medical care. The unique trust we placed in our doctors is gone, deservedly so.
Our doctors in the field could have saved us from this disaster. They should have stood up to Anthony Fauci, who may well be evil personified. Instead, they were complicit in the hoax. They furthered the lie because it made them powerful.
We have lost eighteen months of our lives and appear to have no future without COVID lies. Americans now know that.
The rage at the medical community is every bit as white hot as that against politicians. Get ready for the pushback, doctors. You asked for it and it’s coming. If you think we’re going to kiss those eighteen months goodbye without a backward glance you are sadly mistaken. We are no longer afraid. We are furious.
Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.
A recent survey conducted by Alums for Campus Fairness, “A Growing Threat: Antisemitism on College Campuses,” asked some 500 Jewish-affiliated college students and recent alumni what their perceptions were regarding campus anti-Semitism. The findings of the survey were troubling, given that: “Nearly 100% of respondents said antisemitism is/was a problem on their campus,” “95% of respondents identified antisemitism as a problem on U.S. college campuses, with three out of four describing it as a ‘very serious problem,’” almost “half of current students say antisemitism is getting worse on their campus,” and “69% of students and grads say they have avoided certain places, events, or situations at school because they are Jewish.”
Anyone familiar with current state of affairs on university campuses knows that the root of much of this animus towards Jewish students is the ongoing university campaign against Israel and Zionism, and that Jewish students, whether they even support the Jewish state or not, regularly find themselves the target of derision, bigotry, and condemnation simply because they are Jewish.
In fact, research has demonstrated quite clearly that agitation against Israel—including the toxic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign—by such corrosive student activists as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) increase both the frequency and intensity of anti-Semitic speech and expression. A 2019 report by The AMCHA Initiative, a campus anti-Semitism watchdog organization, for example, revealed that “BDS’s mandate to boycott or suppress programs, collaborations, events, or expression that promote ‘the normalization of Israel in the global academy,’ as well as the academic BDS-compliant ‘common sense’ mandate to criticize, protest and boycott individuals who are deemed complicit with or supportive of Israel’s alleged crimes, appear to greatly encourage antisemitic behavior.”
An earlier AMCHA report had found similar connections between anti-Israel activism and the presence of anti-Semitism on those campuses with SJP chapters. That report concluded, shockingly, that the “presence of one or more anti-Zionist student groups is very strongly correlated with the overall number of antisemitic incidents. 99% of the schools with one or more active anti-Zionist student group had one or more incidents of antisemitic activity, whereas only 16% of schools with no active anti-Zionist student group had incidents of antisemitic activity.” Campuses with SJP or other anti-Zionist student groups, the report found, were “very strongly associated with the occurrence of antisemitic expression. 91% of the schools with one or more active anti-Zionist group showed evidence of antisemitic expression, whereas only 16% of schools with no active anti-Zionist student group showed evidence of antisemitic expression.”
SJP and other student groups, along with their faculty sponsors, are the foot soldiers in the worldwide campaign of Palestinianism, but the ideology which animates the Palestinian cause is evident not only in the ivy walls of academia, but also in the UN, NGOs, the State Department, the Arab street, and in parliaments and congresses where the chattering classes purport to be committed to Arab self-determination and seem to have no issue with sacrificing, if necessary, the Middle East’s sole democracy as part of that effort.
Central to this propaganda campaign to enshrine Palestinianism—in which the suffering of the Palestinian has finally trumped the historic suffering and dispossession of the Jews—is the wholesale, deliberate appropriation of the language and symbols of the Jews by the foes who wish to eradicate, not only the Jewish past, but the very existence of the Jewish state. Thus, the actual genocide of European Jewry during the Holocaust is either minimized or denied by the Arab world at the same time that Israel is denounced for committing a new “holocaust” against the Palestinians through ethnic cleansing, military barbarism, and war crimes.
Palestinians regularly refer to themselves as being dispersed in a Diaspora, what they call their own “Nakba,” a catastrophe, just as Jews had traditionally spoken of their own scattering from their homeland after the destruction of the Second Temple. While Arab aggression and homicidal impulses against Jews have been unrelenting—before and since the creation of Israel—Palestinianism has been successful in casting the Arab Palestinians as the perennial victim of Jewish supremacism, even though the irredentist aims of the Islamists to establish a Muslim-only state in historic Palestine is the very form of self-determination that is repeatedly decried on the part of Israel for being racist, inhumane, internationally criminal, and morally unacceptable.
The West’s wide embrace of Palestinianism has been led, for the most part, by the intellectual elites, whose own biases against Israel and the United States serve to animate, and widely promote, the campaign to vilify, defame, and delegitimize Israel. While the ideological antics of anti-Israel student groups are the most visible aspects of the hate-Israel agenda, this acting out and shrill rhetoric from students would be inconsequential were it not for the full intellectual and moral support this movement enjoys from faculty members―those with the prestige and academic muscle to lend credibility and influence to the war of ideas against the Jewish state.
The liberal slant of university faculties has made it inevitable that many college professors question the integrity of Zionism, if not forthrightly denounce the very existence of Israel as a moral stain on the world that oppresses Arabs and tars the United States as an accomplice in this perceived unjustified colonial, militaristic oppression. The self-righteous professors who perpetually denounce Israel, though, may or may not have a great moral commitment to the Palestinians at all.
In fact, that is often incidental to their primary objective: not to actually assist the Palestinian self-determination with constructive, tactical advice and support—which has always been sorely, and visibly, lacking—but to weaken support for Israel with the ultimate intention, shared by Israel’s jihadist foes, of eventually eliminating it altogether. The phony rectitude which they use to insulate themselves from critique comforts those who would otherwise see the fundamental moral cruelty of their assaults of Israel. And they are also craven in their self-righteousness for taking such a strident stance against Israel, a point of view and a philosophical approach that requires no courage in the Jew-hating West.
Of course, virtue-signaling one’s commitment to the oppressed is rampant among the campus Leftists, many of whom feel that, because they seek social justice for the Palestinians and are attempting to strike down what they define as the new Israeli version of apartheid, anything they say or do to delegitimize Israel is acceptable, even necessary. Thus, they hector Israel to mend its political ways not only to end Palestinian suffering, but also, they allege, for the good of both Israelis and Diaspora Jews.
These fatuous professors (and their complicit students), who never have had to face any physical threat more serious than being bumped while waiting in line for a latte at Starbucks, are very willing to scold Israel when it defends itself from unceasing rocket attacks from Gaza meant to murder Israeli civilians. These same professors, many of the vilest critics of whom are from departments of humanities, literature, anthropology, history, and sociology, are, without any expertise in military affairs, eager to advise Israeli officials on the rules of war and denounce the lack of “proportionality” in Israel’s attempts to defend its population from jihadist murderers. And so eager are they to publicly assert their righteousness as defenders of the Palestinian cause, they embrace and “eroticize” terroristic violence and willingly align themselves with Israel’s deadly foes who seek its annihilation, catering, as essayist David Solway lyrically put it, “to the ammoniac hatred of the current brood of crypto-antisemites [sic] posing as anti-Zionists.”
This cultural condescension, the disingenuous lie from the Left that all cultures are equal, but some are more or less equal, to paraphrase Orwell, leads liberals into the moral trap where they denounce Israel’s military self-defense as being barbaric, criminal, and Nazi-like (because Israel is a powerful, democratic nation) and regularly excuse or apologize for genocidal Arab terrorism as an acceptable and inevitable result of a weak people suffering under Western oppression. Violence on the part of the oppressed is accepted by liberals because it is deemed to be the fault of the strong nations whose subjugation of those defenseless people is the very cause of their violent resistance.
In fact, when Israel-loathing Leftist professors, such as Columbia University’s toxic Joseph Massad, apologize for Palestinian terror, he justifies it by characterizing the very existence of Israel as being morally defective, based, in his view, on its inherent racist and imperialist nature. For him, nations that are racist and imperialistic cannot even justify their own self-defense, while the victims of such regimes are free to “resist,” based on the Left’s notion of universal human rights―but especially for the weak. “What the Palestinians ultimately insist on is that Israel must be taught that it does not have the right to defend its racial supremacy,” Massad has written, “and that the Palestinians have the right to defend their universal humanity against Israel’s racist oppression.”
As part of academia’s fervent desire to make campuses socially ideal settings where racial and cultural strife ceases to exist, Palestinianism gains traction as part of the campaign to realize “social justice” for marginalized victim groups—the long-aggrieved Arab Palestinians among them, now the Third World’s favorite victim.
For the Left, according to David Horowitz, a former radical leftist turned conservative, social justice is “the concept of a world divided into oppressors and oppressed.” Those seeking social justice, therefore, do so with the intention of leveling the economic, cultural, and political playing fields; they seek to reconstruct society in a way that disadvantages the powerful and the elites, and overthrows them if necessary—in order that the dispossessed and weak can acquire equal standing. In other words, the Left yearns for a utopian society which does not yet exist and is willing to reconstruct and overturn the existing status quo—often at a terrible human cost—in the pursuit of seeking so-called “justice” for those who, in their view, have been passed over or abused by history. According to Horowitz, this “radicalism is a cause whose utopian agendas result in an ethic where the ends outweigh and ultimately justify the means,” a view which has meant that Western leftists have come to share sympathy for the tactics and ideology of jihadists who seek to overturn Western ideals in their pursuit of an Islamic caliphate, what Horowitz calls an “unholy alliance” of the Left and Islamists in their pursuit of social justice.
In this dangerous alliance, Israel is continually slandered as a racist state, an aggressive, militaristic regime that inflicts disproportionate suffering on the hapless Palestinians, lubricating the argument that this inequality is inherently and inexorably wrong, that it must be corrected and made just. Thus, when such radical student groups as Students for Justice in Palestine have as their core mission, as their name implies, bringing their own vision of justice to the Middle East, it is justice only for the oppressed, the Palestinians, and not for the oppressor, Israel, whose position of power was made possible only because of a “hierarchy of class and race [which] exists globally.”
For the Left, social justice is solely for the disenfranchised, the ‘victims’ of unjust Western societies, those whose suffering is ostensibly caused by and is the fault of imperialistic, capitalistic, militant, hegemonic nations—America and Israel foremost among them. And on campuses, where liberal professors have nearly made sacred the politics of race and class and have identified specific sets of favored victim groups for whom justice will be sought, the cult of “victimhood” has even led to compulsory instruction on the mechanics of achieving social justice for the weak in society.
This view of the Jew, or of Israel, the Jewish state, as a political destabilizer, is, of course, also central to the ideology of Palestinianism and the notion that the victims of Jewish power are the dispossessed and weak for whom liberal academics purportedly seek justice. Any tactics, including terror and violence, are considered appropriate and excusable in the victims’ cause of throwing off the yoke of oppression, so the Palestinian, clearly made to suffer daily humiliation and endlessly deprived of a homeland and the right to self-determination, has become the perfect example of the contemporary victim archetype, the Third-World “other,” an ever-present, homeless, dispossessed tragic refuge whose plight could be traced directly to supposed colonialism on the part of the “settler” state of Israel.
This rationalization, that violence is an acceptable, if not welcomed, component of Palestinianism—that is, that the inherent “violence” of imperialism, colonialism, or capitalism will be met by the same violence as the oppressed attempt to throw off their oppressors—is exactly the style of self-defeating rationality that in this age has proven to be an intractable part of the war on terror. America-hating and Israel-hating academics have not infrequently wished for harm to come to these countries at the hands of the victim groups to whom they readily give their sympathies. They frequently, and mistakenly, ascribe to poverty and helplessness the inclination to lead to terrorism on the part of otherwise weak and oppressed individuals. And, like leftist apologists for revolutionary violence in earlier examples of resistance, they see an opportunity for the tables to be turned on the oppressors and an equal distribution of suffering to be brought about in the resulting power shift.
The nearly total rejection by the Left of any recognition of goodness on the part of Western countries, cultivating and promoting Palestinianism, is, according to commentator Melanie Phillips, symptomatic of academics’ belief in their own moral superiority, a feature which, at least in their own minds, gives them a more genuine and principled worldview.
“In the grip of a group-think that causes them to genuflect to victim-culture and the deconstruction of western morality and the concept of truth,” Phillips wrote, “a dismaying number of our supposedly finest minds have been transformed from people who spread enlightenment to those who cast darkness before them.”
James Whitfield, a Black educator, said he was asked by his school district in 2019 to remove Facebook photos of himself and his wife, who is white, embracing on a beach.
In June 2019, shortly after James Whitfield, a Black educator, was hired as the principal of a middle school in Colleyville, Texas, an administrator with the school district called and asked him to take down photos on Facebook that showed him and his wife, who is white, embracing intimately on a beach.
Puzzled why someone had dug up 10-year-old images of the couple celebrating their anniversary in Mexico, Dr. Whitfield nonetheless complied by changing the settings to “Only Me.”
But the photos have now resurfaced amid a controversy over racism that erupted in the Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District after Dr. Whitfield wrote a Facebook post on Saturday about the request. Some have publicly called for Dr. Whitfield to be fired, citing unrelated messages in which he invoked race, while others have circulated a petition in support of his work.
When Dr. Whitfield, 43, asked in 2019 what was wrong with the photos, “The response was ‘nothing,’” he recalled in an interview on Wednesday. “Then they proceeded to say: ‘We just don’t want to get stuff stirred up. So if you could take it down, we would appreciate it.’”
From that moment, Dr. Whitfield said, he had a sense that issues of race would overshadow his tenure as a Black educator rising in the ranks of the district’s public school system.
“I knew what would come one day,” he said. “I knew a day like this would be here.”
Dr. Whitfield said he wrote the post — the first time he has addressed his situation publicly — because he could no longer be silent after he was criticized on July 26 during a previously scheduled board meeting that was open to residents of the district, where he is now the first Black principal at Colleyville Heritage High School.
At the meeting, Dr. Whitfield’s name was thrust into some of the most pressing racial debates in the United States, including loaded discussions of critical race theory, last summer’s protests after the death of George Floyd, and programs meant to ensure equality and diversity.
“For the better part of the last year, I’ve been told repeatedly to just ‘get around the fact that there are some racist people’ and ‘just deal with it and stay positive’ each time the racist tropes reared their heads, but I will stay silent no longer,” Dr. Whitfield wrote.
“I am not the CRT (Critical Race Theory) Boogeyman,” he wrote. “I am the first African American to assume the role of Principal at my current school in its 25-year history, and I am keenly aware of how much fear this strikes in the hearts of a small minority who would much rather things go back to the way they used to be.”
Rolling Stone magazine is leading the charge on a fake news campaign against the anti-parasite drug ivermectin amid reports more Americans are turning to it to treat COVID-19.
(Article by Jamie White republished from Infowars.com)
The publication ran a story entitled, “Gunshot Victims Left Waiting as Horse Dewormer Overdoses Overwhelm Oklahoma Hospitals, Doctor Says” on Friday following reports that Joe Rogan included the drug in his COVID treatment regimen.
In the article, a person called Dr. Jason Elyea told local media his Oklahoma hospital emergency rooms were over capacity due to a huge influx of patients who supposedly overdosed on ivermectin to treat COVID.
The problem is, Northeastern Health System‘s Sequoyah branch that’s the focus of Rolling Stone’s article released a statement on its website claiming Dr. Elyea does not work at the hospital, and has not treated any patients in at least two months.
Furthermore, the hospital itself claims it hasn’t treated a single patient for ivermectin overdose.
“Although Dr. Jason McElyea is not an employee of NHS Sequoyah, he is affiliated with a medical staffing group that provides coverage for our emergency room. With that said, Dr. McElyea has not worked at our Sallisaw location in over 2 months,” the NHS statement reads.
NHS Sequoya also refuted Elyea’s claim that its hospital was overwhelmed with patients who overdosed on ivermectin and had not turned any patients away as a result.
“NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose.”
“All patients who have visited our emergency room have received medical attention as appropriate. Our hospital has not had to turn away any patients seeking emergency care.”
There you have it — fake news.
Why would publications like Rolling Stone and Newsweek run these hoax stories about alternative COVID treatments like ivermectin?
Likely the same reason why the CDC counts anybody who dies within two weeks of receiving the mRNA injection as “unvaccinated”: to shape a narrative that coerces people into getting the experimental jab.
Why else would the CDC provide ivermectin to incoming Afghan migrants but not recommend it for American citizens?